Are autistic people known for being wild in bed and actively sought out by NTs? I saw a post on reddit where an NT said they did that and implied that it's common knowledge that some NTs do that because autistic people have that reputation. Anyone know?
No it's cruelly ironic really. I've often felt so. So many women complain about men sexualising them and so many men wish women would sexualise them a bit more.
I've been staying out of this but had to comment here- I imagine HP's definition of harassment is not 'compliments and people trying to chat me up', and is actually much worse. I'm an asexual person who dresses in a fairly feminine way, so someone who is read as a target, and my experience (and therefore my definition) of harassment includes being sexually assaulted in public. It would have been frightening under any circumstances but it was doubly so with the knowledge that if your answer is ALWAYS no, some people will take that as a challenge.
I'll happy swap with your former self. If your definition of harassment is compliments and people trying to chat me up I'll take it. ... Although preferably from women.
Yh but remember Peter you'd only take it because you are you with your wants and perspective, to HP it's like a living hell. Different people different experiences, you've both got valid perspectives, one isn't more right or better than another. If you were asexual and felt as vulnerable as HP you'd likely feel differently again.
Well, never having romantic attraction reciprocated is the situation I'm in as an ace person who has set a boundary, so I don't need to imagine. It's a slightly melancholy feeling.
I have succeeded in making changes to my body and face so I'm no longer sexually attractive and it is WONDERFUL. People who are naturally unattractive from birth are so incredibly privileged. Just being able to exist in the world without frequent harassment is bliss. The sense of safety is amazing.
Yeah, it sucks when it's not reciprocated
now try replace not with never. If it was never reciprocated could you not imagine feeling not only unloved but unlovable? Well feeling ****able is as important to some people as feeling loveable. This may be a hard concept for someone who has to discourage the attention of others but trust me it is true. If you find it hard to imaging some one who felt unlovable feeling pain or even causing themselves pain to cope with that ... well then your life was more sheltered than you've led us to believe. Now just accept what I tell you that for people who feel un****able it can be the same way.
I experience romantic attraction. Yeah, it sucks when it's not reciprocated, but you know what? You get over it. It's not something that causes traumatic flashbacks that reduce you to a sobbing mess. It doesn't cause physical injury. It doesn't infect you with cancer-causing viruses. Unwanted sex is horrific. Not being able to have exactly the kind of relationship you want with a person can sometimes be a little bit sad. They're not equivalent.
It's not always in what you say, sometimes it's in what you don't say, (social abilities on a spectrum strike again it seems) especially with such an important subject as body autonomy and consent.
Honestly if you both agree that consent is important and it was said earlier this extra getting to the bottom of it may need not have happened. Hence it was perhaps prudent to offer that information up front at the start. That's all I'm suggesting because as I read the replies tumbling down I did suspect a misunderstanding had occured.
Obviously, but that's not how the way you phrased your replies implied it to be, that's the issue.
You and HP35 seem to have added that subtext in your own mind and I still don't see where you're getting it from (which I find somewhat frustrating)
But you're not hungry. If you can type, you can satisfy your libido. You are not experiencing an unmet physical need.
I love how this has somehow become about me personally when I was making a point generally.
If I have a strong unmet desire to cut your leg off with a chainsaw, is it reasonable for me to expect people to feel sorry for me not being allowed to do that?
Your hyperbole are becoming imposable to take seriously.
Sure, maybe you have some higher-level need
Just because you don't personally feel or comprehend sexual need or romantic needs expressed in sexual terms it doesn't make it less real or less meaningful. Something doesn't have to be relatable to you to be a real issue for other people.
But does the person act on it? That's the vital information in your scenario that is missing.You may safely assume for the purposes of my example they do not or at least not to the point of becoming a sex criminal.
Well don't tell me tell HP who has the concern that their autonomy isn't being respected.
It's not a difficult concept, you must see the connection yourself because it was you that first drew the comparison.You must be aware that in the majority of cases sexual arousal does not lead to r*pe.
Obviously, but that's not how the way you phrased your replies implied it to be, that's the issue.
And pls don't take this the wrong way but I'm surprised we had this chat considering I thought you said in essence you didn't what to have this discussion again (tho technically this is it's own discussion).
