The Qualities of "Asperger's Syndrome"
A few of the qualities or traits associated with this so-called syndrome are obviously those of any good hearted, responsible, productive individual. Most are not unusual and are even harbored by a majority of people. Others, while seemingly unrelated to each other, are caused by the hostile surroundings that intelligent or responsible people find themselves in: a society which marginalizes freedom, productivity, morality, and logic.
Here, we will list the qualities or traits common to "Asperger's Syndrome" and explain briefly how each one of them, and all of them as a whole, are caused by explainable, commonplace personality traits or situations, rather than inherent psychological or mental differences.
RATIONALITY AND REASON
*Insistence on rationality or non-contradiction *"Exceptional" memory *Intolerance of imperfection
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." ~Jonathan Swift
If we must live in reality, how can we forgo the use of our mind, our tool for dealing with that reality? How can we act responsibly if we take orders from our "feelings", from myths, from swallowing the opinions of "others", or from "guessing"? You will find the results of such irresponsibility in any history book.
Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues...Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival [the mind] and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life...It means a commitment to the reality of one’s own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one’s goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality...
...It means that one must never desire effects without causes...that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one’s own purposes and motives...and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions.
Most people find it annoying to hear something untrue, and have an intense desire, to correct the mistake. The more intelligent you are, the more things you will notice, and thus the more corrections you will make. If you live in a society where many untruths are repeatedy uttered, you become cynical and must ask for clarification when people speak, often constantly. You are then seen as annoying or negative. Our society no longer encourages saying what you mean, and the diagnosing of such people who want clarification as "autistic" is a shifting of the responsibility. It shifts the blame for the confusion on the person asking for clarification, instead of the one uttering the absurdity.
A strong memory is related to rationality, and may be developed by anyone. The "AS" child's "exceptional" memory is not exceptional at all, if you consider the fact that people often remember such "trivial" things as the hand they won their first card game with, the type of sheets on the bed when they first slept in their new house, or the first video game they ever played.
It is not so much strong memory which gets one labeled Asperger's as much as it is the content they remember- quirky, obscure, odd, or "irrelevent" material. Because the memories seem quirky and obscure compared to the "important" things that "normal" (unthinking, uncaring) people remember, the child who remembers them is labeled autistic. Often, they are intellectual topics he remembers, or carry emotional significance for him. Naturally, "normal" people cannot relate.
The "AS" child remembers unimportant details (in whose opinion?) because he takes a typically childlike interest in the world around him, an interest adults should take care never to lose. This interest is hard to understand for non-thinking people, because it requires thinking for the sake of thinking, interest in the world for the sake of interest in the world.
The intelligent child seems more intolerant of imperfection because
A: As a thinker and an achiever, he puts more importance on doing it right,
B: He is sharp enough to notice faults more often, and
C: He has learned from experience that letting something go wrong now can cause problems later, and wants to prevent imperfection now, so as to avoid consequences.
*A "strong" moral code *"Deep" concern about issues *"Strong" emotions
The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
Many people today are morally neutral. They are tolerant of everything. They believe the opposite of moral neutrality is being indiscriminately intolerant, by condemning things randomly, or by using other non-rational means to decide what to condemn.
Morality is a code to guide your life, to tell you what actions to take or not to take. The good actions are those which further life and do not cause pain; the bad are those which kill you or cause you pain. Since you live and feel in reality, and since reality is understandable only by reason, rationality is a moral virtue.
Reason is not only used to determine what is moral and what is not, but also how to apply those morals. For example, what good is a judge who thinks innocent men should go free if he refuses to use reason to determine which man is innocent?
Emotions do not determine morality. Reason does. An action isn't right because it "feels right". While a certain action may be evaluated by whether or not it will cause someone bad feelings, it does not mean that feelings will be used in the evaluation, in the technical process. Emotions are not tools of reason; they are the results, not the process, of a rational judgment one makes when determining what is moral and what is not.
So why did we put "strong emotions" at the top of the "MORALITY" section, then?
Because all mentally healthy people are emotionally touched, to some extent, when they hear of an injustice. The more intelligent you are, the easier you can see if an injustice is being committed. An intelligent child, who sees the intricate details behind a rule, and finds out it is unfair, will be outraged, whereas a "normal" unthinking child would only be outraged by a rule which was more obviously unjust.
