Well, on our way out the other day he blocked my path as I tried to get around. He asked what was wrong with my stomach. I told him I was having a baby. He asked when. Then he asked for my birthday and my daughter's birthday, all the time blocking my path. I have "issues" with feeling physically trapped, so I was starting to feel a bit panicked. Then he reached for my belly and said, "Do you want me to touch it?" And I said, as calmly, but firmly, as possible, "No, thank you. Now please let me through."

He didn't take it well. He started yelling, "DO NOT TOUCH! SHE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO TOUCH HER! NO!" And everyone in the lobby just stared at me like I had just committed an amazing act of cruelty.

I don't want to be the lady who's mean to the mentally disabled! But I also don't want to be groped while taking my kid to class.

Any suggestions on how to handle this?

Sounds like you're handling it just fine. I would do the same thing (I do not allow strangers to touch me, either).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what you're doing. Don't worry about what other people think.

Be firm and kind, as if talking to a kid who's acting inappropriate.

I think you're spot on. Nothing to worry about, and everyone else can get bent.

And are you certain that people are judging you harshly? It's possible they feel sympathy for you, or they're embarrassed for you, or they're just glad it's you and not them. I doubt everyone at the Y hates you.

His behavior is just plain inappropriate, and it would be helpful to him if someone told him so and helped him to stop doing it. Is there someone who regularly works with him at the Y who could talk to him about this in a way that would work for him? I'd try to find someone there who has the strongest rapport with him and let them know this is a problem for you.

You have every reason to feel invaded, and you don't need to feel guilty that you don't want it to happen. Dollars to doughnuts, you're not the only one who feels that way. Because he's developmentally disabled, he might not be able to understand the 'leave me alone' cues you're giving him - but he really does need to learn not to touch other people without their permission. Sometimes explicit conversations will help with this. It all depends on the person. The really mean to the disabled thing would be to act like this is a fine, normal behavior - because it's not, and if he tries it in the wrong place on the wrong person at the wrong time, it could lead to some serious troubles.

Oh I don't think everyone hates me, Pinky. But the staff, in particular, are very attached to him (as are many of the patrons) and there's definitely a vibe of "Why are you so uptight? Why can't you play along like everyone else?"

There probably are other people who are kind of bothered, but no one ever says anything because you don't want to be perceived as "mean." And I should point out that this is a very, very small Y.

On preview: You're probably right, Miko. I know one of the instructors. Maybe I'll say something to her and gauge from there.

i'd just loudly, firmly say, oh so assertively:
"Not everyone wants to be touched."
The loud part is easy for me as i have that operatic diaphram thing that automatically happens anyway. Much to many's dismay.

i had an incident where this developmentally disabled guy was humping the jets while i was in the jacuzzi at the Y. He followed me into another jacuzzi.
This is just not ok.

As for the touching shouting thing, he might know people who violently do not want to be touched, which is very probable, especially if he lives in a group home or the like, and so was just warning everyone else more than offended.

I think that you are fine. I also hate to be tickled, started from behind, etc., due to some childhood stuff. I can't see you handling it any differently, but I second Miko's idea of talking to the staff and maybe getting their support/gentle intervention.

I had an incident in my gym that is bugging me. I was doing this supervised run-and lift program: a few of us were running laps for a minute then lifting for a minute (3 sets per machine). A trainer was timing. Well, after the first set on the hamstring machine (leg flex) someone came with THEIR trainer and got on it. This woman was very large, and when they saw that my bottle and stuff had been there the woman apologized, and started to vacate this machine (you lay prone on it). I said, "no problem, the cow's out of the barn," which is what I say a lot, meaning that something is already done, adjust and move on. Well, with the woman's body type, this was a poor choice of words, and I have been bothered by it for a week now. I have NO idea if she picked up on it at all, though. I hope not.

And being tickled by someone I don't know, well, it feels like being assaulted.

There's people who wouldn't say "feels". And if it's their kid ...

I would say that you think it's harmless but invasive/annoying. Somebody else may not. This guy is looking at getting arrested and being in a world of hurt, and if you don't want that to happen to him, you'll go to management and tell them.

Also, I'm not quite sure that they're staring daggers at you. They may have been told to keep an eye on him. Certainly they all know amongst themselves.

wtf? This would piss me off. Not at the guy but at the staff. They should know better. I would feel the exact same way as you. And I also hate that feeling of being forced to be nice or courteoust to someone when you don't think you should have to.

The staff should nip this in the bud, you shouldn't be forced to feel uncomfortable at this place. Especially considering you pay them.

Since it's a Y, I would think they've also had a certain amount of sensitivity training, as well. They should be understanding of your objections, especially if you phrase it as stilicho has suggested. Children, or even people who have endured sexual abuse or personal violence in the past, could be especially sensitive to this, and the needs of the Y members for personal space are every bit as important as the need of this man for a safe place to spend his day being social.

^ agreed.

Do we get to talk about annoying gym things now?
It's been years since i've been in the gym and it was the Y--
Does anyone else close their eyes and just do their reps on the machine?
Does anyone else ever open their eyes and find people staring at them like slack jawed idiots?
This and the jet humping are my rationalizations for not going to the gym.
Yeah, i really should but no.

humping the jets while i was in the jacuzzi at the Y.