Glad to have at least cleared up some points though.
But does the person act on it? That's the vital information in your scenario that is missing.
You may safely assume for the purposes of my example they do not or at least not to the point of becoming a sex criminal.
It's not a difficult concept, you must see the connection yourself because it was you that first drew the comparison.
You must be aware that in the majority of cases sexual arousal does not lead to r*pe.
But you're not hungry. If you can type, you can satisfy your libido. You are not experiencing an unmet physical need. Sure, maybe you have some higher-level need, and, yes, diddums, I'm sure it's very awkward if you like physically hurting people and they don't like you doing that, but I don't see why you're trying to argue that is somehow worse than being the person who is being hurt.
If I have a strong unmet desire to cut your leg off with a chainsaw, is it reasonable for me to expect people to feel sorry for me not being allowed to do that?
You might be hungry enugh to commit cannibalism in a deser isle situation but I believe HP's point is it is still murder.And my point is it's pailful to starve to death whether or not the only alternative was canabalism. It can still be painful to be lonely and horny even if the only alternative was to be some sort of sex criminal. The person who is lonely and horny is not less deserving of sympathy because, hypothetically, his only alternative was to be a sex criminal.
But does the person act on it? That's the vital information in your scenario that is missing.
The implications of this example are that "r*pe is (somehow) acceptable"How on earth have you reached that conclusion? Did you think my boat example was suggesting cannibalism was acceptable?
read the bit that followed:
Personal arousal and the desire for a sexual relationship is not a consent issue. Its more a bodily imperative most people don't even have a choice over.The implications of this example are that "r*pe is (somehow) acceptable" because desire isn't something you can control if you don't acknowledge that behaviour is something that can be controlled.
It's not a difficult concept, you must see the connection yourself because it was you that first drew the comparison. You are mentioning it in the same post as you mention the cannibalism. So either the two are linked or you are deliberately trying to move the focus away from the point you made. This is the same conversation, we aren't suddenly also talking separately about the next space mission or something.
then, respectfully, I return my old assertion, that you don't really understand that psychological pain can often be worse than physical pain. Hunger is psychological pain to start with. The 1st 3 days or so don't damage you, but it's painful. Hunger in your belly feels painful. ... But I don't think you get it. It's like trying to explain colour to a blind man.
You might be hungry enugh to commit cannibalism in a deser isle situation but I believe HP's point is it is still murder.
And my point is it's painful to starve to death whether or not the only alternative was canabalism. It can still be painful to be lonely and horny even if the only alternative was to be some sort of sex criminal. The person who is lonely and horny is not less deserving of sympathy because, hypothetically, his only alternative was to be a sex criminal.
The implications of this example are that "r*pe is (somehow) acceptable"
How on earth have you reached that conclusion? Did you think my boat example was suggesting cannibalism was acceptable?
Exactly. And given that the speed Peter is typing these replies suggests he probably has at least one functional hand, the analogy isn't even starving to death on a desert island. It's standing in the middle of a well-stocked kitchen bawling "BUT I WANT HUMAN MEAT AND ALL THE MEANIES WON'T LET ME EAT THEM!" and expecting sympathy.
We're not getting into another tortious argument about consent here.
You don't HAVE to but that's where it looked like it was going. My concern is that it would be a shame to have people have to fall out over a misunderstanding and not a genuine point that was made.
No one needs to consent to me or anyone else having a desire for romantic and or sexual relationships. A persons desires is not a thing to which consent applies. If I'm stranded in a boat with another person and I'm starving to death the fact that the only other food in the boat is the other person doesn't invalidate my hunger or the pain of starvation.
The same thing applies to sex. If someone is stuck on a desert island with one other person they don't need that persons permission to be horny. It doesn't invalidate their suffering and pain just because that suffering is caused by some one else's choice not to consent.
I don't see where HP said to the contrary of this tbh. My understanding of HP's point is that despite not having control over how others feel that doesn't mean certain behaviours are moral. You might be hungry enough to commit cannibalism in a desert isle situation but I believe HP's point is it is still murder. Your hunger doesn't give you the right to kill and eat another person, so yes it really does boil down to consent still.
