Is informed consent valuable for autistics?

Post Reply New Topic

So, In a large study I did with Aspie Quiz last year with several thousand participants I asked people about sexual abuse and added a few items that might relate to this. Those were "Have you been talked into having sex even if you really didn't want to? (correlated .49), "Were you abused by parents as a child?" (correlated .41), "Have people you formed strong attachments to taken advantage of you?" (correlated .38), and "Do you have panic attacks?" (correlated .29).

It's quite likely that neglect or abuse in the family predisposed people to get sexually abused, although part of it might actually be from family (unknown since the questions wasn't about this). Having panic attacks likely is a result of sexual abuse rather than a cause for it.

So, this leaves two major reasons for why NDs get sexually abused: Abuse of informed consent and strong attachments.

The above data used both sexes, but the figures are higher for females, but still significant for males too.

Based on this I very much question that informed consent is in the interest of NDs. I base this on how easy it is to talk NDs into various stuff, and then the ND being unlikely to back out of it even if they change their minds later. It's a bit like selling various stuff over the phone or in the shopping mall, where NDs often agree to things they later regret. The key to this is that NDs don't get time to think it over and get pressured to make a fast decision.

From what I know, people experiencing child abuse often end up abused by romantic partners - NTs, too.

High occurence of child abuse experienced by NDs may be more important factor here than neurodiversity itself. Were correlations between child abuse and sexual abuse in adult life checked against similar correlation (with expected lower occurence) among control group of NTs?

I won't go into that issue here.



Only if it is acquired in a reasonable way, which my survey clearly shows is not the case for many NDs. Of note is also that it is a very high proportion of NDs that claim they were sexually abused, and so this problem cannot be brushed off as "not significant".

Something the study shows too, but abuse of informed consent still ranks higher.



I don't think those can be separated. My original attempt with the research was to extract the reasons for depression and abuse in the ND population, but it turns out that all of these issues are strongly related both between them and with every ND trait. Thus, I gave up on the analysis as I don't think I can provide a valid chain of what causes what even with a very large population.

Did the study authors use the term "abuse of informed consent"?

No, it used: "Have you been talked into having sex even if you really didn't want to?" This is basically abuse of informed consent.

It's rather misunderstanding of what informed consent is.
Being tricked to say yes is not an informed consent.

I think it is in the legal system. That's what counts if somebody can be convicted of rape or not.

This is how the results looks like for sexual abuse per sex & neurotype:

NT, male:
384 no, 29 maybe, 24 no (88% no)

NT, female:
534 no, 106 maybe, 103 yes (72% no)

ND, male:
318 no, 68 maybe, 87 yes (67% no)

ND, female:
854 no, 314 maybe, 608 yes (48% no)

ASD, male:
80 no, 8 maybe, 18 yes (75% no)

ASD, female:
86 no, 22 maybe, 48 yes (55% no)

Last edited by rdos on 19 Jan 2021, 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Not every sex you regret after the fact is a rape. There are stupid infatuations, for example.
The law needs clear definitions. Morality can navigate more subtle situations.

I was interested in how many NTs who checked "yes" for child abuse checked "yes" for sexual abuse, too.
This vs the same for autistics.

This might have something to do with where you are.

For eg I think it's in Sweden - maybe another country in Scandinavia? - where lying to someone and saying you're using protection when you're not (something only really physically possible if you have a vagina and are saying you're 'on the pill' when you're not) would count as 'not informed consent'. In the UK, it would be legal to do that.

Personally I don't think it's ok to do that. I don't think it's ok to spring fatherhood onto someone who thought you were on the pill. That is manipulation. It should be illegal.

Informed consent is the highest form of consent.

It means: being aware of all the risks.

It sometimes means not being able to have sex even though someone of your own age could. If you don't understand the risks (social risks, physical risks, risks of pregnancy) then your ability to consent is lower than theirs.

It sometimes means not having age gap relationships even though you are of legal age. For eg a lot of 16 yo kids are capable of understanding what sex is, how pregnancy works, what STDs are (so it's legal for them to have sex in the UK) but don't have the confidence to say 'no' to a 30 yo who's hitting on them.

I would say that if someone is autistic & being pressured into it by an NT person, esp with an age gap, that is not actually consensual. It might be legal but it's not informed. For similar reasons to that 16 yo and that 30 yo. That lack of confidence and awareness of how to say 'no' without saying 'f**k off' (I advise, if someone is pressuring you, just disregard that stuff about social politeness!)

I hate social power games too. But that's exactly where the informed consent comes in. Social power games disrespect all that in order that one partner can have sex with someone who isn't 100% willing.

Why I don't like 'if you say yes, it is ok' as a benchmark is because honestly? Kids can arguably do that. They don't know what it means, the risks, maybe even what it is, but they can say the word 'yes' when a creep asks them 'do you want a special cuddle, it's our little secret'.

Sex is complicated. People need to be aware of all the risks of it before they can engage in genuine consent.

With animals, the age of consent doesn't exist. It's mostly the age of maturity. A dog wouldn't think of having sex with a puppy, they lack that evil. Animals are so prone to just breeding & fighting & hunting & survival that this kind of makes sense. They don't have specialist interests or jobs or houses or hope of anything like that. And their offspring as soon as out of infancy run off on their own: our toddlers don't move out.

But even in animals, there are exceptions to the 'can have babies, should have sex' rule. With my cat's mum - she was a yearling (equivalent of a teenager in cats) and she killed one of the kittens - probably because she thought there'd be no milk for winter. If she had lived a bit longer (they advise starting to breed cats at 2 for ideal results - human equivalent would be around 20), chances are that she would have figured out 'no, I'm not in the wild, the human will feed me, I don't need to hunt for birds who've migrated so I don't need to kill any of my kittens'.

Human 'infancy' (childhood and teenage years) lasts a very long time. Because we are such a complicated species. In early Victorian England, the age of consent was 12 and that wasn't informed consent at all. It was based on the notion of 'if she can bleed, she can breed' - more appropriate for animals than humans.

The law is social expectations within a country & incredibly broad. It has to be. It has to cover an entire nation or (in America) at least a state.

Morality is between individuals. We can draw up certain obvious absolutes (an age gap between a 2 yo and an adult in a sexual relationship is immoral!) but the rest is case to case, set of individuals to set of individuals. Is it right for that particular 25 yo to go with that particular 50 yo? For eg. Everyone will have opinions on it and what it comes down to is the level of understanding the two people have.

When I was at school I knew kids who had sex underage with kids of their own age. That wasn't abusive. It was illegal. And it was unwise in some cases - where girls who were too young to be responsible mothers got pregnant.

Weirdly, puppies reach maturity pretty early on so there's probably cases like my cat's mum

I'd say they're not a puppy at that point though. Even if they're under 1.

My dog considers puppies silly and annoying though. Like how a lot of human adults consider teenagers.

I added ASD (diagnosed ASD) too. Apparently, the figures are lower for this group than for NDs, probably because they are more protected against this.