Oh come on. Who doesn't hump jacuzzi jets? (Seriously, though. That's way worse than being tickled or having your belly touched.)

Anyway--he was definitely offended. Majorly agitated.There was a rush to comfort him. It was an "incident." And I certainly don't want to cause another one. I was really expecting someone to tell me that I was being kind of jerky about this (it IS just a belly after all), so I'm really happy to see that I'm not oversensitive due to the hormones.

Since it's a Y, I would think they've also had a certain amount of sensitivity training, as well.
This is a crazy-ass Y. There's actually a lifeguard who wears cowboy boots and dips tobacco while on duty.

God, I need to get out of this town.

And danf, you made me giggle. If she didn't sock you upside the head right then and there, you're probably in the clear.

Also, I'm not quite sure that they're staring daggers at you. They may have been told to keep an eye on him. Certainly they all know amongst themselves.

The more I think about it, the more I think you (and TPS) may be right. I'm admittedly oversensitive these days and my perception may be WAY off. What I'm perceiving as vexation toward me may just be toward the situation in general.

Now WE all think you're a crazy pregnant lady.

Seriously. WTF? Why are the staff letting this guy tickle ANYONE?

I don't give a shit if he's mentally slow or not. He shouldn't be tickling strangers. I can appreciate that the staff are being nice to the guy - good on them for being nice. But there's a huge difference between being nice and/or letting someone behave in inappropriate ways.

^ double agreed.

*slips featherduster back into gymbag*

I like the topic of gym gross-outs. I'm gonna post about it.

Everything Miko (and everyone else) said. Touching strangers, especially if he's touching kids, is not appropriate.

I mean, really, does the Y want to be teaching kids that it's rude to complain when strangers touch you in ways you don't like? That people will stare and yell and tell you to be nice and put up with it? That's certainly not how I'd want people modeling behaviors for my kids.

My brother is mentally disabled, but not developmentally challenged, as it would seem the man at the Y that you describe might be, jrossi4r.

The other day, we were doing some lawn work, and there was a tree branch about 3 inches in diameter and about 10 feet long in the back yard, that we worked around for an hour or so. Finally, the branch was about all that was left to clean up, and so I started around the side of our house to get my electric chain saw, and the 100' foot extension cord. My brother said "You want that limb broken up?"

And I said, "Sure, that's why I'm going to the garage. To get the chain saw."

"Don't need the chain saw." he said. And he grabbed the thin end of branch in one hand, and stomped it in the middle, with his full weight a couple of times. It broke in half, and the fat end quivered back to the ground by itself. Still carrying the thin end of the branch, he walked over to the patio, swung the 5 foot length of the branch he was carrying over his head, and smashed the thick end on the patio, shattering the branch into a couple of split end pieces. He grinned, and dropped the piece he was holding, and walked over to the other, thicker half of the original branch in the yard.

He picked that up, testing its greater weight, and walked back towards the patio. He did the overhead swing with that heavier piece too, but made a slower, yet graceful arc, before the stump end of the branch smashed on the patio. Standing 20 feet away, I felt the thump travel through the ground.

He shook the branch a little, picked it up again, and swung it overhead, this time with a grunt, as if he were slightly angry with it. Down it came, there was a sharp report of wood splintering, and he was holding a 3 foot length of the branch, while a 2 foot length skittered across the patio, and came to rest by the grill.

"That was fun." he said, as he retrieved the piece by the grill, and carried it around the side of the house, to stack by the curb for pickup, with the other debris we'd collected.

Moral of the story: Be nice to those whom you might not fully appreciate.

Because they might beat you up with their superhuman strength?!

I agree with what just about everyone has said - if this guy has no idea of boundaries, then the people at the Y need to set them for him and make sure he keeps within them.

(it IS just a belly after all)

Yeah, but it's YOUR belly. And if you don't want to be touched, you most definitely have that right. (!)

And paulsc, I'm confused about your point.

Me too.

There's actually a lifeguard who wears cowboy boots and dips tobacco while on duty
Well, I hope your girl never needs saving - I can't imagine how he would swim in those.

The Y is nuts if they let this sort of thing happen and it is a legal minefield for them. All it will take is for some precious mama to get all mortified that he tickled little Sabrina and run to the nearest ambulance-chaser and it will be all over for them. Once it comes out that the staff there knew this sort of behaviour was happening and didn't prevent it, they will be in the shit up to their eyeballs for failing in their duty of care. It's not your responsibility to keep this guy within the bounds of acceptable behaviour, it's theirs.

Also, does it seem like this behaviour is escalating? What happens if he moves from asking people their birthday, to tickling them, on to something more serious, all because nobody told him when to stop for fear of being seen as discriminatory? It is quite likely that being told by someone he respects that this is not acceptable behaviour in a way he can understand will solve the issue once and for all.

You did the right thing, jrossi4r.