Personal arousal and the desire for a sexual relationship is not a consent issue. Its more a bodily imperative most people don't even have a choice over.
The implications of this example are that "r*pe is (somehow) acceptable" because desire isn't something you can control if you don't acknowledge that behaviour is something that can be controlled.
So yes, it is all coming around to consent again. It just is.
But lets leave it there if you don't want to discuss it. (To my knowledge we have had discussions, but never had an "argument" on the topic, as that implies a fight of some kind which requires a winner and loser.)
Right, but no one needs to feel sorry for you either. Given the choice between feeling sorry for you moping about how horny you are, or feeling sorry for someone who is literally screaming and sobbing from physical pain, I am never going to see you as the victim.
not really. We're not getting into another tortious argument about consent here.
No one needs to consent to me or anyone else having a desire for romantic and or sexual relationships. A persons desires is not a thing to which consent applies. If I'm stranded in a boat with another person and I'm starving to death the fact that the only other food in the boat is the other person doesn't invalidate my hunger or the pain of starvation.
The same thing applies to sex. If someone is stuck on a desert island with one other person they don't need that persons permission to be horny. It doesn't invalidate their suffering and pain just because that suffering is caused by some one else's choice not to consent.
Personal arousal and the desire for a sexual relationship is not a consent issue. Its more a bodily imperative most people don't even have a choice over.
not really. We're not getting into another tortious argument about consent here.
No one needs to consent to me or anyone else having a desire for romantic and or sexual relationships. A persons desires is not a thing to which consent applies. If I'm stranded in a boat with another person and I'm starving to death the fact that the only other food in the boat is the other person doesn't invalidate my hunger or the pain of starvation.
The same thing applies to sex. If someone is stuck on a desert island with one other person they don't need that persons permission to be horny. It doesn't invalidate their suffering and pain just because that suffering is caused by some one else's choice not to consent.
Personal arousal and the desire for a sexual relationship is not a consent issue. Its more a bodily imperative most people don't even have a choice over.
Yes I was just mussing that it’s almost the opposite of casual sex. Some one who wants only casual sex wants a sexual interaction but not a romantic one. Where as some ace people want a romantic relationship without sexual interaction.
From each persons perspective the other is kind of pointless in their efforts. Like an NPC put in a game that doesn’t do anything but fill out a crowd.
So close and yet so far, bear in mind being asexual doesn't actually have any bearing of if a person wants a relationship that is serious or casual. For all we know HP35 is looking for another asexual for a long term monogamous relationship, possibly even a soulmate to share teh rest of their life with.
It’s basically inverse casual sex. there are people who want casual sex that involves the orgasm but doesn’t necessarily involve the intimacy and hypothetically speaking it can be the other way around to.
Aye that's it.
No I do think I understand this one. One can desire the romantic closeness of intimate conversation and honesty and commitment to another human being. And also a lot of the platonic physical affection that comes with those sorts of relationships, hugging and just generally being close and affectionate to another person, without actually wanting to do anything sexual; something that would involve or naturally lead to an orgasm.
I experience romantic attraction.
so your not asexual then?
Oh, diddums. A complete lack of attention is not your absolutely ideal scenario. Poor, poor, you.
Look I've attempted to be polite here and engage in a rational discussion even though from my point of view you don't seem to want to approach things rationally at all but instead rely on spurious hyperbole. But if you are going to mock me frankly I no longer care. If anyone else has anything constructive to say I'm happy to hear it. But with you, specifically you HP35, on this topic for now I'm done with you.
That's because you're arrogant and women don't see you as a safe person to confide in. Almost every person interpreted as female has these experiences regularly.
Being autistic makes you a massive outlier, so I guess society is justified in not believing you about any of your experiences. You don't really have sensory or communication differences, right? You're making them up!
Oh, diddums. A complete lack of attention is not your absolutely ideal scenario. Poor, poor, you. That is absolutely as bad as never feeling safe and having people shove things inside your body causing agony and trauma.
It is absolutely disgusting that you are still pretending that being allowed to live your life in peace is somehow worse than being verbally and physically abused on a regular basis.
