Disabled People’s Feelings About Cures - Opinion Piece
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,471
Location: Long Island, New York
08 Sep 2020, 4:41 am
Disabled People’s Feelings About Cures Are More Complex Than You May Think
Quote:
“I don’t have to be cured to be happy. I don’t have to conform to the physical notion of perfection (whatever that is) to be a whole person.” — Disabled commenter at eparent.com.
“Many disabled people support disability prevention efforts. But once they become disabled, the idea of having that condition reversed is one fraught with implications for one’s way of life, one’s identity, and one’s community.” — DisabilityWisdom.com.
“Without my lived experiences as a disabled person, I would be a completely different Emily. And as tough as certain aspects of my life have been, and though I know I will continue to face disability-related challenges throughout my life, I wouldn’t trade my life for a minute.“ — Disability activist and blogger Emily Ladau.
Disabled people don’t want to be cured. We don’t want to be fixed. If they offered me a pill that would get rid of my disabilities entirely, once and for all, I wouldn’t take it.
If you’ve spend much time at all exploring disability culture and activism, you will have heard something like this. But can it possibly be true? Do people with disabilities really prefer being disabled? Would we really refuse a cure or effective treatment if it was offered? Or, are these defiant declarations more of a coping mechanism, a way of emphasizing the positive and avoiding the corrosive effects of too much hope for something that will probably never happen?
In some ways, rejecting the quest for disability prevention, treatments, and cures is a deliberate rhetorical choice ... a strategy aimed at three main goals:
1. To push back against the pressure most of us feel at least some of the time, in ourselves and from the outside, to devote our lives to therapy and a someday breakthrough or cure. Unrealistic hope can be toxic, and for most disabled people, struggling hard to be “normal,” or normal again, rarely pays off in the long run.
To clarify and affirm a personal choice of priorities. By rejecting or sidelining treatments and cures, we are telling ourselves and those around us that we have chosen to focus instead on our present lives and situations, not a distant, idealized goal that is largely out of our hands.
3. To strengthen our own self-acceptance, and contribute to a kind of “team disability” campaign aimed at achieving an array of social acceptance, disability rights, and disability justice goals. If either we or the general public view curing or eliminating disabilities as the ultimate goal, and all other goals as secondary or unnecessary, then it’s harder to make progress on everyday, non-medical improvements we all need right now.
“ ... there is a range of opinions in the disability community regarding the prospect of “curing” disabilities. Many disabled people support disability prevention efforts. But once they become disabled, the idea of having that condition reversed is one fraught with implications for one’s way of life, one’s identity, and one’s community.” — DisabilityWisdom.com.
So rejecting or de-emphasizing treatments and cures is partly a conscious philosophy or “stance” with a kind of political purpose. But that doesn’t mean it’s dishonest, or a performance. It is tied to authentic feelings disabled people actually have about our disabilities, our self-worth, and our place in society. It’s driven by one of the core contradictions of being a disabled person — the fact that hoping and struggling to be different than you are, or better, reinforces that who you are now isn’t good enough.
Disabled people struggle with this contradiction internally, but are also strongly influenced by popular, almost “common sense” assumptions about disability as something to be fought.
Two well-known examples illustrate this. The “Jerry’s Kids” campaign against Muscular Dystrophy, and more recently Autism Speaks’ battle to “cure” autism each in their own ways exemplified acceptance of a terrible bargain. Both campaigns, and others like them, used sentimental, pathetic, and dehumanizing imagery and rhetoric to mobilize public energy and resources to “battle” particular disabilities.
They keystone of both organizations’ approaches was, and to an extent still is, to depict life with disability as unremitting suffering and hopelessness for disabled people, and constant hardship and “burden” for their families. The theory was that the only way to draw ordinary people’s attention to disability matters is to make them feel bad for disabled people, and to fear disabilities themselves. These campaigns purported to be for the benefit of disabled people, but intentionally or not, degraded disabled people in the process. Over time, fewer and fewer disabled people were willing to accept that bargain, to play their part in the “fight for a cure” narrative where they were the helpless victims. The cost in everyday dignity was just too high, and these increasingly loathsome tactics have arguably done far more harm to disabled people than good.
In less notorious campaigns too, the enthusiasm particularly of non-disabled people for stories of miracle cures and disabled people’s struggle to be “normal” becomes corrosive to us. Regardless of any good intentions, this approach to disability is a constant reminder that we aren’t truly accepted as we are. And our everyday needs still take a back seat to dubious pie-in-the-sky visions of a humankind free of disabilities.
Another reason for this contradiction between fixing and accepting or embracing our disabilities is that both disabled and non-disabled people locate disability itself differently.
Some view disabilities as something separate from the disabled person. Hating or battling a disability is seen as similar to fighting off an invader, or trying to jettison unwanted baggage. But others experience disabilities as part of themselves. Without our disabilities, we would not be ourselves unburdened or freed, but someone else entirely. Saying, “I wish you could walk, (or hear, or see, or understand better)” often sounds to us like, “I wish you were someone else.” For many disabled people, it’s impossible to even imagine ourselves without our disabilities. Not all disabled people feel this way, and for some it takes time to reach that point. But most disabled people eventually come to feel that our disabilities are in some way a part of us, even if they don’t completely define us.
“Since I was born with my disability, I don’t feel that anything was taken away from me. It’s simply not possible to miss something I never experienced.“ — Emily Ladau.
One important factor in this is when a person’s disability started and how long they have had it. People with newly acquired disabilities are often more interested in treatments and possible cures than people with lifelong disabilities. People with newer disabilities can remember not having them. This gives them a clear idea of what a significant treatment or cure might mean. It feels more like a desirable restoration. People who have always been disabled can only speculate on what it would be like to not have their disabilities. Such thought experiments about our disabilities being erased quickly feel weird, if it can be imagined at all.
This is also a question that tends to separate people with more stable and sustainable disabilities from those with chronic illness or chronic pain. Many disabilities don’t necessarily make you feel bad on a day to day basis, but some do. So people with chronic illness and/or pain may be more interested in the possibility of meaningful treatments to alleviate actual suffering. Much the same is true for people with progressive disabilities, who face the real possibility of significantly shorter than average lifespans. When treatments and cures offer a longer life with less pure suffering, they may become a higher priority. These factors don’t completely outweigh the importance of self-acceptance, everyday needs, and a healthy sense of realism. But it underscores the crucial difference between treatments that are practical and genuinely enhance disabled people’s everyday lives, and those that promise a complete reversal and return to some conception of “normal.”