Although he may feel like everyone is family, it is a public space and one has to learn the boundaries of society.
It's dismaying that the staff let him get away with inappropriate behaviour. No matter how small the Y is, ]fucking cowboy boots in the fucking pool¿ —I'd be calling the health and safety inspector, WTF[. I'd rip a letter to the director to inform the staff that only certain people could be considered 'family' to this 'man', as for yourself, like you stated, you don't want to be touched or tickled and having your exit blocked. It's enough that You consider it threatening, period. No excuse because of his disability — yes, prisons are full of people who don't know boundaries and you could call them challenged too. Age is no difference and it's time he learned the norms and what's appropriate behaviour.

Gavin DeBecker would agree, author of 'The Gift of Fear'.

Maybe my predator radar is set high, but I err on my side and my gut feelings. They shouldn't be dismissed and neither should your wishes.

What many have stated: Firmly and slightly raised voice.

As a guy, ]this applies to women too[ if someone doesn't stop doing — after being told once, guess what my response would be¿ Bloody right. No means fucking no, period.
My mother would agree, she has a brown belt in karate, they teach her in class it's best if you can talk your way out of danger, but if it's not working, a hard kick in the groin or an elbow smash to the face and then clear outta there. In your case, shove him out of your way, Hard, if words don't register. He's got 2 seconds, it isn't a game to you, you're making it undeniably clear.

I don't know where people got the idea that a pregnant's women's belly is for everyone to touch. Rude.

danf, isn't it 'if the horse has already left the stable'....oh, never mind... :)

My apologies: I know I come across as sounding angry, but when it comes to predatory behaviour, I do have issues with that and will not put up with it for 2 seconds. No excuses.

Yeah, i don't know where belly touching became a normal thing either, ESP. in the case of pregnancy.

paul, that's how i would have dealt with the stick, myself, but i am like that.

People who are developmentally disabled need to learn good boundaries and solid social skills, because in some cases they may not have adequate judgment. It's not a good idea to allow this sort of behavior. Touching a person without permission can be considered assault. Tickling me would be considered assault.

If you're up for it, complain to the management. They are not doing this person a kindness.

being told by someone he respects that this is not acceptable behaviour

This is, in fact, a huge part of what special education is for.

"... And paulsc, I'm confused about your point."
posted by Specklet 15 February | 16:20

Then, I told the koan correctly. :-)

Let's review in Western terms.

jrossi4r opens by stating that she had "...a very Larry David incident this week and could use your advice." We know that much of Larry David's comedy comes from confrontations he has with others, which get out of hand because of his own unfounded assumptions about the other person.

jrossi4r goes on to say that a mentally disabled man who hangs around the Y she uses asked her and her daughter about their birthdays, and asked if he could touch jrossi4r's pregnant belly. When she refused, the disabled man did not touch her, but began warning others loudly that she didn't want to be touched. This kerfuffle caused the staff to look at jrossi4r askance, and since she thinks the staff are good people, she simply asked for advice about how to better handle the situation.

From what I read, neither she or her daughter was actually touched. And she comes back in later to say that "I was really expecting someone to tell me that I was being kind of jerky about this (it IS just a belly after all), so I'm really happy to see that I'm not oversensitive due to the hormones." after relating that the staff of the Y didn't feel the disabled man had done anything wrong.

So, here are some points for future consideration.

The disabled guy is sitting in lobby of the Y, partly thanks to changes mandated by Federal law in the late '70s, that closed institutions and curtailed services, in the interests of "mainstreaming" developmentally challenged and mentally ill people, often without much in the way of alternative community support. In the small town my brother used to live in with our parents, the Y was a common place for disabled folks to go in the day, and my brother went 4 or 5 times a week. The staff in many YMCA's are pretty familiar with the mentally disabled and developmentally challenged folks that come regularly, and if they feel a person is "OK" he probably is, to a certianty of 99.9%

As far as I can tell from the recitation, the disabled man didn't do anything wrong, except go into a warning mode, which he may have been taught as an acceptable displacement behavior. Once he found jrossi4r didn't want to be touched, if all he did was to make that prounouncement loudly to others, even teasingly, he wasn't doing anything that would get him tossed from even the best NYC restaurants.

Being confrontational with people whose physical abilities you don't really know may be funny on TV, but rarely is in really life. Moreso when dealing with people whose inhibitory social mechanisms may not be fully operational, and who can have exaggerated responses to adrenalin they generate when confronted.

I'd suggest engaging the guy, introducing yourself, and greeting him by name when next you see him. Ask him to open or hold the door for you, or carry something, or even walk with you. He'll be happy you remembered his name, and be far less likely to accost your progress. You may not want to be touched, but you might find he's willing to have you take his arm for support, and that he'll walk you to the door, or out to your car, happily.

I'm still not sure about your overall point, paulsc.

As far as I can tell from the recitation, the disabled man didn't do anything wrong,

He may not have done anything "wrong", but made her uncomfortable. Not okay.

Being confrontational with people whose physical abilities you don't really know may be funny on TV,

She wasn't being confrontational. She told him she didn't want to be touched. Calmly.

I'd suggest engaging the guy, introducing yourself, and greeting him by name when next you see him.

It's my opinion that she shouldn't have to engage this person at all if she doesn't want to.

