Autistic Sex Reputation (NSFW)

For the record I wish this were true. If collectively as autistic people we can spread the roumer that autistic people are incredible in bed we should totally do this.

I would cancel my assessment appointment if this became a commonly held belief. I have enough trouble as it is trying to convince people I'm asexual and not interested.

One man’s pain is another’s pleasure they say.

Certainly, some people are entirely incapable of recognising that any point of view that differs from their own can have any validity. They are also blind to nuance and incapable of empathy.

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.

Peter said:

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.

It's people telling you how they'd like to invade your body in ways you know are 100% going to be painful and also carry a risk of killing you.

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.

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.

HP35 said:

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.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

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)

HP35 said:

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.

HP35 said:

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.

HP35 said:

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.

Peter said:

bees (they/them) said:

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.

Peter said:

bees (they/them) said:

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.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

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.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

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?

Peter said:

bees (they/them) said:

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.

Peter said:

bees (they/them) said:

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:

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

Peter said:

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.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

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.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

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.

Peter said:

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.

Peter said:

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.

Peter said:

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.)

Peter said:

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.

Peter said:

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.

Peter said:

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.)

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.