Also, because the intelligent child must go through so much unfairness (multiple discoveries of bad rules which only he can see are bad, and abuse at the hands of teachers who support those rules; his discovery of the larger meaning behind those rules and the evil which makes them possible), his emotions are amplified, the experiences all piled on top of each other in his mind. He starts to "appear sensitive".
What of those who truly are more emotional than other persons who have the exact same intelligence and life experience? No. There is no way to determine what the "normal" range of emotions is. "Normal" is not determined by statistics, only "average" is. The number of avid chess players in the US is less than a tenth of the number of people diagnosed with "Asperger's Syndrome". The number of people who had the plague in medieval Europe was, in many towns, well over 60%. Would we consider the chess player "abnormal"? Would we consider the plague normal.
The number of people who have "Asperger's" traits doesn't determine whether those traits are normal. "Normal" has a few different definitions, but usually, it seems to mean "healthy", or "workable"- i.e., a normal adult can have children, a normal car can be driven. The psychologists' use of the word "normal" in the Asperger's debate refers not to "average," but to "desirable". Whether the traits are "normal" or not is "determined" by whether the psychologists, and modern society, believe they are desirable.
What they desire is: a total state of non-caring, of compliance. Their assumption is that being interested in or serious about an issue is not healthy, that being calm, passive, not forcing anything, and "going with the flow" (whose "flow"?) is the way to make and keep friends (why? what kind of friends?), to avoid making trouble (trouble for whom?), and to refrain from making moral judgments (for what reason?). Mumbling mantras about nothingness and not caring to their patients, they magically forget about "going with the flow" when trying to push others to accept such garbage. They then proceed, if their patients are children, to, yes, force them to accept this view, by requiring them to take drugs in order to keep them adhered to this view, if not inside their minds, then at least with their "relaxed" bodies.
Why? Because dumb, lazy people are easy to control, and to boss around. Dumb or apathetic people won't argue when something unfair happens, and the bullies will be able to continue their actions unimpeded.
Are the psychologists doing this on purpose? Yes. Some truly don't realize the only way to peace is through justice, that it isn't sufficient for a child who was hit to simply "turn the other cheek", that there is always unbalance so long as the bully isn't punished. But most know exactly what the hell they are doing.
Because the moral child's adherence to justice causes too much disturbance in the classroom of a teacher who doesn't want to eliminate bullying or unfair rules, she takes the "easy" way out (not easy for him) and sends him to the psychologist's office when he tries to fight the bullies off. What makes this so scary is that the same thing happens to adults, when they make things less "easy" for the government.
The way to combat this allergic reaction to morality and emotion is to teach the importance of morality, and of emotions- which serve as warning signs, letting us feel pain, thereby alerting us to unfairness, which we must then confirm using our minds. We also must recognize that morality is in the province of reason, as everything is, and we must never let that recognition go.
Most of all, we must never write off people's personalities and moral choices as "syndromes". Nothing "causes" a child to choose to use reason and morality- not Asperger's or anything else. Nor does anything cause him to ignore those values, but his own choices.
*Indifference to peer pressure *Intolerance of social hierarchies and/or social norms *Questioning of authority
*Individualistic behavior and demeanor
"Be neither a conformist or a rebel, for they are really the same thing. Find your own path, and stay on it." ~Paul Vixie
"Orthodoxy: That peculiar condition where the patient can neither eliminate an old idea nor absorb a new one." ~Elbert
Hubbard, The Note-Book, 1927
"Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one." ~Chinese Proverb
The fact that a psychologist would label indifference to peer pressure as abnormal (or even "special") is monstrous. As most children know from watching television and reading stories, adults are supposed to be above peer pressure, and are always supposed to be chastising their teenagers for going Gaga over the latest fad.
When a child hears from trusted adults that his resistance to peer pressure is undesirable and is caused by a "syndrome," he is horrified.
Partly, this is because he knows the real reason he doesn't conform is because he is intelligent and rational enough to be able to evaluate a product on its own terms; he does not necessarily reject things because he is being rebellious or idealistic. In fact, he would just as soon pick up on a fad if it happened to tickle his fancy on its own terms. It confuses him that the adults- with PHDs- would not be able to figure this simple thing out, and would ignore these obvious causes in favor of some psychobabble.
However, another, deeper reason he is horrified is because he senses that what the adults want is for him to conform, to act "like a teenager." This bewilders him; didn't he always read/watch/hear that adults are always trying to get children to act like adults, not kids? Aren't the movies he watches always portraying parents who tell children to follow rules, not the crowd? Yes, he has read or heard this, but it no longer represents reality.
