Inside the world of an autistic girl, essay 2: Boundary violation culture

[avia]

This essay is going to introduce an idea that I really think is important. I talked about it on Tumblr, but, I want to write into a more formal essay too.

Warning: because of the topic of this essay, it may trigger for abuse of autistic children, rape culture/rape, and issues of ignoring a person's boundaries in general, including: boundaries of trans* people, people of colour, women and people choosing to use pseudonyms.


A lot has been said about rape culture, which is a phrase used to describe the ways that the society (usually US society, in the discussions) excuses and contributes to rape, by being a place where victims are often blamed, having double standards for men and women in a sexual way, etc. I don't really feel like I am the best person to describe rape culture: a quick look at the idea is here.

It's interesting, I never looked at that page before, but, at the end, bell hooks is mentioning that that rape culture is in fact part of a larger, "culture of violence". I am going to put a similar theory here, and suggest that what we have in US society in fact, is a larger culture of boundary violation.

Boundary violation, it means not respecting people's personal boundaries, and, creating a culture where "playful" violating those boundaries is normal. Boundary violation culture is about people thinking they have a right to touch you, to have particular kinds of response from you to their words and actions, or to poke into your private life with conversation questions. It's obvious to see where it would be a part of encouraging rape. But, it's not just about rape.

Boundary violation culture is when a white person gets upset at a black person, who won't let them touch their hair. ("But it looks so soft and nice! I just wanted to....") Not respecting that a random person might not want to have their hair touched by a strangeer, and treating them as something you have a right to touch, is boundary violation.

Boundary violation culture is when a man says "come on, smile!" at a woman on the street, and doesn't respect her right to walk on, and gets angry if she won't put on an emotion for him. A treatment of women's (and trans men's/genderqueer people's) bodies and minds as something you are entitled to, something you are entitled to have a smile from, something you are entitled to say "I want you to react this way", is boundary violation.

Boundary violation culture is when you have no spoons, and the person serving you at the grocery store asks "so where are you from, you have a cute accent? Are you from [country]?", and you really don't want to talk about your personal background or even talk at all, so you try to push the question away with a little silly answer, and they keep digging, "no, where are you from?" A feeling that you have a right to dig into a person's private life, particularly if they are a member of a non-privileged group (not white, not gender-normative, not neurotypical, etc.), and treat them like they are being a horrible person if they don't want to talk about it, is boundary violation.

(Personal note: this happens to me all the time, particularly because, I don't have a Japanese accent or an American accent. I have a weird accent. I learned to speak late in life and it creates a similar nature to foreign accent syndrome, even though I don't have brain injury. I am told my accent has some traits of accents in India, and, I saw some clips of Slumdog Millionaire and, it does sound a little like the accents in that movie at least.

I much prefer shopping at the Japanese grocery, because, no one ever asks me about my accent. No one ever asks me about anything, they say "hello" and "$21.59, please" and "here's your receipt". I never get random questions at the checkout line. In the American grocery? Everyone wants to talk to me.)

Boundary violation culture is when a cis person thinks it's okay to ask a trans person, what is the state of your genitals, and how do you have sex? To repeat the previous, a feeling that you have a right to dig into a person's private life, particularly if they are a member of a non-privileged group, and treat them like they are being a horrible person if they don't want to talk about it, is boundary violation.

Boudary violation culture is telling people on the internet that pseudonyms are not okay, that everything you do on the internet needs to be linked to a "real name", even if you are trans* and don't identify with that name, or you have a comservative employer who could fire you for posting liberal political things on the internet, etc. To believe that your right to know someone's real name is more important than their right to protect their identity in face of a job loss, outing to family and friends, etc. etc., is boundary violation.

Boundary violation culture is teasing someone about a trait they are uncomfortable about, and not stopping when you are told to stop, and not asking "is this okay?" or thinking whether they have any trauma to do with it, and just brushing off any protest with "but I'm just teasing!" To think that a boundary that a person puts up, is not really important because your joke is more important, is boundary violation.

