A Rule to Avoid Being a Creep

Autistic people like clear definitions and rules. Some things don’t have good rules.

One thing that doesn’t lend itself to creating fixed rules is any type of relationship – whether a friendship, a romance, a one-night-stand, or whatever other type of relationship. People are messy. We’re complex.

But, it’s pretty simple to not be a creep.

First let me tell you what doesn’t make someone a creep: sexual attraction. Even if that sexual attraction isn’t mutually felt by the object of your attraction.

That said, there are a couple parts of sexual attraction, and it’s sometimes useful to separate them out, as they are felt differently in different people. First, there’s the “WOW! She’s VERY attractive!” type of attraction that isn’t based on a relationship. Typically, acting on this is a bad idea – chances are, if it’s a random person walking down the street, that other person has practically nothing in common with you. She might be gay (and you aren’t a woman). Or want to marry someone who can share her love of sailing (and you hate water). Or might not see you as attractive. Or might have completely different life goals than you. Or might not want the same depth of a relationship as you want (she might want a one-night-stand while you want a marriage, for instance). Or any number of other things that would disqualify you as a potential partner in her eyes.

So, acting on phase one of the attraction generally isn’t going to be successful. Of course movies are sometimes based on phase one attraction working to build relationships. Perhaps that’s why they are entertaining and interesting. But movies aren’t real life. And, yes, I know in real life there are sometimes people for whom phase one attraction was the only reason they met and things have worked out mutually well. That’s fine too, but it’s not the typical circumstance.

Phase two attraction is a bit different – it’s not just based on looks, but rather it’s something that develops as you get to know a person. This doesn’t mean that phase one isn’t there (someone can be both attractive initially and attractive after you get to know them!), but it is in addition. I think a lot of long-term partners would describe this as making their love life better – the combination of phase one and phase two can be very powerful and exciting (far more than phase one alone for many people). Perhaps this is why 1/3 of men seeking prostitutes seem to desire an emotional relationship with the prostitute – they are looking for that phase two combined with feelings of mutuality. The emotional attraction that comes with phase two is not separate from the sexual attraction – it actually creates a powerful sexual attraction. In many people it is even deeper than the phase one sexual attraction.

This phase two attraction is a bit different. As you get to know people – and sometimes this can happen surprisingly quickly – a mutual emotional connection might be formed, which increases the sexual desire of both. I’d encourage people to look more for this than the phase one attraction, while not denying the existence of either.

So, that’s my thoughts on general principles. Back to the rule. We’ve already said that sexual attraction doesn’t make someone a creep.

What makes someone a creep is simple: Creeps don’t care if there is mutual agreement about how to proceed in a relationship. If it doesn’t exist, they think they can create it – and try to do so. It’s an emotional, psychological, and sometimes physical violation.

That’s where you can get in trouble with the phase one sexual attraction. It’s almost certainly not mutually felt. The phase two attraction might develop as you and the other person get to know each other, but there’s probably more chance it won’t. Just randomly acting on “She’s pretty, I want to get her in bed,” is likely to meet with failure after failure. That getting to know her thing – even if it doesn’t make good movies – is important.

And, then, as you get to know someone, you don’t proceed without mutual agreement. Occasionally you might “test the water” and see if the other person wants to go a bit further in the relationship, but, if not, you have one thing to do if you don’t want to be a creep: listen. If she sees you test the water, and then gently lets you down, respect that and enjoy what you have with her – friendship or whatever else. Don’t try to figure out what different tactic you can try. She knows you’re interested, she’ll initiate if she changes her mind (she probably won’t). And, yes, even in western society women can and do test the water too. So listen for that too.

Of course I can see people asking, how do you test the water? I can’t tell you that. Each relationship is different. There is no formula, no matter what the pickup artists out there may tell you. Everyone is different. Just respect her if she says she’s not interested. Don’t try a different tactic, respect her. And if you keep persisting, and thus become a creep, don’t be surprised when she gets a little more forceful in rebuking you. She’s not a bitch, nasty, or whatever else. You were a creep.