More universal ethical or religious implications also enter the debate when treatments, or preventative measures themselves involve morally contentious and historically alarming practices. These include genetic manipulation, selective breeding and forced sterilization, (eugenics), and elective abortion specifically to prevent birth the of disabled children. The goal of therapeutic improvement for individual disabled people can quickly become confused with efforts to reduce the number of disabled people who are born, or rhetoric that casts disabled people as a social problem to be eliminated, rather than a social community to be integrated and accommodated. It’s hard not to feel that some efforts to “reduce the incidence” of disability aren’t telling us, essentially, “We wish you weren’t here.”
“Sure, some days I think a cure would be nice, but it’s not one of my priorities in life.” — eparent.com.
Finally, whether to fight for a cure and commit to arduous treatments is also a question of probability and priorities. While many of us are at least open to the idea of better treatments, therapies, and even major breakthroughs, most of us quickly discover that there is little to be gained from waiting for miracles that may never come. And we are generally more concerned with more immediate, practical matters.
Disabled people’s skepticism about new therapies and breakthroughs shouldn’t be mistaken for a simplistic rejection of all treatment. We almost always welcome practical rehabilitations, healthy practices, and medications that make our lives easier and more pleasant. It’s the total commitment at all costs, for distant, unrealistic, and morally ambiguous goals we resist.
If a cure or transformative treatment is a distant ideal, like Heaven or a “promised land,” then what concerns most disabled people most of the time are more “earthly” matters like accessibility, health care, having enough income to stay out of poverty, and pushing back against disability discrimination.
“We should make it a priority to eliminate access barriers and prejudicial mindsets, rather than focusing only on eliminating disabilities. But to find ways to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life for people – those are the right reasons to support finding cures.“ — Emily Ladau.
So what does all of this mean? What should we conclude from the many facets of the conflict between cures and rights, between treatment and acceptance, between possible improvements tomorrow and rights, acceptance, and dignity today?
1. The fact that many disabled people reject treatments and cures is not as weird or counterintuitive as it sounds.
2. It is partly a political stance, but it’s also authentic. It reflects real disabled people’s actual feelings. It’s not just an abstract philosophy dreamed up in disability studies departments.
3. For many of us, though not all in the same way, there are also larger ethical questions at stake. Curing or eliminating disabilities are not morally simple goals, and the price for achieving them is often too high.
4. Disabled people usually have more important things to worry about, and focusing on a kind of radical transformation that may never come can leave us in an unhealthy holding pattern.
In the end, it’s mostly a matter of priorities. Disabled people aren’t necessarily against practical treatments that really make our lives better. But we don’t appreciate wild promises and all-consuming regimens that overshadow the social progress and practical improvements we care about more.
Especially in an election year, candidates and policymakers should take note. It’s been a long time since it was good enough to offer disabled voters more research funding. We are looking for real improvements in our lives today, not miracles tomorrow.
“Many disabled people support disability prevention efforts. But once they become disabled, the idea of having that condition reversed is one fraught with implications for one’s way of life, one’s identity, and one’s community.” — DisabilityWisdom.com.
“Without my lived experiences as a disabled person, I would be a completely different Emily. And as tough as certain aspects of my life have been, and though I know I will continue to face disability-related challenges throughout my life, I wouldn’t trade my life for a minute.“ — Disability activist and blogger Emily Ladau.
Disabled people don’t want to be cured. We don’t want to be fixed. If they offered me a pill that would get rid of my disabilities entirely, once and for all, I wouldn’t take it.
If you’ve spend much time at all exploring disability culture and activism, you will have heard something like this. But can it possibly be true? Do people with disabilities really prefer being disabled? Would we really refuse a cure or effective treatment if it was offered? Or, are these defiant declarations more of a coping mechanism, a way of emphasizing the positive and avoiding the corrosive effects of too much hope for something that will probably never happen?
In some ways, rejecting the quest for disability prevention, treatments, and cures is a deliberate rhetorical choice ... a strategy aimed at three main goals:
1. To push back against the pressure most of us feel at least some of the time, in ourselves and from the outside, to devote our lives to therapy and a someday breakthrough or cure. Unrealistic hope can be toxic, and for most disabled people, struggling hard to be “normal,” or normal again, rarely pays off in the long run.
To clarify and affirm a personal choice of priorities. By rejecting or sidelining treatments and cures, we are telling ourselves and those around us that we have chosen to focus instead on our present lives and situations, not a distant, idealized goal that is largely out of our hands.
3. To strengthen our own self-acceptance, and contribute to a kind of “team disability” campaign aimed at achieving an array of social acceptance, disability rights, and disability justice goals. If either we or the general public view curing or eliminating disabilities as the ultimate goal, and all other goals as secondary or unnecessary, then it’s harder to make progress on everyday, non-medical improvements we all need right now.
“ ... there is a range of opinions in the disability community regarding the prospect of “curing” disabilities. Many disabled people support disability prevention efforts. But once they become disabled, the idea of having that condition reversed is one fraught with implications for one’s way of life, one’s identity, and one’s community.” — DisabilityWisdom.com.
So rejecting or de-emphasizing treatments and cures is partly a conscious philosophy or “stance” with a kind of political purpose. But that doesn’t mean it’s dishonest, or a performance. It is tied to authentic feelings disabled people actually have about our disabilities, our self-worth, and our place in society. It’s driven by one of the core contradictions of being a disabled person — the fact that hoping and struggling to be different than you are, or better, reinforces that who you are now isn’t good enough.
Disabled people struggle with this contradiction internally, but are also strongly influenced by popular, almost “common sense” assumptions about disability as something to be fought.
Two well-known examples illustrate this. The “Jerry’s Kids” campaign against Muscular Dystrophy, and more recently Autism Speaks’ battle to “cure” autism each in their own ways exemplified acceptance of a terrible bargain. Both campaigns, and others like them, used sentimental, pathetic, and dehumanizing imagery and rhetoric to mobilize public energy and resources to “battle” particular disabilities.
They keystone of both organizations’ approaches was, and to an extent still is, to depict life with disability as unremitting suffering and hopelessness for disabled people, and constant hardship and “burden” for their families. The theory was that the only way to draw ordinary people’s attention to disability matters is to make them feel bad for disabled people, and to fear disabilities themselves. These campaigns purported to be for the benefit of disabled people, but intentionally or not, degraded disabled people in the process. Over time, fewer and fewer disabled people were willing to accept that bargain, to play their part in the “fight for a cure” narrative where they were the helpless victims. The cost in everyday dignity was just too high, and these increasingly loathsome tactics have arguably done far more harm to disabled people than good.