Many teachers only care about their jobs, not their kids. For them, it is not about helping children, it is about making their jobs easier. Even though his mature resistance to peer pressure is the behavior adults claim to support, the child is easier to deal with if his behavior is predictable, even if not good. Hence, he is thrown into confusion when the teachers implicitly want him to do what they explicitly tell him not to. He- rightly- senses their hypocrisy. He may finally start to believe that he was, in fact, hallucinating when he read all those stories about adults opposing peer pressure, and may come to doubt his own senses.
When this child is mentally examined for being mature (or for noticing the obvious, in the case of his teachers being hypocrites), his confusion worsens. He cannot conceive of a teacher who would simultaneously want students to do one thing and then the opposite, or one who would want children to act immaturely. Who could?
Rational people reject hierarchies not only because they are unfair, but because they are irrational. To place one person in a higher position he hasn't earned is bound to create practical failures and technical foul-ups (for example, putting a king in charge of an army even if he knows nothing of military strategy).
Also, it is irrational in the sense that it is untrue that a person is in a higher position if he hasn't earned it; he, in fact, has the position in name only. To anyone who takes reality seriously and insists on dealing with the actual facts at hand, it is extremely hard to operate in a world where people are given the unearned, since it is impossible to look at someone's accomplishments and tell if they will be able to handle a certain position without fouling things up.
For example, how could a scientist deal with a man being in charge of his lab if this man got the job for reasons other than his skills? He would never know what to expect and could never act on his own, for fear this authoritative amateur would make mistakes.
There is no reason to assume social hierarchies work differently than professional ones. If a child is considered "good" because he comes from the Smith family, because of a teacher's arbitrary edict, how is another child supposed to know what this "good" student's behavior will be like if the child isn't really a good child? How does he know if the other child will hit him or not?
Social hierarchies are also unfair. They imply that people are entitled to the unearned, that being a respected member of society for any reason other than your virtues and deeds is okay. It is not. If 100 people respect a rapist, and 10 people don't, that rapist is still unrespectable, no matter that a majority thinks otherwise.
Social hierarchies confuse the "Aspie" (non-stupid) child because, since they are irrational and/or arbitrary, anyone not in on the game will not be able to follow them, even if he wanted to. It's like the Emperor Has No Clothes- anyone who isn't told to pretend the clothes are visible will see a naked emperor. The intelligent child isn't in on the secret, and would have to be told the arbitrary rules to act accordingly- they are NOT self evident. Teachers seem to forget that the in-group rules are NOT self evident, and think any child who doesn't intuitively grasp those rules must have a syndrome.
Social hierarchies- except ones based on fact and morality (f.e., shunning a murderer and hailing a hero)- lead to the destruction of a society because they prize its least worthy members and oppress its best ones.
What seems to some people like "questioning authority" is often an act of upholding the rules. If a child notices a teacher's words contradict the official rules, he will point this out to the teacher, expecting her to be grateful for the innocent and helpful correction. When he is sent to the principal's office, he is indignant.
The more intelligent child will consciously recognize the distinction between rule of men and rule of law. This child will, in fact, consciously oppose the teacher, but he recognizes that it is the law not the teacher, which is the final arbiter, and is not being disobedient.
Sometimes, a child will get in trouble for "breaking" a rule that is literally impossible to follow, and when he mentions the contradictory nature of the rule in order to defend himself, his parents get a call saying he "questions authority". For example, if a rule tells a child he musn't do A, but must do B, yet to do B he must do A, to punish him is not just, because he could not have followed the rule, and his breaking of it, being unavoidable, does not come from a bad character on his part. It would be pointless to punish him because he is not deserving of it. After all, it will not teach him to do the impossible- to perform action A and not perform it at the same time!
Often, a child may defend himself if he is accused but has not broken a rule, but his words of defense are taken by the teachers as a threat or challenge. This happens especially often if the strategy for determining whether a rule was broken is irrational.
For example, there may be a rule stating that no one is allowed to hit the principal, therefore, there is a rule that states no one is allowed in the principal's office to prevent such an action. Johnny is punished for being in the office, because that "means" (proves?) he was there to hit the principal. Since this is obviously untrue, Johnny argues that his being in the office doesn't prove he was there to hit the principal. He says this set of rules is irrational, or at least his being punished for the breaking of one when it can only be shown he broke the other. He is sent to the psychologist's office.