And, I could give ten thousand examples of things, but, I should probably stop there or you will all get bored and stop reading.

So, what has boundary violation culture to do with autism?

Everything.

Autistic people have much higher boundaries than most neurotypical people. This is because we are more sensitive: sensitive to sound, sensitive to touch, sensitive to distractions, sensitive to emotions. In order to function in the world, we have to police our own boundaries very strongly. We have to shut out a lot of things that are just too much to be comfortable.

But, because those boundaries are not the "normal" boundaries, they are usually ignored.

In fact, part of a common "therapy" for autistic people, is to break down their boundaries. Does that sound awful? That's because it is. Autistic children are told that their level of boundaries are not okay. They are told that it is "normal", and necessary, to hug, to touch, to say "I love you" even when the word hurts.

(Trust me, I know from painful, personal experience: when someone's response to "I love you" turns from "I love you too" into "okay" and then into nothing, they are locking down inside. This boy is being overwhelmed by a word he doesn't believe in and doesn't know how to process. He's being not allowed to define his world and his relationships in his own way... with a good dose of erasing the possibility that he might grow up to be aromantic, too. "My mind flies decades ahead, and I wonder who will love a man who won't declare love in return."

Also, something to notice: when a neurotypical mother "can't stop" telling her son she loves him, people see it as normal and even heroic. When an autistic child "can't stop" stimming, people see it as pathology, out of control behaviour. Even though that stimming doesn't hurt anyone, and pushing affection on someone against their will can hurt them very much.

Not being able to control your emotions is fine, if they're normal emotions. If they're "bad, autistic" emotions, the person is "having a tantrum" and "out of control".)

Autistic children are told that what matters is not their comfort: it is what the neurotypical adults around them want. They learn that saying "no", crying, or "throwing a fit" when someone tries to push you into something you don't want to do is a "bad social skill". They learn that touch is uncomfortable, and it can sometimes hurt, but you have to do it anyway and not complain, for the sake of the social world...

Wait, were we talking about rape culture?

I never actually had this talk (I end up bringing up the talk before my family could), but, from what I see in books, magazines, etc., I hear that it is normal to say to a child, "If anyone touches you in a way you feel uncomfortable, tell an adult!" Yet, do you want to believe that an autistic child who says "I feel uncomfortable with that touch" is going to be listened to when they are saying it about a rape, if they won't be listened to when they are saying it about a hug, or a kiss, or a pat on the head?

Why are we setting up autistic children to be abused?

Comments

[feathertail]

I hadn't thought of it this way before. >.> I mean, I had, but I never quite put it that way or thought it through that well.

I think that this ties into politics, too. The real problem with "entitlements" isn't the poor people who want to be fed, it's the people who think that because you're poor you shouldn't have any boundaries. You should have your life controlled for you, because obviously you've screwed up. They think they're entitled to boss you around, just like they think they're entitled to shake your hand or touch your hair or ask you about your genitals.

Maybe lot of it has to do with the power imbalance. If you give someone power or authority, they'll naturally treat others poorly and start to think rules don't apply to them. Even if it's only a little power, it creates petty tyrants. Maybe part of the reason for the culture of boundary violation is because it's a culture of authority as well, and the authorities -- from parents to teachers to voters -- think their requests aren't unreasonable and you are just being unfair.

... and my accent sounds like GLaDOS. At least to me. >.> After I heard her voice it became so much easier to talk in a sing-songy quasi-monotone the way she does. I do anytime I'm low energy or just lose concentration.

[avia]

I hink it's a sort of culture of authority... more like kyriarchy, maybe, the collection of ways where we all have little powers over each other and oppress each other. White people think it's okay to touch black people's hair because in some way the black person is seen as the exotic, other or someone who "belongs" to you because they are interesting. Same as women. We have a culture where, if someone is interesting we feel like it's okay to own them or use them for our own desire.