If you allow her to think you are happy having a friendship, while really you want her in bed, and you won’t be happy with it remaining a friendship without sex, you’re also being a creep. You don’t have mutual agreement about the relationship. She’s thinking, “Oh, a friend! That’s cool.” You’re thinking, “How much longer do I have to put up with pretending to be a friend before I can get her in bed?” You’re not in agreement. You’re setting her up and trying to deceive her to get what you want.

It’s risky to say what you want. And if what you want is good for you but not good for her, she’ll probably turn her down if you allow her to do so (not allowing this would also be creepy). But part of coming to an agreement on a relationship is to communicate and understand where the relationship is at. For me, I can’t do that the way neurotypicals do. The slight and subtle hints and body language doesn’t work. So I need to try to be honest. But there are few things harder in the world than being honest and vulnerable. So I think autistic relationships – particularly between two autistic people, but also likely between an autistic person and a particularly understanding non-autistic, can look a bit different. Some things might need to be more explicit. A challenge is trying to make those things clear while not destroying the mystery and spontaneity of a relationship. It takes someone who understands.

I wrote this mainly from the perspective of a man looking for a woman, but it applies in all sorts of other relationships too. Two people might agree to have quick sex without an emotional connection – or three people might want to do something sexual together. That might be unusual, but it’s not creepy so long as you mutually agree on where and what the relationship should be. And you can be a creep without even seeking sex but seeking whatever else instead. Forcing a friendship to progress can be creepy just as trying to get the girl in bed can be.

So, don’t be a creep. Respect and mutuality.

Learn Karate and Social Skills to Become Either a Victim or “Above The Game”

When I was a kid, I took martial arts lessons (not actually Karate, but something similar). I think my parents thought it was a good idea for two reasons – they wanted me to participate in something with other kids and they wanted me to learn to defend myself.

It didn’t work. Now, granted, I only did this for a year, so I suspect I lacked much insight or experience, and certainly learning from one instructor in one dojo doesn’t imply anything about any other instructor or dojo. But I do think I can talk a bit about why it didn’t work for me, at least with my limited experience.

First, the easy one: I didn’t bond with the other kids. Kids in the dojo, just as kids at the playground, recognized I was different. I didn’t fit. And I never would with them. Putting on a special outfit doesn’t change that. It ignored the problem by simply changing the setting – I don’t get along with kids in school, so maybe somewhere else I’ll get along with them. But it never addressed the root of the problem, just the setting where it occurred. But that’s not what I’m trying to write about today.

For the self-defense aspect, that didn’t work either. Sure, I learned a few blocks, kicks, and punches. I learned to stand one foot in front of the other. So I learned a bit of the basics. But even if I learned the advanced stances, blocks, kicks, and punches, and could perform them well, that wouldn’t have helped. I was missing something: the application. Memorizing muscle moves (even making them part of muscle memory) isn’t the same thing as being able to quickly analyze a situation and determine how to respond. I was smart enough to know that, even when being attacked by other kids physically, most of my moves would end up getting me beat to a pulp even quicker. Running was a better tactic – and I already knew that before class!

Now, I’m sure that plenty of people have used martial arts in self-defense, and that’s good. And maybe I should seek out a better instructor and dojo and learn now. So I realize the limitations of what I’m saying. But the key is that I wasn’t taught how to dynamically respond to a real-life situation, just how to statically respond to a scripted situation. There’s a huge difference between what the “attacker” might have done in the dojo and what he might have done behind the wall at school.

Did you see that? I told you the problem with social skills training, too – learning to respond to a scripted situation isn’t helpful.

Too much of today’s social skills is focused on the same stuff. Seriously. To be honest, I think the training methods may be why autistic guys too often think there is a magic set of steps to essentially get to have sex with a girl. They’ve spent too much time learning formulas, techniques, and scripts. We saw on Kickstarter this week when a “seduction guide” entitled Above the Game that sought funding. Among many problematic parts, the guide told the message that guys don’t have to listen to the girl, they can basically force themselves on her. Fortunately, Kickstart has since removed the guide and attempted to make amends. Kickstarter eventually recognized that the guide is standard “if you want sex, be an asshole” garbage.