Another example: William is taken into the office for kicking Gina. The principal tries to prove he kicked her by asking whether or not he dislikes her (obviously not proof he actually kicked her). When he protests that this is irrational and will not prove his crime, he is punished for "questioning" the teachers, and is bewildered because he doesn't understand why his protesting his innocence could possibly make a problem, or prove that he did it. How could his explaining a fact to them hurt, when they do not have to listen to him but are still free to come to a conclusion on their own?
Defending oneself is not proof of guilt, nor is it a crime in itself. But it certainly is not proof of a syndrome; it is a necessary reaction to protect oneself from being punished unduly. If this is to be "treated" in today's society, then we are done for, especially when the government starts sending adults to therapy for this reason.
A handful of children actually do consciously believe if an authority figure is wrong, he should be disobeyed. This is because they understand rules are a means and not an end, the end being a safe and happy society. Therefore, if a rule is making people less safe or less happy, and giving nothing in return, they logicize that it is okay- no, right- to break it. Our founding fathers held this belief and it is shocking to see teachers punishing or diagnosing children because of this virtue.
*Little or no intuitive empathy *Lack of interest in socialization *Poor 'nonverbal communication'"
Morality demands that one treat and judge men as responsible adults. This means that one grants a man the respect of assuming that he is conscious of what he says and does, and one judges his statements and actions philosophically, i.e., as what they are--not psycho-logically, i.e., as leads or clues to some secret, hidden, unconscious meaning.
One neither speaks nor listens to people in code.
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
Okay. Dumb question. Why would a child be interested in socialization if the majority of kids- 6-year-old savages with no concept of reason, never mind morality- push him, beat him, mock him, laugh at his questions, and insult his values? I know, I know, dumb question, right? Or course he'd want to play with them. It's not like people naturally shy away from those who harm them. Sheesh! Normal, natural people just suck it up and join the pack, so they can enjoy bullying others in turn, and being in on all the in-jokes and gang signs.
What? Normal people don't do that? They run away or tell the teacher or try to fight back? Not according to AS experts.
You don't want your kid to get beat up, or course. But do you want him to turn into Attila the Hun or a crummy, sleazy little two faced politician by the age of 8? This is why schools need rules (fair rules) and teachers who are willing to enforce those rules. You know, teachers who are adult versions of the little "Asperger's" children who strike out when they see something unfa- oh, wait? You mean we don't have many left, since we tried to erase those qualities in them when they were 8? You mean most schools penalize or ignore those teachers and reward the apathetic ones? You don't say! Why could that be?
Aside from the obvious reason that public schools are now a farce, children whose morality is stunted and warped grow into immoral adults, who make excuses for bad teachers and condemn good ones who insist on justice.
Bad teachers see packs of bullies tormenting moral children, and making up "in jokes" and groups "rules" that no outsider could possibly be aware of without being told. They refuse to help the child who is being bullied by the pack, instead trying to figure out why the child who is being bullied "cannot fit in with the crowd," even though it is quite obvious that the child could never be able to know the "in jokes" without being told.
Such teachers propose we label a kid who can't "intuitively" sense what "the pack" is thinking an "Aspie." A child who doesn't have mindreading skills, therefore, is an Aspie.
If a child does not join "the pack", he naturally will not have any inkling what their emotional signals and "subtle facial cues" stand for. And if he doesn't share their psychology in the first place- the psychology of self-hating, fearful, irresponsible brats- then he certainly won't be able to internalize their feelings, and their viewpoints, both of which are severely warped.
So kids- who are supposed to grow into thoughtful, careful, responsible adults- are expected to make others "guess" and "feel" what they are thinking, then are allowed to haughtily defend themselves when the others fail to be accurate!
Notice who and what is being marginalized here; it is any child who is not assumptive, who chooses to use his brains instead of his "feelings", and who (responsibly) refrains from guessing, in favor of thinking. It is the act of using reason, not hunches, to arrive at a conclusion. This is an act the bad areas of our society don't like.
"Nonverbal communication" is an oxymoron. "Intuition" is the chief communication means of animals, not humans. Human beings do not act automatically or on instinct, the way beasts do, so, yes, behaviors vary from human to human. Because this is so, a person's thoughts and feelings cannot be "intuited" or instinctively understood, the way an animal's can; thought must be used when dealing with people, and they often must be asked verbally for their feelings and beliefs. In addition, most of the bullies a kindly child must deal with have a vastly different personality than his own, and are often messed up in the head.