Bluntly I don't believe you. Or more specifically I don't believe your personal experience is representative. It sounds like you had some awful experiences and I'm sorry for that but I don't think that makes it at all typical. If nothing else being ace makes you a massive outlier. Also you're misrepresenting what I said.
But even if it was it doesn't invalidate the point that a complete lack of attention is, for some people, undesirable.
'I'm in a rush sorry I don't have time for this etc.'
Using this response results in verbal abuse 90% of the time. About 50% of the time there are specific threats made. Sometimes there is physical aggression (grabbing, chasing, accelerating vehicle towards me, etc).
It's only recently (since I started presenting male) that I've started to have days outside without unsolicited interactions.
In private contexts, I don't think I've ever had a "no" be immediately accepted without the guy trying again at some point. I've been in situations where the choice is either give in, not get any sleep all night because he will wake me up every 10 minutes to check if I've changed my mind, or leave my home and find somewhere else to sleep at midnight.
It is absolutely disgusting that you are still pretending that being allowed to live your life in peace is somehow worse than being verbally and physically abused on a regular basis.
How do you feel about men who are on average 25cm taller, 40kg heavier, and much stronger than you
Change men to women and I think that's fairly hot. Who doesn't love an amazon.
sexualising you in all contexts, particularly when you say no and they take that to mean "try again using a different approach"?
Except that's not how most men behave. Even in the 60/70s when builders wolf whistling at every girl walking down the street was considered normal that wasn't how most men behaved.
Women were not sexualised in all contexts. Doctors did not go 'I'm sorry you've got br*ast cancer but before I operate on them can I take you for a drink.' If every guy in your office tried to chat you up at least most would take no for an answer and drop it. And the one that wouldn't the boss would have a word with if you asked him. If occasionally having a woman I'm not attracted to try to chat me up is the price I'd pay for more female attention. Or if it meant having to put my foot down every now and again and say 'look no offence but I'm just not interested in you so seriously drop it ok.' then guess what I could live with that. I think a lot of men feel that way.
I mean you say how awful it is that men keep trying to impress you after you turn them down? How awful that would be, if a girl who I'd turned down turned up the next day with gifts and a poem about how hot I was to try and impress me; that would be just awful (this is sarcasm just to be clear).
You don't get to turn it off when you're busy, have food poisoning, are mourning a relative, are in the middle of a shutdown or meltdown, or for any other reason.
You don't have to give a reason either for ignoring it. Maybe the most cursory reason like 'I'm in a rush sorry I don't have time for this etc.' Since we've been discussing consent lets remember some one else expressing an interest in you doesn't obligate you to take the time to acknowledge it.
If you have food poisoning and you are literally chucking up into a bucket and some one sees you and feels the need to say you look sexy believe me if they are rational they don't expect you to respond. Although to be fair not many would think food poisoning loos sexy.
How do you feel about men who are on average 25cm taller, 40kg heavier, and much stronger than you, who you are not attracted to, sexualising you in all contexts, particularly when you say no and they take that to mean "try again using a different approach"? You don't get to turn it off when you're busy, have food poisoning, are mourning a relative, are in the middle of a shutdown or meltdown, or for any other reason.
It's not "ironic," it's the result of men perpetuating this harmful myth that not getting sex means you're somehow a victim and you should feel sorry for yourself.
No it's cruelly ironic really. I've often felt so. So many women complain about men sexualising them and so many men wish women would sexualise them a bit more.
I've been staying out of this but had to comment here- I imagine HP's definition of harassment is not 'compliments and people trying to chat me up', and is actually much worse. I'm an asexual person who dresses in a fairly feminine way, so someone who is read as a target, and my experience (and therefore my definition) of harassment includes being sexually assaulted in public. It would have been frightening under any circumstances but it was doubly so with the knowledge that if your answer is ALWAYS no, some people will take that as a challenge.
I'll happy swap with your former self. If your definition of harassment is compliments and people trying to chat me up I'll take it. ... Although preferably from women.
Yh but remember Peter you'd only take it because you are you with your wants and perspective, to HP it's like a living hell. Different people different experiences, you've both got valid perspectives, one isn't more right or better than another. If you were asexual and felt as vulnerable as HP you'd likely feel differently again.