The book is appealing to a certain subset of sex-craving men (now I’m not saying this group is generally autistic people or anything similar – although autistics, neurotypicals, and plenty of other groups all have these men in their midst). After all, it says that all the standard dating advice (you know, stuff like “don’t force her to engage in sexual contact without consent”) is wrong. That’s important – it’s appealing to a group of guys that haven’t had the success they want, and they may have even tried (or thought they tried) the “standard” formula. So this is a new-and-improved formula, one that “actually works” (Uh, until you do find a woman that can defend herself – you might end up rightfully having a coffee mug shatter against your own mug; But, sure, rape will get you sex if you’re able to overpower her).

The underlying premise of this seduction guide and all other seduction guides (besides for teaching people to be assholes) is promotion of the idea that there is a formula that you can follow to make – overpower if you will – people do what you want them to do. Give them the right input, you get the output you crave. Maybe it’s sex, maybe it’s something else.

That’s also the premise for much social skills work. You want someone to listen to your special interests? Pretend to be interested in them for a bit. Then you get what you want. Simple. You have control.

One fairly popular – but fairly ineffective – way to teach social skills is “social stories.” It’s ineffective for the same reason my Karate lessons were ineffective: a bunch of techniques or responses to scripted situations doesn’t teach the improvisation necessary in dynamic social situations (you know, like the…uh…”real world”). While it doesn’t have the formality of formal social stories, a variation on this is talking through a make-believe situation and doing role-playing to figure out how to respond. The problem is that this teaches someone a make-believe situation, not the real-life. In real-life, the other person (or group) is going to veer “off-course” pretty much immediately, leaving you lost if you’re expecting scripts to get you through things.

I’ve also seen this with AAC (augmentative and assistive communication). One of the first things people learn when they use (or see someone use AAC) is that it’s slow – painfully slow sometime. The obvious, but wrong, solution is to create a system that stores sentences or thoughts as a whole unit. There’s just one problem – it turns out that even things you think you say all day long are actually unique to the situation most of the time. Sure, sometimes some stored phrases in an electronic device have use, but if you expect more than 1% of your communication to be accomplished that way, you’ll be in for a big surprise when you try.

Karate, seduction guides, social stories, and stored-sentences all have this in common: they work great in a make-believe, scripted situation. And they’ll cause you pain and hurt if you don’t also know how to handle course changes and improvisation.

Another problem with Karate, seduction guides, social stories, and stored-sentences is that they may just plain be the wrong thing, even in a situation that is very similar to the scripted situation. For instance, an example PDF of social stories includes:

Stethoscope –
The doctor will listen to my chest with a stethoscope.
This helps him/her hear if I am breathing properly and my heart is working well.

The doctor will lift up my shirt, put the stethoscope against my chest and ask me to
breathe in and out.
The stethoscope will feel cold and may tickle but it will not hurt.
I can do this for the doctor and he/she can tell I am ok.
The doctor will be happy and mum will be happy.

Really? It won’t hurt? How does the writer of this story know? They might know it doesn’t hurt themself, but they have no idea about someone else, particularly if that someone else has sensory differences! Certainly it would be better to talk about how the stethoscope may be uncomfortable or cold, but won’t cause lasting hurt them even if it feels like it will. Maybe it’s better to explain “it will be over quickly.” I’m also not a fan of the outcome where the kid is okay – maybe he is, maybe he isn’t – maybe the doctor actually finds something going on. Maybe he/she can tell me if my heart and lungs sound ok. And, no, mom and Doctor better not be happy if he does find something, but they should be happy they found it and can provide medical help.

Is there value in the above? Certainly – you can explain what things someone might expect before a situation. But, once you start making assumptions about how they will experience sensations, or once you start (like most social stories) expecting things to follow a script, there are problems.

There’s tons of other criticisms from autistic adults on many social skills training programs – I won’t go into things like how they may be making an unreasonable demand on an autistic person (“don’t stim” or “look at the person talking” come to mind) that may be counter productive.