Actually, I was thinking more in terms of how Larry ends up looking like a jerk for often innocuous reasons. (Like the "boner pants" episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm or any of the others that end with him yelling, "No! No! You don't understand!") Maybe I should have gone with Bob Newhart in "Newhart." He had that problem, too.

I didn't mean to upset or offend. I have never been unkind. I do not want to be confrontational. I just don't want to be touched or tickled (nor have my daughter be) and I'm not sure how to communicate that without seriously upsetting him again. And though I appreciate your advice to engage him more, I think it would have the complete opposite effect since he is most "affectionate" with those he knows.

I'd suggest engaging the guy, introducing yourself, and greeting him by name when next you see him. Ask him to open or hold the door for you, or carry something, or even walk with you. He'll be happy you remembered his name, and be far less likely to accost your progress. You may not want to be touched, but you might find he's willing to have you take his arm for support, and that he'll walk you to the door, or out to your car, happily.

You might find that, paulsc, but I wouldn't. All of us are deserving of basic respect, but all of us are also perfectly within our rights to decline social contact we don't want.

When I go to the gym, I go there to do one thing: work out. I don't want to be social, make new friends, chat on the treadmill, exchange many pleasantries in the locker toom, or be walked to my car. I'm a rather reserved, private person, and that needs to be just as all right as any other mode of social behavior. I don't think it's fair to expect anyone to be more extroverted or connection-seeking than they normally would. It's reasonable to expect that we can define our own boundaries with regard to personal space.

I don't think anyone criticized the Y for being hospitable to this guy, asserted that society provides other places for him to be, assumed that actual touching had taken place, or suggested that he did anything criminal. I think we all understood the interaction in the same way you did.

My recommendation is based not on prejudice or heartlessness, but on my experience in working with developmentally disabled kids on socialization skills. The guidelines need to be communicated explicitly. This man wants to be friendly; he'll find that people are more comfortable with him (as jrossi was previously) if he resists his urge to touch them without permission. If he can learn this (and it certainly sounds like he can, based on the cognitive skills evidenced in his shouting response), then he should be encouraged to do so, for his own good as well as anyone else's. But whether or not that ever happens, no one is required to interact with a random stranger in any way which they don't choose.

And yes, at the Y, around children, it would certainly behoove him and the Y staff not to create conditions which would permit him touching a child without the parent's and child's permission. It takes very little imagination to picture the ugliness which could result, no matter how completely innocent the intent.

Being confrontational with people whose physical abilities you don't really know may be funny on TV, but rarely is in really life.

I think what a few of us were reacting to here is that this statement, and the story you shared above, sound like threats.

Don't be quick to assume we're all insenstitive or inexperienced with people who have processing, learning, or communication disorders. I have trainig in educating the disabled, so I'm not reacting from fear and ignorance. This guy needs some guidance - his behavior is making people needlessly uncomfortable. Jrossi doesn't have to put up with it. She can extend the hand of friendship if she wants, but she doesn't have to. No one has to have contact they don't want to have - especially not physical contact. You can say "No thanks, I don't want you to touch me" and not feel guilty about it. It's nice even - certainly nicer than "Get the fuck away from me," which is another option perhaps more useful elsewhere.

Tickling people who you don't know well, in a public place, is simply out of bounds. I wouldn't allow a three-year-old to do it to me; I certainly wouldn't allow an adult, of any description, to do so either.

Why the hell is the onus on her to make up for his poor socialization? This man has been physically accosting total strangers (albeit in what may to him be meant as a purely playful gesture) - and has been allowed to do so.

You're projecting, paulsc - so let's go with that. I imagine if you were with your brother and he walked up to total strangers and began tickling or touching them, you would consider it inappropriate and stop him. You would be wise to do so. In the absence of responsible parties, the stranger has the right and the obligation to speak for him/herself. She wasn't a jerk about it - just stood up for her boundaries. There is no analysis where that was wrong.

Being confrontational with confronted by people whose physical abilities you don't really know may be funny on TV...

No, it's not funny. Or cute. Or acceptable.

The fact that you tried to establish boundaries with him shows that not only do you respect yourself but that you see him as someone who can understand this. The staff seems to have adopted this man as some kind of mascot and a tool to irritate the patrons for whatever reason. They have little respect for this fellow and obviously little for the patrons. If they truly liked him they would help him to understand that approaching others in this way is inappropriate but they won't because they are using him.

On preview: Exactly what Miko said.

you might find
The operative word being might.
i don't see any mandates or insistences.
Maybe we can calm down a little. Seems like jrossi has.

What i find far creepier is grown men who are socially impaired and use tickling as a means of-- well i'm not sure if it's just to interact or cop a feel or be a child or what combination of what. A friend of mine did it in college with a bunch of my other friends and i had to take him aside although i don't think anyone else minded.

My sister tried to paralyze me with tickle control and so i was forced to move beyond tickle reaction. Now i'm only ticklish when i'm really tired or in some odd situation without full conscious control.

paulsc, His 'warning mode' should be taught that he say it in a normal tone of voice. As lay people, including those alarmed at the yelling, aren't that familiar with this 'warning mode'. What about jrossi4r's 'warning signs' — SUCH AS YELLING¿ Thart's a warning sign to me. That alone would make me uncomfortable.
This is about how he makes jrossi4r feel. And what part of 'she would rather not interact with him' did you not understand. Some people just want to go to the gym, work out and be left alone, thanks. Period. They're off work, it's their time and if one is so inclined to join his 'community' then by all means, but don't make me, nor anyone else feel as if they should be obligated.