In less notorious campaigns too, the enthusiasm particularly of non-disabled people for stories of miracle cures and disabled people’s struggle to be “normal” becomes corrosive to us. Regardless of any good intentions, this approach to disability is a constant reminder that we aren’t truly accepted as we are. And our everyday needs still take a back seat to dubious pie-in-the-sky visions of a humankind free of disabilities.
Another reason for this contradiction between fixing and accepting or embracing our disabilities is that both disabled and non-disabled people locate disability itself differently.
Some view disabilities as something separate from the disabled person. Hating or battling a disability is seen as similar to fighting off an invader, or trying to jettison unwanted baggage. But others experience disabilities as part of themselves. Without our disabilities, we would not be ourselves unburdened or freed, but someone else entirely. Saying, “I wish you could walk, (or hear, or see, or understand better)” often sounds to us like, “I wish you were someone else.” For many disabled people, it’s impossible to even imagine ourselves without our disabilities. Not all disabled people feel this way, and for some it takes time to reach that point. But most disabled people eventually come to feel that our disabilities are in some way a part of us, even if they don’t completely define us.
“Since I was born with my disability, I don’t feel that anything was taken away from me. It’s simply not possible to miss something I never experienced.“ — Emily Ladau.
One important factor in this is when a person’s disability started and how long they have had it. People with newly acquired disabilities are often more interested in treatments and possible cures than people with lifelong disabilities. People with newer disabilities can remember not having them. This gives them a clear idea of what a significant treatment or cure might mean. It feels more like a desirable restoration. People who have always been disabled can only speculate on what it would be like to not have their disabilities. Such thought experiments about our disabilities being erased quickly feel weird, if it can be imagined at all.
This is also a question that tends to separate people with more stable and sustainable disabilities from those with chronic illness or chronic pain. Many disabilities don’t necessarily make you feel bad on a day to day basis, but some do. So people with chronic illness and/or pain may be more interested in the possibility of meaningful treatments to alleviate actual suffering. Much the same is true for people with progressive disabilities, who face the real possibility of significantly shorter than average lifespans. When treatments and cures offer a longer life with less pure suffering, they may become a higher priority. These factors don’t completely outweigh the importance of self-acceptance, everyday needs, and a healthy sense of realism. But it underscores the crucial difference between treatments that are practical and genuinely enhance disabled people’s everyday lives, and those that promise a complete reversal and return to some conception of “normal.”
More universal ethical or religious implications also enter the debate when treatments, or preventative measures themselves involve morally contentious and historically alarming practices. These include genetic manipulation, selective breeding and forced sterilization, (eugenics), and elective abortion specifically to prevent birth the of disabled children. The goal of therapeutic improvement for individual disabled people can quickly become confused with efforts to reduce the number of disabled people who are born, or rhetoric that casts disabled people as a social problem to be eliminated, rather than a social community to be integrated and accommodated. It’s hard not to feel that some efforts to “reduce the incidence” of disability aren’t telling us, essentially, “We wish you weren’t here.”
“Sure, some days I think a cure would be nice, but it’s not one of my priorities in life.” — eparent.com.
Finally, whether to fight for a cure and commit to arduous treatments is also a question of probability and priorities. While many of us are at least open to the idea of better treatments, therapies, and even major breakthroughs, most of us quickly discover that there is little to be gained from waiting for miracles that may never come. And we are generally more concerned with more immediate, practical matters.
Disabled people’s skepticism about new therapies and breakthroughs shouldn’t be mistaken for a simplistic rejection of all treatment. We almost always welcome practical rehabilitations, healthy practices, and medications that make our lives easier and more pleasant. It’s the total commitment at all costs, for distant, unrealistic, and morally ambiguous goals we resist.
If a cure or transformative treatment is a distant ideal, like Heaven or a “promised land,” then what concerns most disabled people most of the time are more “earthly” matters like accessibility, health care, having enough income to stay out of poverty, and pushing back against disability discrimination.
“We should make it a priority to eliminate access barriers and prejudicial mindsets, rather than focusing only on eliminating disabilities. But to find ways to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life for people – those are the right reasons to support finding cures.“ — Emily Ladau.
So what does all of this mean? What should we conclude from the many facets of the conflict between cures and rights, between treatment and acceptance, between possible improvements tomorrow and rights, acceptance, and dignity today?
1. The fact that many disabled people reject treatments and cures is not as weird or counterintuitive as it sounds.
2. It is partly a political stance, but it’s also authentic. It reflects real disabled people’s actual feelings. It’s not just an abstract philosophy dreamed up in disability studies departments.
3. For many of us, though not all in the same way, there are also larger ethical questions at stake. Curing or eliminating disabilities are not morally simple goals, and the price for achieving them is often too high.
4. Disabled people usually have more important things to worry about, and focusing on a kind of radical transformation that may never come can leave us in an unhealthy holding pattern.
In the end, it’s mostly a matter of priorities. Disabled people aren’t necessarily against practical treatments that really make our lives better. But we don’t appreciate wild promises and all-consuming regimens that overshadow the social progress and practical improvements we care about more.
Especially in an election year, candidates and policymakers should take note. It’s been a long time since it was good enough to offer disabled voters more research funding. We are looking for real improvements in our lives today, not miracles tomorrow.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
08 Sep 2020, 8:09 am
Immediate needs instead of some promise.
It's mostly a matter of priorities.
I like it.
And I know where I stand. 
Personally, I aim to attain the higher forms of self acceptance; transcend even from the most ideal and authentic attitudes of neurodiversity.
And accumulate every possible adaptive and attainably plausible solutions for myself.
The source mattered a little (whether it's supposedly for autistic audience, parents section, for the anxious and depressed crowds or for women overall) as long as it is relevant and it works.
Anything else beyond that is mostly just some fancy of an idea.
And I'm also guilty of having to fancy stuff that may or may never ever be.
I also accept such thoughts do enters my mind and sometimes my heart.
Strong enough to assume that others may desire the same? As other people do unto another just the same.
In turn, I also must acknowledge the fact that other people views the same thoughts and ideas very differently from mine.
And accumulate every possible adaptive and attainably plausible solutions for myself.
The source mattered a little (whether it's supposedly for autistic audience, parents section, for the anxious and depressed crowds or for women overall) as long as it is relevant and it works.