It's a consumer culture as well, I think. We feel that we are okay to touch and have other people, to consume the image and feel and things. And, in a relationship that exists, consuming and touching is okay, but, people think they can have that outside the culture also.

So it's a feeling that someone else should not deny your request, yes. And that, a request is reasonable if you want to make it and you think it is harmless, even if someone else's boundaries are violated by it. That is a feeling of having power, I think... the right to possess someone. It's a kind of power people don't understand they have.

[feathertail]

Sometimes I worry that being otherkin / therian means doing that to symbols and animals. :\ Partly because I see other people treating them that way. I try to be careful about it though. And I especially see examples of this trying to own other people thing on Not Always Right. >.>

I wonder what society would have to look like in order to make it not like this.

[avia]

Hmm, interesting, how do you mean it? What you say seems more like a cultural appropriation than a boundary violation. Of course, a lot of people violating the boundaries of animals, but, I don't think that's a particular otherkin/therian thing, that's more a food/pet/hunting/fur thing.

I think the question of whether cultural appropriation can happen to animals, is interesting. I think that it can, in the sense that people treat animals as stereotypes instead of what they actually are, and, this can harm them because then they are treated like the stereotype. I think if you identify as therian, then, you do have some responsibility to be thoughtful about exploring your animal type if you can, I think, or, at least not keeping stereotypes existing that put animals at risk.

[feathertail]

I do think about cultural appropriation as it relates to animals ... I keep finding myself thinking if it'd be appropriate to treat them or think of them in X way if they were people. Or if they were seen as people, at any rate.

In some ways, I think things like lolcats are the beginning of widespread cultural empathy towards animals, because they show an awareness that cats (in this case) have their own feelings and motives. They also seem, to me, more representative of cats' actual thought processes than a lot of more commercial stuff. I look at some of the things in my aunt's house, and they remind me of scrapbooking stores and magazines ... happily celebrating the people that they think exist, and oblivious to who they actually are.

What do you do if you feel someone's inappropriately identifying as therian, though? Like claiming to have a dolphin persona because of New Age stereotypes, when dolphins wage war on and gang rape each other. I guess it's something people have to decide for themselves after having these realizations, but it's a little uncomfortable sometimes. (And then there was the kitsune I saw who was trying to organize the celestial court ... )

[avia]

I really feel... for me, I feel uncomfortable with saying that people are inappropriately identifying as therian. It's too similar to me, to saying that people are inappropriately identifying as transgender. Some transgender people do to take their ideas about what it is to be male or female from stereotypes and culture ideas, but, is someone less transgender because they feel female and, also dress in high heels, lipstick etc.? Some people say that some transgender people perform the gender too strong, looks like a parody of gender, but, if it's what is comfortable for them, I don't feel like I have a right say anything against it.

So, if I say that about transgender people, it feels like I should say that about otherkin, too. It's not my business. I'm not anyone else's police, I can help to educate people but, it's all I can do in the end.

[feathertail]

Yeah, that's what I think ... in a way, I'm not fond of the concept of accusing someone of appropriation because I think there are multiple things under that blanket.

It can mean making money off of another person's culture, in a way that that person could not, like Elvis did with black spirituals and rock IIRC. (I hear Eminem earned a lot of respect by pointing out how this applied to his success too.) But once you've put something out there, you can't control how others respond to it. I remember one artist said something like "I could paint something expressing bereavement over the death of a loved one, but somebody else might buy it because it matches the sofa."

I guess warnings about appropriation are useful when they help people have greater empathy, and harmful when they allow someone to police others' identities. It seems like we need separate words for these things, though. I kind of feel like "appropriation" now means only the second thing there.

(If anyone ever accuses me of appropriating Shintoism / Taoism / kitsune lore, I will inform them that the Chinese and Japanese have forever surrendered their right to accuse an American of cultural appropriation. >.>; )

[avia]

It's a difficult balance, again the kyriarchy thing. One person's identity can be seen as appropriating the identity of others, for example trans* people have been accused of appropriating the identity of cis men/women. On the other hand, it can really destroy cultures if they are turned into plastic versions of their real self, turned into something cute for people in other culture to look at, while the real culture is ignored and only the pretty parts get use or support, which twists the culture.

Uuuuh, I don't know how to explain. But, appropriation can be a real thing, it's just a problem also if someone else's real and meaningful personal identity is being attacked over that. I see people trolling otherkin by saying, they are appropriating shamanic cultures and, it's completely false because the idea of "animal spirit in human body" exists everywhere, it's not a particularly shamanic thing but something that is a universal idea, and, otherkin do not take the particular methods and ideas of shamans. You can't really say an idea like "I am an animal inside" is any culture's thing, it's the particular detailed ideas that are a culture's thing.

But, that also is not truly appropriation in that case, it's an overuse of the word. It doesn't mean appropriation exists less, it's the using the word wrong that is a problem.

About the last thing you say, I do feel... well... two wrongs don't make a right? Just because China and Japan do appropriate, doesn't mean it is less bad, like hitting someone because they hit you? I can say from my perspective, I hear how you talk about Inari, and, you're thoughtful about learning the experiences and doing research, and, clearly She did come to you for a reason, so, I don't feel it is a problem. I don't feel that most gods have a particular care about cultures as long as you respect Them right.

But, I don't think that means no one could appropriate and abuse Shinto/etc. ideas in a damaging way. At the same time, if it is their identity... I don't know. It's difficult and, that is why I normally stay out of it. I do see people who seem to use the word kitsune and not know what it means (not you), but, at the same time I am not a person to tread on people's identity, because I don't know what exists inside their heads. I can only suggest that people become educated, that's the best thing.

[feathertail]

I guess I just have trouble separating the concept of "appropriation" from policing someone's identity, in the same way I have trouble separating the concept of "feminism" from silencing male rape victims. It's probably because of the arguments that I've been in.

I think the harm comes not from what one chooses to identify as, but who one silences. The harm done by acts of appropriation, I think, is when they silence those who were born with or otherwise compelled to have a given identity, and set up the appropriator(s) as the new arbiter of what this identity means as though the others no longer exist.

Meanwhile, I think that it's also an act of appropriation to claim that somebody else cannot identify as something. Not that this other person does not speak for all X'es, but that this person is not an X, period. Even when there's a reason or definition behind it, it's still an act of negation against someone compelled to have an identity; like saying "Therians aren't animals because they're biologically human," or "Mormons aren't Christian because they don't worship our version of Jesus."

Maybe sometimes that correction is necessary, like when you're pointing out that the Mormon church's institutional focus on power and wealth (and its vicious anti-gay campaigns) are grossly incongruous with what the historical Jesus taught. Or it could even lead to discussion, like about how a therian feels that they actually are an animal because (whichever belief they have). But a lot of the time I see it used to just silence someone, and the place that that seems to come from is one that says "I want to be special, and danged if I'm going to let you take my specialness from me."

That's the kind of thing that leads to oppression olympics and groups turning on each other, I think.

[avia]

I don't know if it's appropriation to say that other people can't identify as something, but, I certainly think that it is policing and erasing. And, setting your self up as the only person who can define what people think. I get really frustrated at people who say "you are not an X". How can you know, in terms of identity?

I also 100% don't support silencing.

About male rape victims, it's difficult, I don't know where the line exists. I absolutely believe in the right of people to discuss that rape is mainly an issue for female people and people that are read as female, who have concerns that are not taken seriously in society often. I also absolutely believe in the right of people to discuss that that's not all it is, and that they are not taken seriously because "rape doesn't happen to men". Both are true, and both facts create a situation where people feel uncomfortable to speak out.

Kyriarchy again.

A lot of the activists I know are very good about going past the idea of "rape just happens to women", though.