What’s a better approach? I’m not entirely sure. But I know we (autistic people) need accurate information. We need accurate information about how to appropriately satisfy our sex drives (hint: it’s not through raping women), deal with the doctor’s office, or defend ourselves from bullies. But, in addition to being accurate, the information needs to teach flexibility and thinking, not just a bunch of memorized sentences, techniques, or scripts. There’s no magic method here – it’s hard stuff for anyone to learn (and even harder to teach). People aren’t tools I use to get what I want. I treat them decent not only because that might help me get something I want, but, more importantly, because it’s simply the right thing to do.

Group Homes Refuse to Let Couple Live Together

An AP article, via Denver Post about a married couple denied the ability to live together shows a trend that has been happening for years.

I’ve written about it before: here, here, and here. Disabled people aren’t supposed to be sexy. We gross (some) normal people out. (ironically the same reason gays are in the middle of a fight for their right to marry)

Here’s the essence of the story: two mentally disabled people got married. Her group home (run by Catholic Health Systems of Long Island) doesn’t believe she can consent to sex. His co-ed home (run by Independent Group Home Living) says they aren’t staffed to help them with aspects of their relationship, “sexual or otherwise.”

This isn’t new. As I wrote about before, group homes have for a long time felt the need to regulate intimate behavior in ways that a non-disabled person would consider a violation of human rights.

They get away with it for two reasons. First, is the idea that disabled people need protection from the world. Too often, this manifests as a set of dumb restrictions (such as “married people shouldn’t sleep with each other”) that don’t actually make anyone safe!

Second is the idea that disabled people having sex is gross, perverted, and just plain wrong. It’s the same reaction that a straight guy might have in his gut when he thinks of two gay guys having sex. For lots of people, it’s “icky” to think about having sex with someone with a disability. So, because some people can’t see how someone would enjoy being intimate and sharing life with someone, the target of their prejudice ends up being restricted.

It probably doesn’t help that Catholic Health Systems runs her home, either. The obvious outcome of sex is children – the only thing more scary to some than disabled people having sex is disabled people having kids. And it very well may be that the wife doesn’t want to have kids (she may want them – I really don’t know). But of course no Catholic-run group is going to provide comprehensive sex education, birth control training, or other basic sexual health care and educational programs. It’s supposed to be in God’s hands – well, unless they are disabled and then we’ll stop it.

As for the ability of her to consent, why couldn’t she? You have to do better than “she’s labeled mentally retarded.” Certainly a group home or really anyone else should be helping her if she ends up in a situation she doesn’t want. But she wants this and has asked for it. How much more consent can you get? I suspect it’s really codewords for “if they sleep together they’ll have sex, and then they’ll have a kid and we don’t want that.” And that’s a whole other problem disabled people face – their right to have children is routinely and too-easily challenged, even when they are plenty or more capable than other parents of raising a child (but I’ll add “having kids” doesn’t always follow from “sleeping in the same home”). And, no, I’m not interested in your story about your disabled aunt who couldn’t care for her kids so you took her child (I can give you stories about non-disabled people who can’t raise kids). I know there are people who are unfit parents, but there are also plenty of fit parents out there. And research agrees with me (go look it up yourself, and, yes, people have done a LOT of research on parents with mental retardation).

As for his home, which is arguing “married couples are too tough,” especially “sexually and otherwise” – get over it. You have a co-ed home (and I wouldn’t be surprised if sex and relationships are already happening there – do you not think disabled people seek these things?). Nobody is expecting you to physically assist with sex. Really.

I’m not going to get into too much of this, other than to say it’s a problem I’ve been shouting about to the mountain tops with pretty much no acknowledgement by any disability organization. Nobody wants to touch “people labeled mentally retarded should be able to get married.” When one of them does, they’ll get my support (hint: it’s probably good not to send me fund raising email until you acknowledge all our human rights). But until then, I will keep shouting.

Marriage Equality for Autistic Folk

Today, the US Supreme Court is deciding on whether or not gays have a right to get married. I’m embarrassed that this isn’t self-evident to a country that claims to be based on the idea that there are fundamental freedoms that all people have intrinsically, just for being human. Of course this is hardly the first time that we’ve had problems understanding that.

Of course gays aren’t the only people that have trouble with society and society’s views on marriage.