Anything else beyond that is mostly just some fancy of an idea.
And I'm also guilty of having to fancy stuff that may or may never ever be.
I also accept such thoughts do enters my mind and sometimes my heart.
Strong enough to assume that others may desire the same? As other people do unto another just the same.
In turn, I also must acknowledge the fact that other people views the same thoughts and ideas very differently from mine.
_________________
Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).
Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.
08 Sep 2020, 12:03 pm
I find it shocking that they casually inserted paragraph 21 into the rest of the text. As far as the idea of a cure, that's complicated and I can see both sides. As far as selective sterilization and selective breeding, I am strongly opposed to it, and my opposition to this one thing is 100 times more important than any and all pro and con thoughts I might have regarding the cure. Yet the author of this paper doesn't seem to see it that way as evident by them only inserting one paragraph on it and acting like it's "just another cure". Do everyone else see it that way? Is THAT why people are trying to help me with all kinds of things EXCEPT finding me a partner so that I can finally marry and have kids?
The author of the paper basically says that cure eliminates disability, selective breeding eliminates disability too, so selective breeding is a form of a cure. But what they seem to forget is that there is one more thing that eliminates disability: genocide. So I view selective breeding as an example of a genocide rather than a cure. The author says if I were to be cured it won't be me any more. Well in literal genetic sense it still would be. BUT if I were to be either genocided OR prevented from reproducing THEN my real physical genes will be taken out.
In fact here is a good illustration of this contrast. A cure would enable the opposite gender to like you better and thus will enable you to pass your genes. So which is worse? Refusing a cure so that your current self remains while your genes are gone? Or accepting a cure so that your genes remain but your current self is gone? I was getting a lot of advice in favor of a former. When I complain about not having a girlfriend I am told "it doesn't matter if you are single just be happy with yourself". And I always feel like "if you think I should be happy with myself, why don't you think my genes deserve to survive".
And even if you take genetic aspect aside, there are other ways in which selective breeding is opposite to a cure rather than the same. The goal of a cure is that you can enjoy the same things as most people (with or without your identity intact). The goal of selective breeding is that you do *not* enjoy one of the things others enjoy: you don't get to reproduce. So in this sense it's opposite. I can see the authors point that both serve the purpose of elimination, so maybe it's not "totally" opposite. But let's say it's by the angle of 120 degrees instead of 180.
I am wondering if there are any disability advocates that CHOSE not to reproduce yet also claim that their lack of reproduction is part of their identity that they are so proud of. That would be such a ridiculous position to take! If you are proud of who you are, why don't you want kids to share in your pride?
08 Sep 2020, 2:50 pm
QFT wrote:
I find it shocking that they casually inserted paragraph 21 into the rest of the text. As far as the idea of a cure, that's complicated and I can see both sides. As far as selective sterilization and selective breeding, I am strongly opposed to it, and my opposition to this one thing is 100 times more important than any and all pro and con thoughts I might have regarding the cure. Yet the author of this paper doesn't seem to see it that way as evident by them only inserting one paragraph on it and acting like it's "just another cure". Do everyone else see it that way? Is THAT why people are trying to help me with all kinds of things EXCEPT finding me a partner so that I can finally marry and have kids?
The author of the paper basically says that cure eliminates disability, selective breeding eliminates disability too, so selective breeding is a form of a cure. But what they seem to forget is that there is one more thing that eliminates disability: genocide. So I view selective breeding as an example of a genocide rather than a cure. The author says if I were to be cured it won't be me any more. Well in literal genetic sense it still would be. BUT if I were to be either genocided OR prevented from reproducing THEN my real physical genes will be taken out.
In fact here is a good illustration of this contrast. A cure would enable the opposite gender to like you better and thus will enable you to pass your genes. So which is worse? Refusing a cure so that your current self remains while your genes are gone? Or accepting a cure so that your genes remain but your current self is gone? I was getting a lot of advice in favor of a former. When I complain about not having a girlfriend I am told "it doesn't matter if you are single just be happy with yourself". And I always feel like "if you think I should be happy with myself, why don't you think my genes deserve to survive".
And even if you take genetic aspect aside, there are other ways in which selective breeding is opposite to a cure rather than the same. The goal of a cure is that you can enjoy the same things as most people (with or without your identity intact). The goal of selective breeding is that you do *not* enjoy one of the things others enjoy: you don't get to reproduce. So in this sense it's opposite. I can see the authors point that both serve the purpose of elimination, so maybe it's not "totally" opposite. But let's say it's by the angle of 120 degrees instead of 180.
I am wondering if there are any disability advocates that CHOSE not to reproduce yet also claim that their lack of reproduction is part of their identity that they are so proud of. That would be such a ridiculous position to take! If you are proud of who you are, why don't you want kids to share in your pride?
The author of the paper basically says that cure eliminates disability, selective breeding eliminates disability too, so selective breeding is a form of a cure. But what they seem to forget is that there is one more thing that eliminates disability: genocide. So I view selective breeding as an example of a genocide rather than a cure. The author says if I were to be cured it won't be me any more. Well in literal genetic sense it still would be. BUT if I were to be either genocided OR prevented from reproducing THEN my real physical genes will be taken out.
In fact here is a good illustration of this contrast. A cure would enable the opposite gender to like you better and thus will enable you to pass your genes. So which is worse? Refusing a cure so that your current self remains while your genes are gone? Or accepting a cure so that your genes remain but your current self is gone? I was getting a lot of advice in favor of a former. When I complain about not having a girlfriend I am told "it doesn't matter if you are single just be happy with yourself". And I always feel like "if you think I should be happy with myself, why don't you think my genes deserve to survive".
And even if you take genetic aspect aside, there are other ways in which selective breeding is opposite to a cure rather than the same. The goal of a cure is that you can enjoy the same things as most people (with or without your identity intact). The goal of selective breeding is that you do *not* enjoy one of the things others enjoy: you don't get to reproduce. So in this sense it's opposite. I can see the authors point that both serve the purpose of elimination, so maybe it's not "totally" opposite. But let's say it's by the angle of 120 degrees instead of 180.
I am wondering if there are any disability advocates that CHOSE not to reproduce yet also claim that their lack of reproduction is part of their identity that they are so proud of. That would be such a ridiculous position to take! If you are proud of who you are, why don't you want kids to share in your pride?
I’m against sterilization but not sure what you mean by “selective breeding”.
If you’re talking about eugenics fair enough but I don’t see any gov power promoting real eugenics?
