Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Autism and Child Pornography: A Toxic Combination - The Daily Beast

English: Temple Grandin at a book signing at R...
English: Temple Grandin at a book signing at Rochester Community and Technical College in Rochester, Minnesota (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Autism support specialist Heather Conroy (http://www.hconroyconsulting.com) and I are working on several short "pocket guides" for young adults on the autism spectrum. Our first guide, which we hope to have to publishers later this year, deals with sexuality and relationship in a frank (blunt!) way.

While I strongly disagree with some claims in this article, I have dealt with autistics (male and female) with obsessive online habits (usually gaming, but often in other ways, too). Stories like the following are why our book and others are needed by autistics, families, and support providers:
Autism and Child Pornography: A Toxic Combination - The Daily Beast
Aug 5, 2013 4:45 AM EDT 
It’s a disturbing trend we cannot ignore. Eustacia Cutler, mother of autism advocate Temple Grandin, on why autistic men are viewing child pornography—and being labeled sex offenders. 
Though now equipped with a full-grown body and full-grown sexual drive, many ASD males are stuck emotionally at a prepubescent age. They look like grown men, but inside they’re only 10 years old. They don’t want adults to show them how sex is done; they want 10-year-olds to show them. Back in school when they were little and the other kids played “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine,” ASDs were left out. Now at last they’ve found a way to join the old childhood game and it’s with their trusty friend, the computer. 
Except that’s not how the law sees it. Or how we see it. There are gaps not only in our legal appraisal of this bind, but also in our view of the sexual dynamics of ASDs. 
To quote autism psychologist and researcher Gary Mesibov: “We often find that young men with ASD are functioning intellectually at average, or even above average levels. However, their social and interpersonal level is that of a 10- or 11-year-old…I think this explains why their social-sexual preferences are to observe girls at this age, just as typical 10- or 11-year-old boys prefer interacting, flirting, and thinking about sexual relationships with 10- or 11-year-old girls.”
This article is absurd on some levels, leaping to conclusions that require more quantitative support.

Heather and I have dealt with parents taking away "computer privileges" and punishing young men and women for looking at pictures and videos of adults online. This is often an overreaction to a normal human behavior. Men and women enjoy erotica and mature content. We too often make sexuality and curiosity something "dirty" or "bad" when it isn't.

Here's the blunt truth: I like photos of women. Most men do. While I would rather read or watch a romantic movie (far more "erotic" to me), I know that men and women also enjoy more graphic visual stimulation. Personally, I cannot bear to view any depiction of violence, abuse, bullying, or generally aggressive behavior — such things upset me greatly, so most "porn" is of absolutely no interest to me. I like romance and caring, loving relationships.

Anything, absolutely anything, that involves children in age-inappropriate behaviors, upsets me because I think of it as the worst kind of emotional and physical abuse. Too many of the students I have met were abused, because students with special needs are easy targets.

The challenge is to teach autistics, and all young people, what is and isn't legal, appropriate, and healthy.

More on this in the future.
Enhanced by Zemanta

What if you aren't autistic anymore?

What if you aren't autistic anymore?

The question was asked by a friend who had read the latest stories on the DSM-V and the criteria changes for autism spectrum disorders.  See this New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/health/research/new-autism-definition-would-exclude-many-study-suggests.html

I've written a great deal about defining autism so you might assume I care a great deal, personally. But, as I have written several times, "autistic" to me is a description of some traits but not the entire me.

My doctoral thesis included a long section on definitions of autism and the challenges of labels. My Ph.D does include the word "rhetoric" and a part of me does ponder the nature of labels. But, caring intellectually is not the same as passionately identifying with a label.

Autism is a definitional issue. 
  • 1980: DSM-III adds "autism"
  • 1989: First criteria for Asperger's published
  • 1991: IDEA adds autism category to K-12 special education codes
  • 1994: DSM-IV error expands autism ("and" becomes "or" in criteria)
  • 2000: DSM-IV-TR corrects 1994 edition
  • 2004: IDEA revised, slows increase in cases
  • 2012: DSM-V to be finalized, December 2012 (narrower criteria, in theory)
No one, at least not to my knowledge, labeled me "autistic" before 2006. Though my blog is The Austic Me, it was created during a class project and the name was not my first choice. I was going to use "Inklings of..." but there were many "inklings" on Blogger. Using the autism label was a statement, yes, but also a question of sorts. What is the "autistic me" if I'm still the person I was before the label? 


I keep intending to update my IDEA/OSEP data spreadsheet, which would illustrate a slower increase in diagnoses, but still an increase. What would help is to overlap this with a percentage change chart, since population grew markedly from 1995 to 2005. Population growth has slowed during the economic slump since 2007, though we continue to grow in the South and West as a nation.

The basic point remains: adding Asperger's Syndrome, broadening diagnostic criteria ("or" is far more inclusive than "and" in a checklist), and a new generation of diagnosticians/clinicians better trained to diagnose autism has expanded the numbers in a significant way. This does not mean all increases are the result of definitions and awareness, but these changes contribute. 

An example is that "no one" died of breast cancer, officially, until Janet Lane-Claypon published a comparative study in 1926. Before 1926? Nobody was tracking cancer rates, especially of breast cancer. As technology improved, diagnostics improved, and medical education improved, we found more cases of breast cancer. We cannot say if cancer rates increased or not, at least not with any certainty, before we started collecting reliable data. But what are reliable data?

If we find the specific causes of several different "autisms" and the spectrum becomes splintered into known medical conditions, some undetermined etiologies, and some other diagnostic labels, that won't mean that the "autism prevalence rate" was magically reduced. It means we changed the definition. 

Back to the central question: What if I'm no longer "autistic" in 2013? 

For some families this could mean a loss of services and supports. For me? It wouldn't mean much of anything, but that does not translate into not caring about those at risk of losing educational and social supports. It does mean that my personal life and work life will not be altered in any significant way. 

Someone might then respond, "See! You're not autistic!"

The "autistic me" is shorthand, a definition that encompasses some, and only some, of my traits. My other physical and neurological conditions will still exist and maintain my status as "disabled" according to U.S. law. My palsy is not going to be cured. My paralysis will not vanish. My vision will not be restored. I'll still need a cane some days and I'll still walk with a pronounced limp. I'll still be whatever I am.

The debate about "autism" as a definition isn't going to end with the publication of the DSM-V. 

I won't stop having my "autistic" traits if some book changes the definition. The traits will remain. 

Also, and we should admit this openly, good clinicians care first and foremost about patients. They will use the DSM, any edition, as required by government agencies and insurance companies, but that doesn't always mean applying the DSM rigidly. Obtaining appropriate supports and services might mean applying a label from the text that isn't an exact match. Clinicians will tell you that the DSM is a guide, not an inflexible force of nature. 


Older Post ►
 

Copyright 2011 Autistic Writer is proudly powered by blogger.com