It's not that he's a bad man, but he has to understand that if someone doesn't want you to do anything, it's not meant as a slight. It just is.

"and who can have exaggerated responses to adrenalin they generate when confronted."—quote
THEY/HE, weren't confronted. She merely stated. When asked to do something, like please don't yell or excuse me, I'm passing through, you wouldn't comply¿ So never mind 'get him to open the door or carry something'. Not all folks may be comfortable with that, unlike yourself.

I have more to say and read, but I have to go out. That's for starters, paulsc, regarding this koan of yours.

First, so far as I'm still reading, neither jrossi4r or her daughter have been tickled. The developmentally challenged man's social skills "impairment" hasn't got him tickling everybody, apparently. From her description, he's just talking to strangers, not tickling them, and he might not even understand that jrossi4r felt he impeded her way. I wasn't there, but the Y folks who were didn't seem to be too upset about it.

Next, the Y folks aren't this man's keeper, legally or morally. Advising jrossi4r to suggest they take him aside isn't particularly useful, as they don't have any special influence with the guy, other than perhaps being friendly with him. All the Y folks can really do is bar him from the premises, which is a pretty large step for an institution that might be operating under public accomodation laws to take, when the chief complaint that jrossi4r has at the moment is that he might have impeded her egress.

"Why the hell is the onus on her to make up for his poor socialization? ..."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 15 February | 19:28

It's a direct outcome of the choice by the larger society to mainstream mentally ill and developmentally challenged folks. The definition of the acceptable range of societal behavior grew enormously throughout the 1970's and 80's as changes in Federal law and funding created "de-institutionalization." As a society, and therefore as individuals, we have a greater duty to accept things like poor socialization, unusual mannerisms and utterances, odd dress, different standards of hygiene, and other things that were once societal markers of difference. Point blank, we've said, as a society, that the guy has a right to be where he wants to be, and do what he wants to do, and we've agreed as members of society to be accepting of such differences, and teach our kids that being tolerant is the right way to interact with those who are mentally ill or developmentally challenged.

You may not like muttering street people pushing carts around your neighborhood, but they can if they don't cause specific problems. Nobody has to bathe on schedule in America, or get a haircut, or be just the right degree of friendly, to have rights and be respected. Those of us who are able bodied and fully competent are expected to make allowances when necessary to ensure this, just like we're supposed to leave handicapped parking spaces for people that need them. That's what mainstreaming is all about.

"... I imagine if you were with your brother and he walked up to total strangers and began tickling or touching them, you would consider it inappropriate and stop him. You would be wise to do so. In the absence of responsible parties, the stranger has the right and the obligation to speak for him/herself. She wasn't a jerk about it - just stood up for her boundaries. There is no analysis where that was wrong. ..."

You'd be wrong, entirely, with this whole stream of projection on your part, IRFH. First off, I wouldn't even try to stop my brother doing something in a public setting, unless it rose to the standard of being a danger to himself or others. It isn't warranted, and it would seriously depersonalize him, and put me in the position of being his keeper, which I don't want to be, and am not. Besides, if he wanted to, I suppose he could put me in the hospital, if he were so inclined, and I'm smart enough not to test that with him, short of life or death to him or someone else leaving me no choice.

It's true that he lives with me, and I handle what little money and health care system interface he requires, but I am not his keeper, because he doesn't need one. And yes, at times, he says or does things in public that once I found somewhat embarrassing. But after I quit being embarrassed, there wasn't any real problem with his public behavior. Indeed, I'm genuinely proud of the guy, for dealing with a horrendous disease daily, and refusing to be crushed by it. Not everybody we meet reacts well to my brother, but I quit being ashamed of him, or embarrassed by his actions long ago, and those that are most frightened by his 1000 yard stare, are inevitably the least tolerant, least educated people we meet. In that regard, other people's reactions to my brother have become reliable markers for us of their issues, not his.

Me, I sit and drink in my old age, by choice, in the gentle honesty of madmen.

Second, despite your injunction to the contrary, it most definitely wouldn't be wise, for the very same reasons it wouldn't be wise for me to try to restrain you publically from doing what you wanted to do, even if that included picking your nose and flipping people in public places the bird. As for the rights and obligations involved on either side, that is absolutely a two way street, up to the point that someone commits an actual assault. Civilized behavior is the sphere of interaction that is under discussion before rights and obligations come into play. And frankly, where one party has a greater intellect and experience, the usual societal expectation is that such a party carries the greater responsibility to act accordingly, and with tolerance. To her credit, jrossi4r is, I think, trying to do that, by looking for better options for the next time she comes into contact with this guy.