Normal selective breeding happens every day in the human world, it’s another word for sexual attraction or consensual sex. The opposite of selective breeding is rape & forced relationships & marriage.
Selective breeding (or normal relationships) is not genocide since nobody is born to be killed. When an IVF technician picks the best sperm & egg for the host couple is that genocide?
“The author says if I were to be cured it won't be me anymore.”
It depends what you mean by “me anymore”.
That tends to be an unscientific myth peddled by ND advocates. The brain isn’t a hard drive that can be wiped clean of previous memory. You wouldn’t wake up a new born baby.
Most likely we`d just be free of anxiety think more clearly and have our neural connections fire and be connected in a way that nature intended and live the rest of our lives in peace.
_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernie Shaw
08 Sep 2020, 6:38 pm
carlos wrote:
I’m against sterilization but not sure what you mean by “selective breeding”.
The place I got selective breeding from is from the OP itself. The paragraph where I saw it is quoted below.
OP wrote:
More universal ethical or religious implications also enter the debate when treatments, or preventative measures themselves involve morally contentious and historically alarming practices. These include genetic manipulation, selective breeding and forced sterilization, (eugenics), and elective abortion specifically to prevent birth the of disabled children. The goal of therapeutic improvement for individual disabled people can quickly become confused with efforts to reduce the number of disabled people who are born, or rhetoric that casts disabled people as a social problem to be eliminated, rather than a social community to be integrated and accommodated. It’s hard not to feel that some efforts to “reduce the incidence” of disability aren’t telling us, essentially, “We wish you weren’t here.”
As far as what they mean by selective breeding, apparently they left it up to the reader to fill in that gap.
One theory that I have is maybe they are referring to the fact that nobody tries to play matchmaker for a disabled person since they assume that disabled people shouldn't date anyway. Throughout the last 10 years I remember just only 4 times when someone tried to match me up with someone -- and 2 of those 4 times was through my mom. So maybe people are trying to "selectively breed me out".
08 Sep 2020, 8:16 pm
I think "cures" is a complex word. If I took an NT pill that would eliminate my autism, what would I be? Would I be very social? Not all NTs are social. Would I not be interested in learning--that can also be an NT trait.
And what are we "curing"? Ham? (Sorry, aspie joke.) But if I can have a cure for the negative aspects of autism, I would certainly be interested. What if I could change my anxiety and depression, not medicate it, but eliminate it. I might find that attractive.
But to be honest, the idea of "cures" are really addressing the edges, not rewriting the underlying person.
08 Sep 2020, 9:16 pm
I dunno about anyone else, but I'd know which cure and outcome I'm looking for myself.
Unlike most nondisabled people, it's not born from some presumption or sympathy.
Unlike most of disabled born people, my idea of cure does not involve an imaginary other life.
And unlike most disabled-acquired people, it's not something I lost or gained in my life at all.
Maybe unlike most aspies even, mines not born from a dream or a theory.
The 'cure' isn't even involved becoming an NT or less autistic.
The idea of cure of mine involves being simply less trapped in my own body and head, and more in control of my thoughts, expressions and actions.
And I've experienced how it felt like through unknown reasons.
Which means I don't need a cure for autism, or at least a cure for my autism because it happened while being autistic.
What I need was to get rid of whatever's keeping me from being adaptive, reliable and productive.
_________________
Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).
Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.
09 Sep 2020, 2:44 am
QFT wrote:
carlos wrote:
I’m against sterilization but not sure what you mean by “selective breeding”.
The place I got selective breeding from is from the OP itself. The paragraph where I saw it is quoted below.
OP wrote:
More universal ethical or religious implications also enter the debate when treatments, or preventative measures themselves involve morally contentious and historically alarming practices. These include genetic manipulation, selective breeding and forced sterilization, (eugenics), and elective abortion specifically to prevent birth the of disabled children. The goal of therapeutic improvement for individual disabled people can quickly become confused with efforts to reduce the number of disabled people who are born, or rhetoric that casts disabled people as a social problem to be eliminated, rather than a social community to be integrated and accommodated. It’s hard not to feel that some efforts to “reduce the incidence” of disability aren’t telling us, essentially, “We wish you weren’t here.”
As far as what they mean by selective breeding, apparently they left it up to the reader to fill in that gap.
One theory that I have is maybe they are referring to the fact that nobody tries to play matchmaker for a disabled person since they assume that disabled people shouldn't date anyway. Throughout the last 10 years I remember just only 4 times when someone tried to match me up with someone -- and 2 of those 4 times was through my mom. So maybe people are trying to "selectively breed me out".
Yes I know what you mean.
Though on the societal level we have tv shows like love on the spectrum & the un Dateables in the UK, That regularly matchmake autistic people. These challenge the idea that autistic people are incapable of relationships.
As far as your personal situation is concerned I suspect it’s probably a mixture of has he got too much going on in his head to think about love?
would he be able to maintain a relationship?
would he be able to take responsibility for a child?
Would the child be severely disabled and would it be fair to bring it into the world?
Unfortunately autistic functionality isn’t uniform in families, so many aspies father severely autistic children or have severely autistic siblings like advocate Tom Clements.
_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernie Shaw
09 Sep 2020, 3:03 am
carlos55 wrote:
As far as your personal situation is concerned I suspect it’s probably a mixture of has he got too much going on in his head to think about love?
And what if the *topic* I got in my head is "why nobody likes me". In this case, this topic won't be in my head any more once I finally find love. Thinking about this stuff in my head is a "second best" because I don't have anybody. Yet people assume I should be deprived of *the* best so that I can continue to be preoccupied with the second best.
carlos55 wrote:
would he be able to maintain a relationship?
I did in the past. But then again it was several years ago and I wasn't living where I am living now, so how do people know it. But then why do they assume I didn't have relationships in the past? Why make assumptions instead of asking me? And besides, there were some instances when I mentioned my past relationships but others ignored it as if they were thinking those were imaginary girlfriends.
carlos55 wrote:
would he be able to take responsibility for a child?
Not any time soon *BUT* I want to have a child at some point since I don't want my genes to die off. The reason I say "not any time soon" is because I want to put my career together first. But then again, I am 40, so I guess I am in a really bad situation so maybe I do want it soon, I don't know what to do, I am trapped.
But that is all immaterial because the point is that how do they know any of it if they haven't asked me that question? In other words, why are they making assumptions instead of asking me?
carlos55 wrote:
Would the child be severely disabled and would it be fair to bring it into the world?
