Actually what I described is just an extreme and illegal example of behavioral conditioning, and the response was much broader than than you apparently took it, but was about autism generally. However, in the context of my smartassed answer, that response would mean even the most extreme conditioning would be fruitless to reprogram someone afflicted with autism, though of course we don't really have any information on the severity of it in this case except for the negative behaviors. If this can't be curbed by (Legal) conditioning or persuasion, leaving this kid in class is totall unacceptable since it is sexual abuse of the other kids, and therefore also willful child endangerment of the rest of the kids by his parents and the school administration. I can't believe anyone is okay with exposing other kids to that, but apparently the autism advocates are out in force today.
Actually sir, behavioral therapies are one of the primary component of developing appropriate behaviors in autistic individuals, however those associated with violence are not successful because of the inadequate ability to associate a context for the punishment---btw, the same lack of context also applies to disagreeable stimulation as well...their context is about the same as the one a 2 year old has when they start pulling on the wee-wee too...it doesn't have the sexual overtones that some here would seem to like to prescribe to it. That's probably the biggest differentiation. I don't see discussion from what was said either that this has been a long term problem and that behavioral therapies have yet been implemented...sounds like the team just gave up because they were in shock. That too is not an appropriate response. So an autistic kid cursed, touched his private, or yelled in the hallway--these people are trained and paid big taxpayer bucks I might add to know how to address those situations. If the child had not been removed after a pattern of behavior then that is the ADULTS fault, not the child's and much of what I saw in response was aimed at the disabled child for Pete's sake, including yours.
However, that said, the behavior indeed does need to be addressed and behavioral therapies employed to redirect the inappropriate stimulation(and for those not aware, stimulation in an autistic context is not the sexual variety--stimulation could mean flapping hands, jumping up and down, banging a head on a wall, repetative behaviors of any kind).
For the record, you have retreated on a totally unambiguous comment calling it now smart-assed and wanting to give context to it after the fact. I'm sorry, sir, but I don't pretend to read your intent, I merely addressed what I read right before me in black and white and that's it. I didn't have the benefit of your context since you didn't provide it at that time. That is your fault, not mine. That said, it is you have decided to assign some intent and unsaid meaning to those who are trying to explain issues associated with autism or positive suggestions to deal with this situation. Even though you were given plenty of context from those individuals you have decided to snidely call them 'advocates of exposing children to inappropriate things' and never once didany of those 'advocates of inappropriate things' say this was appropriate behavior so lets put away the false platitudes shall we.
As I said, this school MAY not be equipped to deal with a child with issues like this. Like all conservatives, you should be advocating for the $$ for his education to follow him and perhaps this child can be placed in a learning situation more appropriate for his issues. A good conservative probably would give more fault with the grown ups trained and paid to care for and teach this child, including the parents, not the child himself. Furthermore, and with that said, how they handled it was perfectly acceptable INCLUDING REMOVING HIM FROM THE GENERAL POPULATION PRESENTLY(and no, that doesn't necessarily mean totally removing him from the school grounds). I know of autistic children who have their hands covered so they don't scratch themselves up for example. Covering the hands is a perfectly acceptable tactile and visual reminder(something that autistic people often need) that the behavior is not acceptable.
I think the only reason for the overreaction is because this involves the child's sexual organs; apparently this puts him on par with a child rapist and he deserves to be tazed and given sandpaper to wack off too because the GROWN UP educators around him don't know how to adequately protect both the normal children from the site of a disabled child's winky or prepare themselves for the inappropriate behaviors of the autistic child.