I'm sorry she feels that getting to the know the guy's name, and taking a couple of minutes to acknowledge his presence on the way in and out of the Y is likely to make her or her child fair game for his tickling. I think that's unlikely, for a number of reasons. People who look different or who are different can come to feel as invisible as Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, and in my experience, simply treating them as visible, as persons, is often enough to pull them into social behavior. In a small town, in the case of a guy who is well known to local folks, I doubt complaints to the Y management are going to be fruitful, because such complaints appear inherently one-sided, if the guy hasn't actually done something untoward.

But what do I know?

i think it could be as easily explained to anyone as it was explained to us, and i don't think it's in any way a big deal unless it's treated that way, instead of as a simple explanation.
If there is any question with "I don't let strangers touch me, period," fix then with the steely eye and ask them if they have ever heard of third trimester hormones.
We care about jrossi and the welfare of the little rossi and want as little stress as must be endured for all of our sakes, frankly.

That said, i find the people who i know who are the most afraid of being embarrassed are almost always the ones who are, honestly, embarrassing, and i have gotten to the point where i am no longer interested in shielding them from this fact or dealing with any of their illusions about what is quite obviously their hang up for obvious reasons.
i know a fair lot of disabled people and i find them far less of a burden than people who are so consumed with appearances that i have to change my damn clothes to fit their expectations or they are worried about what people will think of them in relation to where they are and with whom at whatever time etc ad nauseum.
That kind of ego fragility is not my problem unless i'm being paid to deal with it or i choose to of my own free will.

And with that i have to retire myself and my various machines.

... it wouldn't be wise for me to try to restrain you publically from doing what you wanted to do, even if that included picking your nose and flipping people in public places the bird.
Without meaning to pick the bones of your comment for something to attack, this is a significant factor in this whole issue - if someone is doing something that you don't like watching, you can look away. When someone is making another person physically threatened, then the line has been crossed and this, for me, is where unnacceptable behaviour begins.

Possibly jrossi4r feels the same as I do - I most definitely do not want strangers to make physical contact with me without my permission. To say that I should be more accepting of others is to say I should subborn my rights in favour of someone else's rights. When you add young kids into the mix, the world becomes an even more frightening place. I am inclined to think that things like sexual abuse are no more common than they were when I was a kid, just more widely reported, but it is hard to be subjected to an almost daily barrage of warnings of "oh noes, the perverts are everywhere" without taking some of it on board and acting to protect those you love. This means that you have a tendency to interpret any action out of the ordinary as a potential threat and, whether you like it or not, you are conditioned to respond to a threat with a fight or flight response which, in today's world equates to (among other things) constantly maintaining a phyiscal space around you and those you love.

I don't disagree that situations such as this would, in a perfect world, be handled by spending some time with and allowing the "offending" person to learn to act in a way which meets the needs of everyone concerned but, realistically, that just ain't gonna happen as long as my arse points to the ground.

"... I most definitely do not want strangers to make physical contact with me without my permission. ..."
posted by dg 16 February | 01:02

I respond not out of interest in rhetorical exchange, but to clarify something for jrossi4r.

From her description, in the small town Y where this incident took place, the developmentally challenged guy is not a "stranger." He's a well known local character, who is not just tolerated, but probably enjoyed, by most of the staff. Interacting with him regularly makes them feel better about themselves, and they know they're fulfilling an important community function, when they see him active and engaged.

Quite possibly, the staff at the Y sees jrossi4r as a greater danger to him, by far, than ever he has been to her, simply because there's a possibility her further actions can result in his restriction from one of the few activity centers to which he likely has access. In some small towns, to forestall such escalations, they give the "normal" family (who often are "strangers") back their membership money, and call it square. It's the Christian thing to do, really.

paulsc, I don't know why you think you know more about the situation than jrossi. Your tone in this thread has been preachy and condescending.

If jrossi was made uncomfortable by this person, she has very right to tell him to stop/not start. Period.

"He's a well known local character, who is not just tolerated, but probably enjoyed, by most of the staff."

And that makes it OK?

It's been about 2 decades but I still feel bad because I had to testify in court to convict a child molester and a (different) grown-man molester and mugger because I wanted to tolerate some "local characters" because I am understanding and have couple of mentally and developmentally challenged individuals in the family. jrossi4r did right.

I guess it depends what you call a stranger.

Also, it is clear you have a much higher opinion of people in general than I do. Such is life. I hope that you are right, but my experience tells me otherwise.

"paulsc, I don't know why you think you know more about the situation than jrossi. ..."
posted by Specklet 16 February | 01:45

I don't think I do, but the Y staff that was there didn't seem too upset, as jrossi4r described it, Specklet. As for the rest, jrossi4r posted looking for advice and alternative viewpoints, and I've posted some of each. Not whuffles, certianly, but she didn't post looking for whuffles.

"And that makes it OK?"
posted by arse_hat 16 February | 01:46

What's "it", arse_hat? Being asked by a mentally disabled man if she'd allow her belly to be touched? Having a mentally disabled guy say loudly jrossi4r didn't want to be touched? Do you grant that she could have felt threatened, while he did nothing threatening?

I do.

Because she came back in to the thread later and said "Anyway--he was definitely offended. Majorly agitated.There was a rush to comfort him." Apparently, the judgement of those on the scene was that jrossi4r was out of line, not the guy.