That, right there, is the genocide that I was talking about.
carlos55 wrote:
Unfortunately autistic functionality isn’t uniform in families, so many aspies father severely autistic children or have severely autistic siblings like advocate Tom Clements.
But it can go both ways. What about the fact that none of my relatives were diagnosed with anything on the spectrum, even though I presumably got my genes from them?
And in any case, that is the risk I am willing to take in order for my genes to survive. If I do have a child, then there is a chance that I can get a child thats capable of normal life. If I don't have a child then there is no chance of it ever happening.
09 Sep 2020, 4:13 am
QFT wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
As far as your personal situation is concerned I suspect it’s probably a mixture of has he got too much going on in his head to think about love?
And what if the *topic* I got in my head is "why nobody likes me". In this case, this topic won't be in my head any more once I finally find love. Thinking about this stuff in my head is a "second best" because I don't have anybody. Yet people assume I should be deprived of *the* best so that I can continue to be preoccupied with the second best.
carlos55 wrote:
would he be able to maintain a relationship?
I did in the past. But then again it was several years ago and I wasn't living where I am living now, so how do people know it. But then why do they assume I didn't have relationships in the past? Why make assumptions instead of asking me? And besides, there were some instances when I mentioned my past relationships but others ignored it as if they were thinking those were imaginary girlfriends.
carlos55 wrote:
would he be able to take responsibility for a child?
Not any time soon *BUT* I want to have a child at some point since I don't want my genes to die off. The reason I say "not any time soon" is because I want to put my career together first. But then again, I am 40, so I guess I am in a really bad situation so maybe I do want it soon, I don't know what to do, I am trapped.
But that is all immaterial because the point is that how do they know any of it if they haven't asked me that question? In other words, why are they making assumptions instead of asking me?
carlos55 wrote:
Would the child be severely disabled and would it be fair to bring it into the world?
That, right there, is the genocide that I was talking about.
carlos55 wrote:
Unfortunately autistic functionality isn’t uniform in families, so many aspies father severely autistic children or have severely autistic siblings like advocate Tom Clements.
But it can go both ways. What about the fact that none of my relatives were diagnosed with anything on the spectrum, even though I presumably got my genes from them?
And in any case, that is the risk I am willing to take in order for my genes to survive. If I do have a child, then there is a chance that I can get a child thats capable of normal life. If I don't have a child then there is no chance of it ever happening.
Only you know your own capabilities.
Why are you relying on your family to matchmake for you though? Most people don’t rely on their mum to get them dates and would ignore their advice.
Maybe that’s a clue to the questions in terms of your own capabilities.
If your unable to meet a partner on your own , i.e join a dating website etc are you really in the position to look after a baby?
Also not having a child is not genocide by the way. Self imposed eugenics maybe but for something to be genocide someone has to die like for there to be a murder, you need a dead body.
Of course it’s none of my business what you do just giving my 5 cents opinion since you asked.
By the way if your 40 and want to be a father you should get your skates on female fertility falls off a cliff after about 35. Unless your one of the billionaire Rothschild family Most young women don’t tend to mate with older men.
_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernie Shaw
09 Sep 2020, 9:58 am
carlos55 wrote:
Only you know your own capabilities.
Why are you relying on your family to matchmake for you though? Most people don’t rely on their mum to get them dates and would ignore their advice.
Maybe that’s a clue to the questions in terms of your own capabilities.
If your unable to meet a partner on your own , i.e join a dating website etc are you really in the position to look after a baby?
Also not having a child is not genocide by the way. Self imposed eugenics maybe but for something to be genocide someone has to die like for there to be a murder, you need a dead body.
Of course it’s none of my business what you do just giving my 5 cents opinion since you asked.
By the way if your 40 and want to be a father you should get your skates on female fertility falls off a cliff after about 35. Unless your one of the billionaire Rothschild family Most young women don’t tend to mate with older men.
Why are you relying on your family to matchmake for you though? Most people don’t rely on their mum to get them dates and would ignore their advice.
Maybe that’s a clue to the questions in terms of your own capabilities.
If your unable to meet a partner on your own , i.e join a dating website etc are you really in the position to look after a baby?
Also not having a child is not genocide by the way. Self imposed eugenics maybe but for something to be genocide someone has to die like for there to be a murder, you need a dead body.
Of course it’s none of my business what you do just giving my 5 cents opinion since you asked.
By the way if your 40 and want to be a father you should get your skates on female fertility falls off a cliff after about 35. Unless your one of the billionaire Rothschild family Most young women don’t tend to mate with older men.
The reason I can't find a woman on my own is that women don't like me. If you read my other posts on this forum you will see that most of them pertain to women I met on my own that don't like me. And yes I am on a dating site but women don't respond.
But here is a commonality to think about. The reason women don't like me is the same reason why third parties aren't trying to match me up. And that common reason might be society's idea that people with Asperger shouldn't date.
The way in which it is a genocide is that it results in taking my genes out of the gene pool. I just get to enjoy my life before my genes die. So it's like a humane way of killing an animal when it gets to enjoy things before it's put to sleep (and I am against animals being put to sleep too).
09 Sep 2020, 2:00 pm
QFT wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
Only you know your own capabilities.
Why are you relying on your family to matchmake for you though? Most people don’t rely on their mum to get them dates and would ignore their advice.
Maybe that’s a clue to the questions in terms of your own capabilities.
If your unable to meet a partner on your own , i.e join a dating website etc are you really in the position to look after a baby?
Also not having a child is not genocide by the way. Self imposed eugenics maybe but for something to be genocide someone has to die like for there to be a murder, you need a dead body.
Of course it’s none of my business what you do just giving my 5 cents opinion since you asked.
By the way if your 40 and want to be a father you should get your skates on female fertility falls off a cliff after about 35. Unless your one of the billionaire Rothschild family Most young women don’t tend to mate with older men.
Why are you relying on your family to matchmake for you though? Most people don’t rely on their mum to get them dates and would ignore their advice.
Maybe that’s a clue to the questions in terms of your own capabilities.
If your unable to meet a partner on your own , i.e join a dating website etc are you really in the position to look after a baby?
Also not having a child is not genocide by the way. Self imposed eugenics maybe but for something to be genocide someone has to die like for there to be a murder, you need a dead body.
Of course it’s none of my business what you do just giving my 5 cents opinion since you asked.
By the way if your 40 and want to be a father you should get your skates on female fertility falls off a cliff after about 35. Unless your one of the billionaire Rothschild family Most young women don’t tend to mate with older men.
