Care and Handling of the Autistic-Spectrum-Disorder S-Type

by Raven Kaldera & Joshua Tenpenny

Literality and Precision of Instructions

This is reprinted from Broken Toys: Submissives with Mental Illness and Neurological Dysfunctionedited by Del Tashlin & Raven Kaldera.

Raven:

While - again - every ASD individual is different, one frequent frustration that new ASD s-types have with masters is that the orders they give are too vague. Many masters, upon hearing this, may raise their eyebrows - “My orders aren’t vague!” - but they underestimate how literally and specifically many ASD people take those orders. The classic “example joke” about the new Aspie sub is that the M-type tells them to fetch a glass of water, and they wander back empty-handed saying, “There are no clean glasses - will a mug do?” They probably stood there and agonized over whether the M-type intended them to take the time to clean a glass, thus fulfilling the order literally but taking up a lot of time, or put the water in a coffee mug which was “wrong”. Some might default to the first choice, leaving the master wondering where they vanished to and how long it could take to simply get them some water, or default to the second with apprehensive tears in their eyes, genuinely fearing to be reprimanded because it wasn’t an actual glass.

While this may seem oversimplified, literalities like this trip ASD people up all the time, and it isn’t the least bit amusing to them. It’s stressful, and ASD folks often have lower stress thresholds than neurotypical folks, because their entire environment is so often a source of constant low-level stress that the buffer gets used up quickly. On the other hand, if you’ve got the precise and meticulous sort of ASD s-type who loves specific instructions, you can have anything exactly the way that you want it, if you just put in the time to make things detail-oriented. One master of an ASD slave told me that her slave never made her morning coffee the way she liked it. Upon questioning him, it turned out that he wasn’t sure exactly how she liked it, because while he’d seen her make coffee for herself, she seemed to do things a little differently each time and she hadn’t ever described her exact method. Given this confusion, he reverted to making her coffee the way he had previously learned as the “correct” way. I suggested that if she were to take the time to figure out and write up the exact procedure for making her coffee, and hang it up right next to the coffee maker, both parties would get exactly what they wanted - correct coffee for her, and the comfort of a “correct method” for him.

This, of course, means that masters have to learn to give more precise instructions, and masters of both genders often become disgruntled when told that they have to change how they issue orders and instructions. Many of them - especially the more emotionally-oriented types with a strong sense of subtlety - will be very uncomfortable with what may feel to them as being forced into a precise “mechanical” style. However, this is the same issue that the dominant of any disabled s-type runs into: sometimes one has to compromise with the disability, or nothing will get done. (It’s important, though, to discern over time what is an unchangeable side effect of the disability and what can be slowly worked on with time.) One possible aid might be getting a third party who is good at breaking down instructions into a more precise form, and having them “translate” the master’s rules, perhaps into a written rulebook. At any rate, even if the master isn’t normally the sort to write things down, most ASD s-types do better with a written rulebook that they can refer to, and be sure they are doing things right. Knowing that if they just do X they’ll always be correct is very comforting to them.

Joshua:

It is important not to let the “clarification of instructions” not become a power struggle. You should be aware of whether they are really just trying to find out what you want, or whether they are using a search for “clarification” as a way to obstructively react to an order they disagree with. Observe them over time to figure out the difference, and don’t let it become manipulative. If you as the master are feeling pressured to give them more specific instructions, watch to see if simple clarification helps their genuine confusion, or if it’s starting to feel like a negotiation about how you will give them orders - in which case, shut it down.

Also, if you want to teach them how to generalize this from other situations, you can prompt them - “What do you think I would want in this situation? Based on what you’ve seen of me, what do you think I prefer?” If they get it right, great; if they get it wrong, just correct them and move on. If they seem to be tripping up on the basic concept that you are not them and don’t want what they want, that’s a bigger issue that needs to be addressed separately. If they seem clear on that basica concept, make it clear that you want them to observe how you do things and take note of your preferences. (They may need to actually write these things down.) Prompt them to extrapolate in new situations. Take time to train them to respond how you want. You want, ideally, for them to come to a place of using good critical thinking skills and showing insight into your preferences, and at the same time not using their confusion as a way to get out of things. If they have emotional baggage from a lifetime of people whose reactions were opaque (and who were not willing to work with them) and they’ve given up on understanding anyone but themselves, you may find resistance to this progression.

My suggestion to masters in this situation is that they ask the s-type to propose a few different methods, and then the master picks one. If you routinely just have them propose one method, because you don’t really care exactly how it is done, that can be detrimental in the long term to their sense of submission. By having them suggest multiple possibilities, you make it less likely that they would feel like they were just doing what they wanted anyway, and more likely that both of you will get something you want out of the situation.

Continued: Rigidity