I'm just trying to get her thinking of better strategies to avoid escalating the problem, or better yet, to defuse it, entirely. Which is what she asked for, originally. I respect that search for alternatives, and I think that it's possible to find them, even if the suggestions I've made aren't it.

Focusing on modifying the behavior of a mentally disabled person, as first line reaction, leaves a lot to be desired. I think jrossi4r recognizes that, and I think her question follows from that recognition.

"Do you grant that she could have felt threatened, while he did nothing threatening?"
Not really. Having been in such situations I wish I didn't.

"I'm just trying to get her thinking of better strategies to avoid escalating the problem"
I wish I could support that but all past experience tells me it's best to confront it and nip it in the bud.

"Focusing on modifying the behavior of a mentally disabled person, as first line reaction, leaves a lot to be desired."
I don't think so. If the behavior can't be modified by moral suasion then we as a society need to step up and institutionalize (and pay the price) the folks who can't behave in a civil manor.

"and I think that it's possible to find them, even if the suggestions I've made aren't it."

Me too.

Paulsc, you are angry, verging on hostile, as the whole he-could-snap-you-like-a-twig story attests, and I think you should step back and examine who or what you are really angry at. If people have been unkind, uncaring or thoughtless, I don't blame you for feeling upset about that - but don't put their behavior on jrossi, who is one of the kindest people you will ever have the privilege to interact with, and definitely not a proper scapegoat here.

In any world "please don't touch me" is a perfectly fine and civil request that doesn't intrude on anyone's rights.

"... If the behavior can't be modified by moral suasion then we as a society need to step up and institutionalize (and pay the price) the folks who can't behave in a civil manor."
posted by arse_hat 16 February | 02:40

We have made the decision, arse_hat, and it is to deinstitutionalize (after 100+ years of doing things as you suggest with abominable results), and accept a wider degree of public behavior as acceptable, than you seem willing to tolerate. As it stands now, the guy jrossi4r is asking about is 4 square with the "national mental health plan."

As a society, our failure in the current direction is in not having done enough in supporting that deinstutionalization, to provide community based follow up, and to change public perception and opinion.

"... In any world "please don't touch me" is a perfectly fine and civil request that doesn't intrude on anyone's rights."
posted by taz 16 February | 02:51

Where did I say it wasn't, taz?

But it might not be the most effective way of getting what you want, given the personalities involved. If it were, why would we be discussing this?

And, taz, the last time I got angry about text on an electronic forum, I had a Compuserve account and a 1200 baud modem... :-)

"We have made the decision, arse_hat, and it is to deinstitutionalize (after 100+ years of doing things as you suggest with abominable results),"
True, we kicked them out but we shoot them (or a least our police do) quite often or send them to the penal system that is so understanding of those with mental or developmental defects.

"and accept a wider degree of public behavior as acceptable, than you seem willing to tolerate."
Few tolerate touching our children or ourselves without consent as acceptable. For the "Y" to do so is very odd.

"As it stands now, the guy jrossi4r is asking about is 4 square with the "national mental health plan.""
True but jrossi4r is a much nicer person than I and this soul shoud be counted as lucky he met her.

Interesting background info to this discussion: The Social Model of Disability.

Better link on social model.

the developmentally challenged guy is not a "stranger."

He's a relative stranger, in that jrossi at least does not know anything much about him other than what he does at the Y during the day. In any case, he's not a close friend with permission to get physical. Rules which apply to strangers about personal touch also apply to passing acquaintances and familiar faces on the street.

the Y staff that was there didn't seem too upset,

Then the Y staff there is being irresponsible and failing in their primary duties.

The Y is one of the largest providers of social and community service programming in the country. They are governed by a large body of legal and employment policies, and need to be able to manage situations like this in a way that meets everyone's needs respectfully. Shaming members who do not put up with intrusive behavior is not acceptable, and the staff will be legally and personally responsible for not setting limits on members' behavior if anything more intrusive were to happen.

Y staff manage all kinds of populations nationwide, from the children of addicted families to the disabled to the elderly to adjudicated teenagers. They are supposed to have the skills and training to negotiate interpersonal difficultures. As a non-profit manager myself, I know that they should be very carefully monitoring this situation, as they would any situation that might create a more serious problem if unaddressed. They've got a responsibility.

he did nothing threatening

All you're saying here is that you wouldn't find this threatening; however, his behavior meets a lot of general policy definitions of 'threatening.' The fact that your sensitivity to threat level is lower than others' does not indicate an absence of threat. Whether this threat was intentional or the result of deep social misperceptions due to developmental delay matters not at all. I would find it threatening if my progress was impeded and if someone began to yell after me as I retreated. That's reasonable.