The reason I can't find a woman on my own is that women don't like me. If you read my other posts on this forum you will see that most of them pertain to women I met on my own that don't like me. And yes I am on a dating site but women don't respond.
But here is a commonality to think about. The reason women don't like me is the same reason why third parties aren't trying to match me up. And that common reason might be society's idea that people with Asperger shouldn't date.
The way in which it is a genocide is that it results in taking my genes out of the gene pool. I just get to enjoy my life before my genes die. So it's like a humane way of killing an animal when it gets to enjoy things before it's put to sleep (and I am against animals being put to sleep too).
The correct term is natural selection rather than genocide. Without meaning to sound misogynist men tend to go for beauty, & NT women go for attributes that you might call “anti autistic” very NT, things like status, confidence, talking, making them laugh etc.
Which is why nature is probably more forgiving with relationships to aspie women with milder symptoms than aspie men.
In fact historic low employment & social status expectations together with some autistic attributes like shyness was probably considered a positive attribute in women over the centuries & in other cultures, which might explain why autistic genes have continued to survive in the human genome despite the obvious disadvantages.
My obvious advice to you is to forget NT women & to join an agency that specialises in autistic disability matchmaking, there’s some around, google is your friend.
As far as continuing your bloodline, you could have a child who was gay, infertile or just didn’t want kids so your bloodline would end anyway just a few more years down the line. Most of us with ASD simply make peace with the realisation that our genes end with us.
Good luck
_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernie Shaw
Last edited by carlos55 on 09 Sep 2020, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
09 Sep 2020, 2:22 pm
carlos55 wrote:
The correct term is natural selection rather than genocide.
The way it is genocide is that women make a *decision* of what they are looking for. If a woman is being attracted to "anti autistic" traits as you put it, that might be due to her *mindset* that autism is inferior. And if genes end up dying out due to peoples *mindset* about them, thats genocide.
carlos55 wrote:
As far as continuing your bloodline, you could have a child who was gay, infertile or just didn’t want kids so your bloodline would end anyway just a few more years down the line
How can it be "few more years", unless you say that people live only few years and they reproduce when they are few years old?
In any case, I know there is a "chance" my child might be gay or infantile or not want kids, but that chance is pretty low. Or are you saying that nowdays less and less people want kids?
09 Sep 2020, 2:40 pm
QFT wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
The correct term is natural selection rather than genocide.
The way it is genocide is that women make a *decision* of what they are looking for. If a woman is being attracted to "anti autistic" traits as you put it, that might be due to her *mindset* that autism is inferior. And if genes end up dying out due to peoples *mindset* about them, thats genocide.
carlos55 wrote:
As far as continuing your bloodline, you could have a child who was gay, infertile or just didn’t want kids so your bloodline would end anyway just a few more years down the line
How can it be "few more years", unless you say that people live only few years and they reproduce when they are few years old?
In any case, I know there is a "chance" my child might be gay or infantile or not want kids, but that chance is pretty low. Or are you saying that nowdays less and less people want kids?
Quote:
The way it is genocide is that women make a *decision* of what they are looking for. If a woman is being attracted to "anti autistic" traits as you put it, that might be due to her *mindset* that autism is inferior. And if genes end up dying out due to peoples *mindset* about them, thats genocide.
Sorry its still not genocide we`ll just have to agree to disagree:
Dictionary - genocide:-
"the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
"a campaign of genocide" - LIVING PEOPLE
Dictionary - Natural Selection:-
Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Natural Eugenics
Men and women are hardwired in this way its just the way sexuality is, nothing will change this. No more that you`ll stop being straight & be attracted to men because of the progress of LGBT. As i said your better off trying dating sites for those with disabilities.
Quote:
How can it be "few more years", unless you say that people live only few years and they reproduce when they are few years old?In any case, I know there is a "chance" my child might be gay or infantile or not want kids, but that chance is pretty low. Or are you saying that nowdays less and less people want kids?
Ok a generation or two if the average life span is 80 although its 56 for autistic people, & yes nowdays less people want kids, the birthrate in the west has been falling for a long time.
0
_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernie Shaw
09 Sep 2020, 3:18 pm
carlos55 wrote:
Men and women are hardwired in this way its just the way sexuality is, nothing will change this.
But the notions such as social status is not something you just know when you are born. That is something you are socialized into learning. And you can't just look at the photo and say "hey, this guy has a high reputation". Rather, you know about it by listening to what your friends say. Thats why I feel like its not just an instinctive biological reaction but rather a bi-product of the world view.
Yes, the world view *triggers* certain emotions, so I agree that -- at the end -- the woman's vagina won't get wet if someone is of low status. But that only underscores just how deeply her world view got ingrained in her head that she even feels it in her body.
Also what about the whole thing of attraction to cheerful outgoing men with good sense of humor. That sounds like a trait favored in the 21-st century Western culture. So what about Middle East or Asia? Would they also favor those traits? And what if you go back to the Middle Ages? Do you think those traits were favored back then? If the answer is no, that would be a proof right there that it is social conditioning.
I guess I have some info to counter what I just said. I spent 5 years in India doing postdocs and -- even though I am not interested in dating non-white girls -- I still wish I could be friends with them for emotional validation, but they didn't seem to talk to me that much. And yes, it seemed to have been the same thing that happens in the US, just perhaps to a milder extend. They all seemed more outgoing than me.
However, I basically blame this on the fact that Western culture spread over there. I mean I noticed only younger generation being outgoing, I didn't notice it on the older generation. Also I am talking about the younger generation that goes to university and speaks fluent English -- which would be the audience that is the most succeptable to the Western influence.
One thing I saw on youtube just a few days ago is that the women in Eastern Europe prefer men that are serious rather than cheerful, while the Western European women prefer the cheerful kind (see here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... pill+cloun ). So that makes it seem like the Western influence got to India faster than to Eastern Europe, which is a bit surprising of course. But still the point is that its cultural rather than biological.
carlos55 wrote:
No more that you`ll stop being straight & be attracted to men because of the progress of LGBT.
That one is also more complicated than meets the eye. I was always wondering whether all women are secretly bi, since they are hugging each other while I find it physically repulsive to hug a man. When I was asking women this question they were telling me that the reason I find it physically repulsive to hug a man is that I was conditioned that way. And I said no I wasn't conditioned: it was purely a biology. Because I don't remember any conversations about it, I just know it feels repulsive. But then when I was in India I saw men hugging each other. So then I was stuck with a question: if its pure biology, then why would Indian men have different biology in this regard? So could it be that those women were right and it *is* a social conditioning -- except that this conditioning happened in such a subtle way that I can't ever remember it for the life of me?