As for empathy, many people simply do not wear their feelings on their sleeves, and some are, in fact, emotionally cold. This is not due to a syndrome; it's just personality. Some people hold in their emotions because they fear outbursts. Others are intelligent enough to see that a situation (which happens to upset others) is, in fact, not as drastic as it seems. And as bad as it seems, many people simply do not care about others. This may be who they are and may merely come from a bad personality, or it may be for good reason, such as the kids they know are jerks. Take a look at some of the young people out there and tell us if you'd develop an empathy vibe with them.
PHYSICAL and OTHER QUIRKS
*"Odd movements" *Poor athletic ability *Intense interest in a certain subject
*Overly upset at change or different routine
"At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvelously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time."
"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer."
"It is impossible to imagine Goethe or Beethoven being good at billiards or golf."
"A man is not idle because he is absorbed in thought. There is a visible labor and there is an invisible labor."
Many intellectuals have poor athletic ability. This isn't due to any defects or syndromes, it is because of the emphasis being put on one set of skills rather than another. Many people consider poor athletic ability to be a burden on a child- no one will want him on their team.
Really? What about curing the intellectual inability that prevents an athlete from being picked for the math team? It is pathetic to see parents acting like children themselves, trying to make their child popular so he won't be bullied, instead of acting like adults and punishing bullies for trying to stifle their child's personality. And heaven forbid, actually prizing intellectual ability in their children above the ability to kick around a ball!
Creativity comes with intelligence. A child's "odd movements" are often his creative attempt to mimic or adopt the mannerisms of someone on TV he admires. Try it yourself. See if it comes out looking anywhere near normal. It's also very hard for a child to develop physical and motor skills when all his energy goes into thinking. All his energy must go into thinking because no one helps him think and no one respects his attempts enough to leave him alone in his task. No one helps him balance thinking with physical activity. He must come away weak in one area or another, and he chooses thinking, so his weak area is motor skills. Were he properly guided in thought as well as he would have been in baseball, maybe he wouldn't have had to develop intellectual skills by himself. Children who forgo thinking, and focus on motor skills, are prized in our society, so they are never diagnosed with anything, even though they are just as unskilled as the "Aspie" child is, albeit in a different area (reason instead of athletics).
According to the Asperger's Bible thumpers, children should be diagnosed if they harbor an intense interest in a certain topic, especially a difficult or obscure one.
"Obsession" with certain topics or themes is not due to a syndrome, nor is it an odd or negative thing. Any person who appreciates life will naturally be attracted to specific fields or topics which are captivating. Sometimes, what seems to be an over-absorption in a topic is not that, at least not to someone intelligent enough to see the fascinating or beautiful details of a topic on a deeper level.
"Strange" or "peculiar" or "obscure" are the words less intelligent people use to describe interesting topics, since they are not sharp enough to see the intriguing details present in all subjects.
"Intense" absorption in certain topics are the mind's way of organizing a hierarchy of importance to its interests. A person who has a central goal or interest is not narrow, but the opposite, since the number one interest serves to integrate all other activities and put them to practical use. A kid obsessed with submarines may learn about ocean temperature, mechanics, etc.
Some topics or activities can only be enjoyed at an all-absorbing level (classical music, Egyptian gods, Napoleon, etc) and are satisfying only when studied in depth, because they contain so much variety within themselves. They must take on the status of a personal obsession in order to milk them of their whole value and take in the learning experience provided by their existence.
Intelligent persons will be able to see meaning or relevance in an even wider range of topics than most people take interest in, such as obscure things like collecting baseball logos or traffic signs. Unintelligent persons who find it boring will label anyone who has an interest "Asperger's", instead of trying to understand the interest or admitting their own lack of intelligence.
The child who has an "intense" interest (in whose opinion?) which "dominates" his life (this topic is part of his life) is not at risk for anything except a highly rewarding learning experience and the passion that comes with it.
Another supposed trait of Asperger's Syndrome is the "unusual" opposition to change that some children have. For example, a child will throw a tantrum if his favorite walking route is changed for the day. What Asperger's "experts" forget to tell us is that this isn't caused by Asperger's, but by the way a child is raised, for example, perhaps he grew up with a mother who was often taking things away from him for no reason, or a society which changed beloved traditions or actions before he got a chance to enjoy them.
People who get "overly" upset (in whose opinion?) by change in routine are those who are bothered and unsatisfied in their lives, and, because of this unsatisfaction, do not get a chance to enjoy the world before it is changed (often prematurely). Often, hatred of change happens because the child recognizes that, no, not all change is good.
Others notice that a change in routine while other problems are going on will only make it more difficult to function. If you are in trouble at school constantly, are being "diagnosed" because you cannot stand the taste of bananas, and are trying to become absorbed in your interest while others are seeking to "moderate" your behavior, how will the advent of change make this any easier? Especially if this change means not being able to walk along your beloved favorite route, with the beautiful trees, the only thing that kept you sane for this long?
*No interest in sexuality for the sake of sexuality
"Infatuation is when you think he's as sexy as Robert Redford, as smart as Henry Kissinger, as noble as Ralph Nader, as funny as Woody Allen, and as athletic as Jimmy Conners. Love is when you realize that he's as sexy as Woody Allen, as smart as Jimmy Connors, as funny as Ralph Nader, as athletic as Henry Kissinger and nothing like Robert Redford - but you'll take him anyway."
~Judith Viorst, Redbook, 1975
Chastity does not mean abstention from sexual wrong; it means something flaming, like Joan of Arc.
Gilbert K. Chesterton , 1874-1936, British Author
When AS books claim that AS children develop an "interest" in sexuality much "later" than the other students, what are they really saying? Since the intelligent (AS) child obviously won't catch many looks in today's society, they can only mean the "Aspie" is not interested in sex per se, in sex for the sake of sex, in the act of sex itself.
"AS" (thinking) kids do not always lack interest in sex per se. They just care about the person, not the activity. They recognize that it doesn't feel good to sleep with someone you aren't in love with. A young man who never has sex with the beautiful women he sees at college isn't necessarily asexual or purposely celibate. He doesn't have sex because he hasn't happened to meet anyone suitable. Just because he hasn't done it doesn't mean he lacks the mental capacity or hates the activity itself.
People who would rather have sex for the sake of sex do not have healthy relationships. They put the activity above the person they do it with. This is why we have couples dumping each other for not knowing all the latest moves.
Suppose a young man wanted to be the first lover of a wonderful young woman he met...and found out she had sex with many people before him, because her parents and teachers assumed it "normal" for people her age to have sex just for the sake of it?
Intelligent, emotionally sound people do not reject the temptation of indiscriminate sex...because they never have the temptation in the first place; the idea turns them off. The physical act of sex does not interest them unless it is done with someone they are wildly in love with. In a society plagued- literally- by AIDS, why marginalize this viewpoint, once considered the only normal viewpoint?
Of course, many people love sex itself. In fact, the more they love it, the less they want to ruin it with someone not suitable, someone who is a jerk or a bitch. And suppose there are no suitables around?
Many AS books claim that AS teenagers' view of sexuality and relationships is "naive" and akin to "puppy love". If an optimistic and non-cynical view of romantic relationships- or the view that sex isn't necessary or doesn't have to be rushed- is "naive", there is no hope for this society.
Not everybody enjoys sex. Others do, but still do not enjoy it in itself, meaning, they don't like it no matter who with, or however often. Nor do others follow the latest trends, including fast hookups and one night stands. Some others do enjoy sex, and are free to do as they please, but are not free to try to force others to follow their habits, or to throw people who don't share their interests into a psychologist's office.
When AS books claim that no interest in sex is "childish" or means one is "slow to develop", what is their arbitrary cutoff age for "old enough"? Is it the average age of the horde of pregnant teen girls we see on the news? And what exactly is it they want the intelligent child to develop into? A slut? Some kind of a dirty stud or stallion? A pimp? A jaded youth who sneers at people too "babyish" to go on the sexual escapades he does?
If having a cynical view of human relationships, having sex with someone you don't love because it's "healthy", believing two people who have no interest in sex (or too much interest) are weird, or believing that "sexually mature" means having sexual urges for no reason other than having the necessary "equipment" means you have "developed" into something, it can only mean you have "developed" from a human back into an animal.
As you can see, these qualities/traits/characteristics seem to amount to a political and social philosophy, or a personality, not a syndrome. In fact, they amount to a positive and highly desired one, as evidenced by the list of famous people we spelled out at the top of our HOME page. Furthermore, most of them aren't even unusual, but are highly common and sometimes traditional.
By marginalizing children with these qualities, those who want to turn good societies upside down have a fantastically covert arena to do it in, one in which their agenda might have never been discovered: psychology.