Autistics are typically viewed by people as uninterested in others (so no need to worry about marriage or dating), non-sexual beings. Heck, there are several sexual orientations in many people’s eyes – straight, gay, bi, disabled. Of course some more progressive people realize physically disabled people (or, rather, some physically disabled people) might be gay, straight, or bi. But mentally disabled people…well, that’s just sick to think of sex.

And of course people can’t think of marriage without thinking of sex.

I have news for people: autistic people like sex! Sure, some of us don’t want to have sex with anyone (just like some non-autistic people don’t want to have sex). But plenty of us do want to have sex. Our sexual desires are no different than any other group. We have people into strange stuff and “normal” stuff and no stuff. Go figure.

I have other news, though: it’s not just sex. I love having intimate physical times with my wife (don’t worry, I’m not going to go TMI) – but that’s a special case for me. I never really desired that with anyone else. You see, the emotional connection I have for my wife brings a level of enjoyment and excitement to the bedroom that nobody else could bring. I suspect plenty of non-autistic people would say the same thing – that there is a component to intimacy that isn’t about physical sex.

Autistic people desire connections with others, too. We don’t want to be lonely (we may want to be alone sometimes, but that’s different from being lonely). Being lonely sucks. Before I met my wife, I still had a need to be with people – I had (and have) deep friendships with people that understand and know me. These friendships aren’t romantic or intimate, like my relationship with my wife, but they are deep and contain a form of love. These relationships give meaning to my life.

Too often, it’s assumed that we don’t want that. We do. We might not want what looks like a typical relationship or friendship, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want a relationship or friendship at all.

This is true not just for those of us adults who can tell you about it. It’s true from the beginning of my memories. I remember before I spoke how I connected and desired the presence of certain people, how I wanted a connection to humanity. That spark isn’t missing from us! Even if we don’t always go the right way about it.

But in addition to being seen as people who aren’t sexual, don’t want/need a relationship, and don’t seek connections with others, there are other problems. We have problems with money and transportation. We have barriers when it comes to group homes and institutions (I’ll note that many of which are run by religious organizations who can legally prohibit same-sex relationships – and nobody, including every single autistic advocacy organization I know of, seems to care). Competency and our own desires are questioned. We have a lot of problems.

Then there is just the practical. How does someone different find someone else in the world? It’s not easy. It’s a wonderful thing when an autistic person finds someone who connects to their soul and heart – but it happens far too infrequently. It’s a huge issue in the lives of many autistic adults, yet very, very few of us had any real education on relationships other than “don’t touch people inappropriately” (or, sadly, “don’t touch people sexually at all”). This one huge area of determining happiness is completely ignored.

It’s funny – social skills are a huge concern to people when they see us and educate us. But what they mean by social skills typically aren’t the same things that we might desire. For instance, what’s the first social skill example used on a sample IEP site? It’s simple “will raise their hand and wait to be called on before talking aloud in group settings 4/5 opportunities to do so.” Sure, this might be important (or not – I don’t know what the last time I raised my hand for permission to speak, but it was quite some time ago), but it is more about meeting other people’s needs than meeting my own.

We need to get past the “don’t touch girls” type of social training. And certainly we need to get past the “don’t make the staff’s job hard” type of training. We need to recognize the desire people have for connections. Yes, I realize everyone is different and that not everyone wants a spouse. That’s fine. But nobody wants to be lonely.

It’s Complicated…No Shiny Boxes

Shiny boxes don’t fit real people. We’re way too complex for that. It’s a point I often make about autistic people: we don’t fit boxes well. It turns out that autistics aren’t the only ones who don’t fit in boxes. In honor of National Coming Out Day last week, I’m posting a video that sums up a lot of academic ideas about sex, gender, attraction, behavior, and gender roles all in a few minutes.

There are tons of LGBT people in the autistic community (I suspect a far larger percentage than in the non-autistic population). Plenty of autistics don’t fit the stereotypical idea of a man or a woman. I’ll give a hint: just like an autistic person may intelligent but not speak, or may have sensory issues but not communication issues, there’s a lot to human sex and gender, and the different pieces are not necessarily related to each other. It’s bad to make assumptions about an autistic’s abilities. And it’s bad to make assumptions related to sex, gender, attraction, and behavior.

Enough of my writing – this person explains it much better: