What Bohemian Rhapsody is about – my theory


There are a lot of songs which, by the time you heard two lines of it, you already know what the song is about. Bohemian Rhapsody is not one of them. There is more than one theory on the story Mercury tried to tell in this song. Here is mine.

Bohemian Rhapsody is about someone almost dying from a suicide attempt or a drug overdose:

“Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?”
Is this really a hallucination, or is this really happening? See my explanation of “I see a little silhouette … let me go … Beelzebub has a devil …” further into this article – it is either a Near Death Experience (NDE) or a (drug-induced?) hallucination. He is not sure which.

“Mama, I just killed a man …”
He believes he killed himself.

“If I’m not back this time tomorrow carry on”
He can perceive his mother crying over him.

“Life has just begun, and now I go and throw it all away… Too late, my time has come… goodbye everybody”
He believes he is dying.

“I see a little silhouette… Scaramouche… thunderbolts and lightning…”
He is having either a Near Death Experience of hell or is hallucinating about hell.

“He’s just a poor boy, from a poor family” “let him go”
Angels in the NDE/hallucination are pleading for his life.

“We will not let you go”
Demons are dragging him down.

“Let me go”
He is pleading to the demons in his hallucination/ NDE.

Beelzebub has a devil … for me”
He sees demons in this hallucination/ NDE.

“So you think you can stomp me and spit in my eye? So you think you can love me and leave me to die? … Just let me right out of here”
He is fighting to stay alive. (The sentence “So you think you can love me and leave me to die?” also reminds me that Freddy Mercury died of AIDS.)

In the end, he makes it out, alive, but the depressed/ reckless state of mind that caused him to use drugs/ attempt suicide continues: “Nothing really matters. Anyone can see. Nothing really matters. To me.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What is wrong with BDSM? This is how I see it affecting practitioners (Part 2)


C) Ways in which BDSM affects mainly the practitioners

C1) It creates/ maintain/s encourages a situation where the hurting person asks to be hurt again, and often even hurt worse

A hurting person who is unambiguously against what happened will, as far as it is possible, get out of the situation and avoid unnecessary hurt in the future. But BDSM encourages victims to ask more pain and more degradation. Among others, they do this by creating a connection between pain and sexual pleasure. Their partners, if not sadists, could have chosen to emphasize the truth that orgasm can be reached by purely physical means without any pain, emotional or physical, instead.

It also pressures subs into affecting bad behavior from doms. Here is one piece of testimony from someone nicknamed Kinksterbullshit who studied the BDSM social media site Fetlife:

There is a forum for female subs to talk and one section was discussing when their dom punishes them when they aren’t supposed to. Like, if they aren’t in a 24/7 dom/sub relationship sometimes the dominant forgets and punishes the girl anyways. Most of them talk about how they did something that made their boyfriend mad and he punished her. Hitting, pepper spray, and shoving things in the girls mouth were all examples I read. And the sad thing is that these girls all said that they deserved it and shouldn’t have made him mad.

C2) The “building up” seems to be in a different direction than the “breaking down”

Studying the blogs of female BDSM subs, it seems the insults during scenes and the compliments afterward are in two different directions: The insults are mostly about sexuality (words like sl*t, b*tch, etc) and worth (words like worthless or c*mdump- only worth something as a dumping place for semen). It thus touches their personhood and sexuality in general. Subsequent praise is about sexual worth to the sadistic partner: His little girl, he is proud of her for tolerating (tellingly, not enjoying) pain, he loves her.

The message of the abuse is that s/he is worthless outside the relationship, but worth something to the sadist s/he is dating. She’d thus better keep on tolerating his treatment because that is where she gets her value.

C3) Even with their tiny definition of non-consent, consent violations are rife in BDSM

Here, I will quote Kitty Stryker, who calls herself an authority on developing a consent culture in “alternative communities”:

When I start to think of the number of times I have been cajoled, pressured, or forced into sex that I did not want when I came into the BDSM community I can’t actually count them… it happened so bloody often that it was just a fact of being a submissive female… I have yet to meet a female submissive who hasn’t had some sort of sexual assault happen to her [in BDSM]. So many sites are focused on saying how BDSM isn’t a cover for abuse that we willingly blind ourselves to the times that it can be.

C4) It causes practitioners to switch off common sense

BDSM-ers regularly tell me things like “since we don’t hurt anyone, you have nothing to say about this.” But by inflicting pain they literally hurt someone, so the argument does not work on even the most superficial level.

Or they may say, right between calling it safe and calling it consensual: “It is sane!” Why should anyone find it sane to get turned on by pain and degradation? None of them can answer that.

So many of their answers seem to be thoughtless and superficial, I come to the conclusion that kinksters switch off a part of their minds.

C5) “I like to make you happy” – “I like to make you suffer” is a horrible relational dynamic

On many a BDSM blog and in the writings of people who used to do BDSM, female subs and ex-subs say they did not like it, but they liked how pleased their doms/ “daddies” were with them afterward. Male doms often write of how they love to make [crude words for women] suffer. I cannot think of a more dangerous relational dynamic than this:
He: “I love choking you, cutting you, and whipping you. I love it when you sob and scream.” She: “I love pleasing you, daddy. If you will be pleased by hurting me, then hurt me.”

C6) Feelings often follow when you act a certain way

Psychologists tell us that acting confidently often cause us to become more confident and that acting happy makes us happier. In BDSM, participants tell us that one of them is role-playing a sadist or a rapist, while the other is pretending to be a submissive victim. If personalities are influenced by role-playing, BDSM dominants are turning themselves into monsters, and subs are turning themselves towards helplessness.

C7) Many subs do it from self-loathing

Here, I will quote someone else who did BDSM:

My first sexual relationship was a BDSM situation, because I had been groomed by a bunch of weirdos (both online by strangers and in IRL by society and my abusive family) to turn my deep emotional hurt and sorrow and self-loathing into literal, physical self-harm and abuse…

a.) lots of other women have said the same things I’ve said, so either there are a whole lot of bad doms or the whole scene is just really f***ed up, and either way somebody should probably pay attention to that,

and b.) I don’t think anyone is truly wired like that, from birth, but if you’re talking “worn down to the point that they eroticize their own abuse”, then yeah. I’m the real deal too.

… that means some dude gets off on torturing someone whose mind already tortures itself, and if you can’t see why that’s fucked up I don’t even know how to help you.

BDSM sometimes or often encourages and feeds self-loathing.

In conclusion, I think my main issue with BDSM is probably Point B8, Part 1:

It seems to me that nobody can love BDSM and simultaneously be on the side of kindness, justice, freedom, honesty, and equality. Any minute anyone spends defending bondage, dominance, and submission, slave-master relationships, sadism, one-sided punishments, etc., or willingly participating in it, is a minute spent choosing the side of evil. Any moment spent in working for equality, justice, or kindness, is a moment opposing everything BDSM stands for.

Posted in Feminism, Kink critical | Tagged , | 1 Comment

What is wrong with BDSM? This is how I see it affecting society (Part 1)

Trigger warning: Sexual violence

I never met a kinkster who wants to honestly discuss BDSM. They never want to talk about pain. They do not want to tell me what tops/ doms/ sadists get out of BDSM. They only give me platitudes (“…safe … sane … consensual …“).

Today, I want to do what nobody in any of these conversations ever allowed me yet: To share, from my angle, what I saw on BDSM blogs, forums, discussions, and information pages. “Do your own research”, they challenged me – and I did. Being autistic means I see some things others miss and miss some things others see. These two articles may thus include points you did not notice before, brought to you for free by the insights of Retha Faurie. (If you do not care how kinksters are affected by BDSM because they consent to it, then ignore part C – parts A and B have ways others are affected.)

A) Ways in which BDSM affects mainly the rest of society – not just practitioners

A1) It makes women in porn and prostitution suffer

BDSM desires tend to be fueled by, among others, watching violent pornography. One of the (many) problems with porn is that the vast majority of sex trafficking victims report having porn made of them against their will. If you watch violent pornography, there is no way to vouch that actual, non-consensual humans did not suffer for your pleasure.
BDSM lovers also tend to take out their violent fantasies on prostituted women. While some of these women are trafficked, even the others prefer not to have pain and insults inflicted on them, as BDSM-loving johns are likely to do.

It also causes some who are aware of BDSM to care less about human trafficking victims: If a sex slave means both (a) a kidnapped woman who is raped by twenty men a day, and (b) a willing BDSM participant playing a sex game with her boyfriend, then sexual slavery becomes a nuanced thing – not something to fight tooth and nail.

A2) It encourages the wrong questions

When someone is beaten, the right first questions are not: “Why does she (he) allow it? Why do they stay?” It is “why does he (she) beat her (him)?” BDSM people make a consistent practice of telling us the subs asked for it – they never discuss with outsiders why the dom enjoys beating his (her) partner. They teach, by this practice, society to question the motives of the wrong person.

A3) Some victims of rape/ sexual slavery are traumatized when their rapes are used to fuel entertainment

I think Andrea Dworkin says it best in “Letters from a war zone” (although potentially, some abused men could also feel like this about the things BDSM acts out, and she talks of women in particular):

“[w]e see the torture of women as a form of entertainment, and we see women also suffering the injury of objectification—that is to say we are dehumanized. We are treated as if we are subhuman, and that is a precondition for violence against us…

When your rape is entertainment, your worthlessness is absolute. You have reached the nadir of social worthlessness… One lives inside a nightmare of sexual abuse that is both actual and potential, and you have the great joy of knowing that your nightmare is someone else’s freedom and someone else’s fun.”


B) Ways in which BDSM probably affects both practitioners and the rest of society

B1) At best, BDSM is anti-intimacy

BDSM, according to its defenders, is about pretending to be someone you are not. At best, the BDSM dom is not really dominating and not really happy with the bottom’s pain, he is just pretending. At best, the BDSM sub is not really the slave of a violent sadist, but just putting on an act.

But ideally, sexual intimacy is about being not just physically, but emotionally naked before someone you trust. Ideally, you can show your whole self, without pretense, to someone who truly cares. BDSM, as participants explain it to those outside the scene, is all about pretense, and markets pretense as good relationships.

(When the pain, inequality, and sadism is real instead of a show, the problems get more grotesque than merely a lack of honest intimacy, of course.)

B2) It brings verbal and physical cruelty into the deepest and most vulnerable of human experiences

Women, and even perhaps men, are never more vulnerable than when naked before a lover. According to BDSM, this is the ideal time, and the ideal type of relationship, in which to degrade, punish, insult, and inflict physical pain.

(I know that the average kinkster now wants to answer with: “But we/ they enjoy it!” Really? I hear of women jerking their bodies away with each lash which lands, not automatically moving closer. If their bodies literally enjoyed the lash, their bodies would have instinctively drawn closer. I hear of subs struggling to sit down the next day after a beating, never enjoying to sit down because of the great feeling in their butt. I hear that when choked, they fight for breath – if they enjoyed being choked, they would have relaxed under the -to them- great feeling of not breathing.)

This not only affects people who consent to BDSM relationships, but also the rest of society who knows about it: If it is no big deal to inflict (physical or emotional) pain on a lover, and some people even ask for it, why should it be a big deal when some people hurt their partners?

B3) BDSM makes sex violent and violence sexy

This mindset – sex as violence, violence as a sexual mindset – is a prime influence on rape and sexual slavery. It is also a reason why women and girls, in general, have to put up with so much mistreatment from men and boys.

B4) It spreads false information about what domestic violence is/ is not

Without exception, every kinkster I ever met said that consent makes the difference between abuse and non-abuse, that beating or choking a partner who allowed you to do so is not abusive. But DV sources simply do not back that up. In short, in a relationship where one person dominates the other, you could expect the submitting partner to allow unwanted behavior. Their “consent” does not negate the abuse.
This false information IMO includes a too tiny definition of non-consent.

B5) Even while consensual, it is based on an interest in non-consent

At its best and most consensual BDSM is the equivalent of a rape joke, with a sexual thrill instead of a laugh as the result. Even while consenting, the scene is based on an interest in non-consent. If both partners whole-heartedly loved consent, the thought of acting out a rape/ slavery scene would disgust them, not thrill them.

It would be good for all to live in a world where people whole-heartedly chose the side of consent – where the very idea of continuing when a partner does not seem willing would abhor men and women.

B6) It makes it harder to spot and to prosecute rape and murder

The website We can’t consent to this documents cases where violent murders and assaults have been defended – often successfully – by claiming that the victim consented.

B7) BDSM is sexist

The majority of doms are male and the majority of subs female. Many insults used for women (wh*re, sl*t, etc.) have no real male equivalents. So-called “female doms” are often prostitutes paid to do only what their male clients want. Even in gay, lesbian, or femdom BDSM, there are insults that male subs are not “man enough” and masculine symbols like dildos for female doms.

It also aids sexist men in believing women want submission. This infamous quote (quoted by Jared Wilson in response to why women read 50 Shades of Grey) is only one example of a sexist man aided by awareness of BDSM:

“Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence… This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.” – Doug Wilson

But female submission is not natural: It is taught to women from a young age.

B8) BDSM “feeds the wrong wolf”

Most people know the story of the Native American who said everyone has a good and an evil wolf inside them, and the one you feed wins. It seems to me that if someone enjoys or gets off on inflicting pain, it is better to starve than to feed that side of himself (or herself). This also counts for a side that wants someone to inflict pain on you.

The same can be said about everything in BDSM: Do you regard freedom as being on the side of good, not evil? Bondage is the opposite of that.
Is equality a worthy goal for you? Then you should be against master-slave and dom-sub relationships.
Are you a kind person, who prefers healing to pain? Then you will abhor sadism and masochism.
Do you believe in justice? Then you will hate the one-sided punishments involved in BDSM “discipline”.

Do you love openness and honesty? Then role-playing and pretense, as kinksters claim they are doing, will be a weak excuse for a relationship in your eyes.

>> To be continued here

Posted in Feminism, Kink critical | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What does it really mean to stand up for life in a violent world?

I just finished a riveting action/ crime novel, and it was a page-turner: The main character is a bodyguard, protecting a lottery winner. 7 people get killed in the story. 5 characters are personally responsible for at least one of the seven deaths. 3 of the 5 killers also get killed in the story.

Of course, the reason the bodyguards are the good guys is that they kill people who killed before, or who showed a willingness to kill. On one level, I understand that reasoning.

But if you always manage to kill the potential threats before they kill your charge, are you not more murderous than they? Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

A Christian response to transgenderism

Five years ago, you probably never even heard the word ‘transgender’. Ten years ago, you

Caitlyn, formerly Bruce, Jenner. Source: eonline

certainly did not. But since Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner came out as transgender in 2015, the topic has been everywhere. Laws have been changed to allow males into female spaces based on how they identify, and child referrals to gender clinics skyrocketed.  How should a Christian respond to this overwhelming and sudden change?

Start at the beginning: Love your trans neighbour

Regarding our fellow humans, Jesus’ greatest command is to love them. This means caring about their well-being and being willing to pursue it – even at a cost.

Mar 12:31  Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.

In today’s society, the cost of that may turn out very high – more about that later in this article.

Be wise – understand the relevant issues

Like a doctor who could kill a patient by the wrong treatment, we could harm more than help if we do not go about this wisely. Here are a few points which Christians need to know about this issue.

1) If you want to respond with love and wisdom, here are a few don’ts:

1a) Don’t conflate trans activism with the individual trans person Continue reading

Posted in Autism, Christianity, Gender critical, Life/ choice | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

JK Rowling is not in trouble for “transphobia”. Quite the opposite.

“Shut the fuck up TERF.” “Fuck you, J.K.” “Eat glass.” “JK Rowling can suck my neopenis.” “I hate her and I hope something bad happens to her now.”*

A few of the violent reactions Rowling got

…and a few more

These are all threats which J.K. Rowling have received the past week. Her crime was this tweet:


While wishing people would “live their best life in peace and security”, Rowling also defended Maya Forstater, a woman whom trans activists strongly disagree with.
One of the accusations against Rowling was that she is a “transphobe“. This would literally translate as someone with an irrational fear of transgender people. If you do not want someone to have a (irrational) fear of you, you would want them less afraid.

If Rowling was irrationally scared of a group, the group would have been well advised to invite her over for a friendly cup of tea in a public setting (no chance for the not-so-scary-as-is-thought group to do anything violent there, as the allegedly scared little mouse wrongly thinks they want to). If an unduly afraid Rowling sees her opponents are actually gentle and amicable, it would dissolve some of her fears.

I believe the trans activists are lying to us, and maybe even to themselves. Make no mistake: Trans activists do not want Joanne Rowling less afraid of trans people.

Quite the opposite. If you send threats, you want people more afraid, not less so.
They do not want the rest of us less afraid, either. Instead, women who have unpopular opinions on trans issues often hear things like: “I punch TERFs” or “choke on my d*ck, TERF“.

I know that the average trans ally reading this will tell me that all of them are not represented by “a few bad apples.” I understand the argument, but if so, these nonviolent trans activists would strongly oppose the violent ones.

Trans activists seem quite fine with the thousands of women too afraid to speak up and say they are not women, and should not take over women’s spaces, though. Although literally scared of trans activists, these women are never called transphobic.

JK Rowling is not in trouble for transphobia, in other words fearing the trans community. She is in trouble for not being afraid enough.


* Sources for threatening statements:
Answers on Rowling’s own Twitter comment here 
Feminist Current embedded tweets here
Other twitter respondents’ views shared as screenshots.

Posted in Feminism, Gender critical | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

LEGO: The most compact back-to-back SNOT technique ever!

If you ever wanted to use two LEGO pieces in such a way that studs go in two opposite directions, you would know that the majority of such SNOT (studs not on top) techniques are rather bulky, right? Here are two examples:

Back to back SNOT techniques using a brick with 2 side studs, and a “light sabre” rod

But there is a SNOT technique with no visible pieces except the ones used for your design. The closest my technique comes to “bulk” is that it leaves about half a millimeter of seemingly open space between your opposite-facing LEGO pieces. In the sewing machine on the right (my design), for example, it was used to attach an upside down gear lever, to represent a needle.

“Invisible” back-to-back snot technique

How do you make this kind of thing? It is simple. Continue reading

Posted in Creativity, Toys and technical | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why a Tangle Toy will be more calming with 20 links instead of 18

Do you know what a Tangle Toy is? It is a really twisted toy… No, literally. It is an 18-link toy which you twist and fidget with to keep your hands busy. It is supposed to have a calming effect. It does, on me. But it could be better.

Tangle Toy

Quite simply, it feels calming to some people be able to twist something, but to smooth it out later. It means the problems can be solved. Things can get better. An object consisting of 18 90-degree angles cannot lie flat. The tangle can’t be smoothed out.

With 90-degree angles, you need a multitude of 4 to be able to lay them down flat: 4,8,12,16, etc. To make an figure with 2 axis of symmetry from pieces connected at 90-degree angles, you need 4 x (uneven number): 4,12,20, etc. I will photograph a broken tangle toy, to show how each time, there are just two links too few to actually make a pleasingly symmetrical shape.

In summary: A 20-link Tangle toy will be as twistable, but more un-twistable than one with 18 links. And the untwisting will give more peace of mind.

Posted in Creativity, Toys and technical | Leave a comment

What does it cost to use trans pronouns?

“What will it cost you to use the preferred pronouns of trans people?” she asked. This is a very good question, and not just for me, but for all of society. Even as a child with a few cents, we had to choose between one expensive chocolate and a handful of cheap toffees – how much more do we need to do cost-benefit comparisons of large proposed societal changes?

1) It costs mental energy

To explain, I will use a little exercise. Say the colours in which each of these words are written:

Thank you! Now say the colours of the font – not the spelled words – for each of these: (Purple, grey…)

The second exercise went more slowly and took a lot more mental energy, because you had to deny what you see, and say something else.

Similarly, to remember to talk of someone like Danielle Muscato, transwoman, as “she” takes some mental energy, which could have been used on something else:

Danielle Muscato

2) It costs some youths their sexual bodies

Many young adults deeply regret losing their penises, breasts or uteri to the trans craze. They wish their looks were never masculinized or feminized. They wish they could have children. They wish the body parts that could have sexual pleasure was not mutilated. One of the reasons they are mutilated, is because people kept calling them “he” or “she”, affirming to them that the feeling in their mind is the truth, and their bodies has to be adjusted to fit that truth.