In any case, if my dislike of hugging men is social conditioning, then maybe woman's lack of attraction to aspies is a social conditioning too? And in both cases it *seems* like biology when it isn't.
carlos55 wrote:
As i said your better off trying dating sites for those with disabilities.
I googled autistic matchmaking and found https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/netfli ... 234646974/
It looks like its a TV show. If thats true then I have several questions:
a) Would they have a capacity to bring millions of people into the show? If no, then how do they pick the very few lucky ones? And wouldn't that be too low of a chance that they would pick me?
b) Would I have to pay to be on a show? How much do I have to pay? If its, say, 100 dollars, then fine I can pay it. But if it is thousands, then its too much.
c) Wouldn't it be wkward to have the whole country watch me like that?
carlos55 wrote:
Ok a generation or two if the average life span is 80 although its 56 for autistic people,
Why would it be 56 for autistic people? Is it
a) Because of suicide rate
b) Because they can't have stable employment so they don't have funds to take adequate care of themselves (such as getting medical help when needed)
c) Because autism has underlying medical causes and those medical issues -- which caused autism on the first place -- are also causing a person to live less
d) Something else (specify)
carlos55 wrote:
yes nowdays less people want kids, the birthrate in the west has been falling for a long time.
Is it because nowdays people no longer associate their genetic line with themselves? Like my whole complaint about genocide, do you think people few decades ago would have been more likely to agree with me since they were more focused on continuations of their own lines?
10 Sep 2020, 7:42 am
QFT wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
Men and women are hardwired in this way its just the way sexuality is, nothing will change this.
But the notions such as social status is not something you just know when you are born. That is something you are socialized into learning. And you can't just look at the photo and say "hey, this guy has a high reputation". Rather, you know about it by listening to what your friends say. Thats why I feel like its not just an instinctive biological reaction but rather a bi-product of the world view.
Yes, the world view *triggers* certain emotions, so I agree that -- at the end -- the woman's vagina won't get wet if someone is of low status. But that only underscores just how deeply her world view got ingrained in her head that she even feels it in her body.
Also what about the whole thing of attraction to cheerful outgoing men with good sense of humor. That sounds like a trait favored in the 21-st century Western culture. So what about Middle East or Asia? Would they also favor those traits? And what if you go back to the Middle Ages? Do you think those traits were favored back then? If the answer is no, that would be a proof right there that it is social conditioning.
I guess I have some info to counter what I just said. I spent 5 years in India doing postdocs and -- even though I am not interested in dating non-white girls -- I still wish I could be friends with them for emotional validation, but they didn't seem to talk to me that much. And yes, it seemed to have been the same thing that happens in the US, just perhaps to a milder extend. They all seemed more outgoing than me.
However, I basically blame this on the fact that Western culture spread over there. I mean I noticed only younger generation being outgoing, I didn't notice it on the older generation. Also I am talking about the younger generation that goes to university and speaks fluent English -- which would be the audience that is the most succeptable to the Western influence.
One thing I saw on youtube just a few days ago is that the women in Eastern Europe prefer men that are serious rather than cheerful, while the Western European women prefer the cheerful kind (see here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... pill+cloun ). So that makes it seem like the Western influence got to India faster than to Eastern Europe, which is a bit surprising of course. But still the point is that its cultural rather than biological.
carlos55 wrote:
No more that you`ll stop being straight & be attracted to men because of the progress of LGBT.
That one is also more complicated than meets the eye. I was always wondering whether all women are secretly bi, since they are hugging each other while I find it physically repulsive to hug a man. When I was asking women this question they were telling me that the reason I find it physically repulsive to hug a man is that I was conditioned that way. And I said no I wasn't conditioned: it was purely a biology. Because I don't remember any conversations about it, I just know it feels repulsive. But then when I was in India I saw men hugging each other. So then I was stuck with a question: if its pure biology, then why would Indian men have different biology in this regard? So could it be that those women were right and it *is* a social conditioning -- except that this conditioning happened in such a subtle way that I can't ever remember it for the life of me?
In any case, if my dislike of hugging men is social conditioning, then maybe woman's lack of attraction to aspies is a social conditioning too? And in both cases it *seems* like biology when it isn't.
carlos55 wrote:
As i said your better off trying dating sites for those with disabilities.
I googled autistic matchmaking and found https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/netfli ... 234646974/
It looks like its a TV show. If thats true then I have several questions:
a) Would they have a capacity to bring millions of people into the show? If no, then how do they pick the very few lucky ones? And wouldn't that be too low of a chance that they would pick me?
b) Would I have to pay to be on a show? How much do I have to pay? If its, say, 100 dollars, then fine I can pay it. But if it is thousands, then its too much.
c) Wouldn't it be wkward to have the whole country watch me like that?
carlos55 wrote:
Ok a generation or two if the average life span is 80 although its 56 for autistic people,
Why would it be 56 for autistic people? Is it
a) Because of suicide rate
b) Because they can't have stable employment so they don't have funds to take adequate care of themselves (such as getting medical help when needed)
c) Because autism has underlying medical causes and those medical issues -- which caused autism on the first place -- are also causing a person to live less
d) Something else (specify)
carlos55 wrote:
yes nowdays less people want kids, the birthrate in the west has been falling for a long time.
Is it because nowdays people no longer associate their genetic line with themselves? Like my whole complaint about genocide, do you think people few decades ago would have been more likely to agree with me since they were more focused on continuations of their own lines?
I think you’ll find the same rules for sexual attraction work everywhere transcending human history and civilizations.So you’ll find women in Eastern Europe the same as the US just like the men are the same below the psychological surface.
There was a book released in the 90’s called Mars and Venus on a date that goes into this sort of thing that I would recommend.
We have more problems with dating than NT guys that go beyond just a label.
Anxiety, poor communication being the biggest turn offs.
Our issues are well documented along with our shorter life span although life span is an average you can beat if you look after your self and avoid suicide.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... d-marriage
_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernie Shaw
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Should I get a second opinion? |
03 Apr 2024, 2:23 pm |
| controversial feelings |
15 Feb 2024, 10:45 am |
| Do you think plants have feelings? |
12 Apr 2024, 4:29 pm |
| Do you think animals have feelings? |
02 Apr 2024, 7:05 pm |
