Why exactly should we modify our behavior?

Post Reply New Topic

That is disturbing.

And so do I despite not being one.

Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Amer ... ssociation or better known as nambla. They believe their behavior is part of their natural mindset. They could claim neurodiversity as well. Should these guys even if this is true be accepted in society? Let's say one of us challenged them. One tactic they could use is to call us hypocrites. They would say we want acceptance for our ASD while we deny these guys the same acceptance. How do we respond to this? My response is some deviant behaviors should be modified and maybe some hypocrisy is warranted.

And for a while I thought it was all a joke in South Park when the pedophiles mentioned "It's who we are and if you can't accept us, you have to lock us up" but I never thought there were pedophiles out there who actually thought that. I didn't think anyone be that sick and twisted and think society should tolerate them having sex with little boys.

At least we don't hurt children that will mess them up for life or take away their future. That's what I would say to them.

I would say, to NAMBLA or anyone else, that our "deviance" harms no one. We should only adapt as far as we choose. The only reason to adapt is when we want, for whatever reason, to fit in. For example, seeming more neurotypical might be good at a job interview.

It's no joke. There are pedophiles who truly think this. League_girl, protect your child especially if your child is aspie. Some can and will use logic to twist children's minds.

There's a huge difference between offending someone and scarring them for life. How normal the behavior is doesn't matter, it's how harmful it is that counts.

If people make fun of you for stimming but you feel no anxiety then I say go for it. It reduces our stress. People don't say anything to me when I do it and I need to do it. If it doesn't hurt other people or disrupt an important televised speech or live to air rock show then I say go for it.

You shouldn't be so hard on NT's. You think they're weird, they think you're weird. Not every NT is a judgemental bastard. Some are nice and open minded and want to talk to you about about special interests. Excuse me I have something in my eye.

This. Your right to swing your fist in the air stops where my face begins. Aspies aren't harming anyone (except perhaps occasionally offending someone) with their eccentric nature. Pedophiles are.

As for the topic - we shouldn't try and become NTs, but sometimes it is pragmatic to modify our behavior to ensure a more comfortable existence. Yes, NTs should be more tolerant of differences, but we should at least make an effort to adapt when we have to.

Okay, if we're going to talk about this, let's do it right. First off, the incidence of sexual abuse is endemic. It's like 1 out of 5 children. Yeah, really. and how harmful it is runs the whole spectrum

" . . . In the 1950's, experts like Alfred Kinsey minimized the damage of sexual abuse. The fright described by children who'd had sexual contact with adults was ''nearer the level that children will show when they see insects [or] spiders,'' Kinsey wrote, as Joseph E. Davis, a sociologist, recounts in his recent book, ''Accounts of Innocence.'' Until the mid 1970's, standard psychology textbooks also played down the effects of abuse and put the incidence of incest at one in a million. . . "
A Question of Resilience, New York Times, April 30, 2006, (page 6 of 7)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... gewanted=6

We should neither underestimate the seriousness of abuse, nor underestimate the possibility of human resilience. But, damn, this was probably not Kinsey's best work. He was also criticized for not doing more when someone disclosed during the course of the interview that he habitually had sex with children (like the scene in the movie toward the end). He should have done a damn sight more. Yes, his method was confidentiality and his work depended on confidentiality, all the same, he should have found a way. He should have done more.

Now, the really important thing, most abuse is committed by someone known to the family and/or the child. And thus when parents really emphasize "stranger danger," they are probably doing their children a disservice. They need to find a way to talk about their nice uncle, who most probably is not an abuser, but who might be. Again, it is approximately one out of five children who are abused, but it is not one out of five adults who is an abuser because the typical abuser commits abuse against more than one child.

So, the parent needs to find an age-appropriate way to tell his or her child: sometimes an adult tries to do something sexual to a child, even a person who is otherwise a good person might try to do this because they have issues, it's your body and you have the right to loudly say no, please tell me even if they threaten you and tell you not to tell, and tell me even if it's been a while and I'll try not to be angry.

And actually, I think this is an area where we as people with Aspergers can potentially really help, because we often have the skill of planning important conversations ahead of time and we're often good at summarizing something to the central part.

Last edited by AardvarkGoodSwimmer on 29 Nov 2010, 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well it all depends, it is best to modify behavior to make life more bearable for us, not for the person who will never accept us. I stim where ever I am, I dont even pay attention if I am bothering people because that is part of me, but I do try to be polite with others because I would want the same in return. So I guess I apply this question to the golden rule...do unto other as you want others to do unto you. If someone else stims...I dont care, I would join them probablly, but if someone was rude to me, I would be upset...at least for a little bit anyway.

The behaviorist assigned to me for autism wanted me to have more eye contact. I told her that drove me crazy and that her desires were not important enough as I had more important things to think about when conversing.

Eye contact is a weird thing. If I focus on eye contact while conversing then the focus becomes how long do I do this? How does this person perceve me gazing in their eyes while talking to them? And before long the conversation gets drowned out by my confusion about eye contact, so instead I just look somewhere else on their face like their mouth or nose or something, so at least I am looking at the person but not getting all messed up with eye contact. But as far as that goes, I have found that just looking somewhere on their face while talking and listening is better than looking away, but does not drive me nuts.

You should be careful with this, people can see when you are looking at there face but not into their eyes. I've looked just above my wifes eyes before as a joke because it freaks her out. People can think there is something on their face drawing your attention.

One of the bigger problems with no eye contact isn't just the eye's, it when you move your face away from the person. Turning your head away is a huge sign that you want out of there, keeping yourself facing the other person with small glances towards their eyes is worlds better than totally turning your head. Your body language goes from looking like you want to run, to looking like you want to talk, it's just hard for you.

And gently scan the entire broader eye slit area. And allow your vision to soften (not my frequent laser beam!). And do all this in a thoroughly casual, half-assed, right-brain, feel-and-texture kind of way. (I think!)