3) It costs some of us our identities

When a trans ally first told me: “Your vagina does not make you a woman“, I was baffled. If being a vagina-having adult does not make me fit into the group called “women”, and people without them could identify into womanhood while people with them could identify out, then what is my group called? What should I say when I have to fill in one of the many forms that bureaucracy demands from me? Fill in what I feel? I can only feel I am a woman if womanhood have some definition in my head.

Even more important, I speak up for women’s rights in church – but the penis owners who think of themselves as women already have those rights! If we change the meaning of “women”, I need to change my writing on women in church to talk about those who are disadvantaged – but trans people tell me I do not have a word for my group, in order to discuss our issues!

4) It costs the loss of terms to discuss large and important demographic groups.

Have anyone ever done a study on how common violence by Coca Cola drinkers are, versus violence by Pepsi drinkers?

It is ridiculous, right? We do not measure violence by personal preference. Except, nowadays we do.

We used to be able to say that the class of people who have penises, called men, are statistically more violent than those who have vaginas, called women. But where police use preferred genders to report crime, we say those who, for whatever reason, prefer the name “man” are statistically more violent.

But making policy to keep people with the word preference “women” safe from people with another word preference is silly. Why have, for example, a “women’s shelter”, if “woman” is just a word people may or may not like to use? It is as silly as a “Pepsi drinkers’ shelter where Coke drinkers are not allowed.

If “women”, on the other hand, is a recognizable word with meaning, and part of that meaning is that it is the class recognized to be statistically more likely to suffer from physical violence from the other sex class, who is stronger on average, then a women’s shelter makes sense.

In that case, it also makes sense to study why one sex class is a lot more violent.

Does it make sense to study heart attack symptoms in women? Only if women are a biological class. If women are simply a group of people who like a certain word, it makes as much sense as comparing the heart attack symptoms of to-mah-to pronouncers versus to-may-to pronouncers. Suppose you want to study heart attacks in a particular sex class, but doctors report gender identity instead of sex, whose medical records do you look at to study these heart attacks? And when the doctor hear a woman is coming in with symptoms which are common heart attack symptoms in penis people but not vagina people, how quickly can the doctors help if they do not know whether this “woman” is from the penis group or not?

5) It cost us our ability to reject sexist stereotypes

If we have to call a guy with false eyelashes, high heels and a dress “she”, are we promoting sexist stereotypes? Are we saying that these things are womanly? Caitlyn Jenner, for example, said: “The hardest think about being a woman is deciding what to wear.” If I call Caitlyn “she”, I seem to be agreeing with Caitlyn that what you wear is a component of what makes you a woman. And I seem to be throwing women under the bus who dress in a masculine way, as well as those who do not think about clothes.

6) It costs us our integrity

We are asked to say things which, at best, we have no evidence for the truth of it. We all know a word needs a definition before it could be used meaningfully. Not one trans person wants to tell me how they define “man” or “woman”. To repeat words despite knowing that (by the definition we know) they are not true is to become dishonest.

7) It costs some people years before they could accept themselves for who they are

If we keep on calling a boy a girl, we encourage him to not accept himself for what he truly is. In fact, we help him to believe the opposite. If we continually call a woman “he”, we also work for her not to accept herself. Yet, they can never fully become the other sex, but only bear a superficial resemblance by working hard on it.

For the same reason that I won’t call an anorexic “fat”, I would not knowingly accept the pronouns of a trans person.

This may or may not be an itemized bill – there may be other costs I did not think of. If you say this price is worth it, in order to affirm the identity of a minority group – did you read the list? Point 3) shows that large groups of people have their identity stolen to pay for this. If identity is so important, why do you think we should lose ours? As for me, I am not willing to pay this price.

Posted in Feminism, Gender critical | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

I am on the autism spectrum. Here is why I hate “Rain Man”

Rain man, by Leonore Fleischer, is in some ways a really good book. If it was not, nobody would have made a major movie from it. Methinks, she puts excellent character development into Charlie, the allistic (non-autistic) brother.
The way the people in the book respond to Raymond (“Rain Man”) is often an accurate portrayal of how society looks at autistic people and others who are different. The book also shows an institutionalized autistic man connecting to someone, and having some moments of success outside his institution. What is not to love, if you are autistic?

Plenty. Continue reading

Posted in Autism | Tagged , | Leave a comment