The Y's responsibility in this case would be to treat my discomfort with the situation with exactly as much honor as they treat the man. As one of the largest non-profits in the country, the Y has centralized and highly evolved policy giverning this sort of situation which each branch is accountable for. They are not acting as simple good Samaritans here, 'letting' this guy hang out; they are within a structure and framework with codified policy on harassment, threatening behavior, and assault. Incidents do occur (One Google page worth of results on term "YMCA assault") and the staff needs to be prepared to recognize potentionally problematic incidents and prevent them from escalating. This man's behavior to others is escalating. Time to address it.

the guy has a right to be where he wants to be, and do what he wants to do

Not really. First, your argument that the U.S. largely chose to deinstitutionalize has its merits, but apart from the defunding, remember that the actual change was partially intended to decentralize services for the mentally ill and disabled. However, it does not follow that anyone can "be anywhere you want and do anything you want," disabled or not. Most spaces outside the home are regulated. The Y is a private membership institution and as such has the right to exclude anyone who does not abide by the terms of membership. Members agree to observe the policies of the Y. If they do not, they can be dismissed. I'm a member of the Y because I accept the policies, and when I see other members who are not abiding by the policies (for instance, letting children under 10 be in the locker room without adult supervision), I have every right to speak up and expect a response. The Y is not a public place. Even if it were a public park in which this took place, there are still regulations on behavior. You can't do anything you want in a public park with legal immunity, whether you are disabled or not. Test that out sometime.

At any rate, no one suggested that he should not be at the Y. He has every right to be at the Y, assuming he is a member. In fact, people who don't want to be around developmentally delayed people should not join the Y; they are there all the time, because a lot of services are located there. But if he is going to be there, his behavior absolutely needs to meet the standards of the environment, as laid out in values statements, membership agreements, law, and institutional policy.

teach our kids that being tolerant is the right way to interact with those who are mentally ill or developmentally challenged

Funny that you should emphasize tolerance here, then emphasize physical fear and caution by advising people not to confront individuals whose behavior is out of line because they might become irrationally violent. Which is it?

It is our responsibiity to teach our kids tolerance. However, it is also our critical responsibility to teach our kids how to express tolerance while at the same time having strong, clear boundaries and safe interactions with everyone. To teach our kids that it's perfectly all right to refuse the approaches of anyone who is making you feel uncomfortable. Unequivocally.

The following policy statement showed up on a Y website. All Ys are managed as separate non-profits, so their systems may vary, but I'm sure this would apply either way. The Y in your area will have an executive director and a programming director, if you want to speak to them about this, jrossi.

Who do I contact if I have a concern about my Y?

If you have a concern about your YMCA, please contact your YMCA directly. If you know a volunteer or staff member at the YMCA, share your concern with him or her. If you would like to pursue the issue further, we recommend you contact your YMCA's executive director or chair of the board to talk about the matter. He or she will be willing to listen to your thoughts. Or you could write a letter directly to the chair of your local YMCA board because the board oversees the YMCA. If you are complaining about something at your YMCA, it's helpful if you offer a solution.

paulsc, as much as you might like people to feel differently about this issue, it's pretty cut and dried. If you're reacting to anything here, it's not to jrossi's legitimate complaint, but to a world which is less tolerant of people with disabilities than you would like. That's a separate issue from the immediate personal-boundaries conflict described here, and one in which you could probably do some significant work by pursuing policy change, rather than suggesting that those of us who do not wish to be accosted by people we don't know well are somehow moral failures.

he last time I got angry about text on an electronic forum

Then, just as feedback, you may want to adjust your tone in future discussions, because you certainly sound angry, and at times have sounded as though you were attempting to threaten or intimidate.

Wow. I went to bed and things heated up! Thanks to everyone who defended me. I really appreciate it.

Paulsc, I'm glad you showed up in this thread. You've given me a lot of insight into what the staffers might be thinking. I certainly don't want to get this guy in trouble (and for the record, I do know his name) or displace him. And I completely understand that his intent was not to harm me. But as dg pointed out, the fight or flight reaction can be very strong and deeply ingrained.

The only reason I've been spared the "tickle, tickle!" that so many others get is because I usually rush past too fast for him to catch me. I try my best to stay off his radar. I can see where you'd interpret this as a hard-hearted refusal to reach out to someone different, (and I think that's how the staffers may see it, too). But I need to make clear that my aversion is to being touched not to being touched by him. He tends to play the tickle game most with the people he knows best. I don't want to open up the possibility of more incidents in which I have to be the bad guy who tells him "no". And I don't want to subject myself to unwanted touching just to avoid an incident--that's a horrendous example to set for my daughter.
I do, however, think that I can try to come across less harsh next time. Maybe a gentle, "I'm sorry, D, but I don't really like to have my belly touched." If that goes well, we can start building from there.

I'm also going to talk to my friend the instructor about some of the "big picture" concerns that Miko points out. Hopefully, she can give me some insight as to where the Y stands on all this and I can proceed from there.

"I don't want to open up the possibility of more incidents in which I have to be the bad guy who tells him "no". And I don't want to subject myself to unwanted touching just to avoid an incident--that's a horrendous example to set for my daughter."

Absolutely. No one should be made to feel like a 'bad guy' to avoid an 'incident'.

And yes, kids need to learn early that no means no and shouldn't have to put up with behaviour they are uncomfortable with — they take their example from their parents. Way to go jrossi4r, good for you.

paulsc, I'll only say we don't know the whole story and you've made a lot of assumptions aside from comparing D to your brother. We don't know that.

Miko, thank you for your comments in this thread. I find that you often say things that I want to say but simply cannot articulate.

paulsc, taz is right. You DO sound angry and, as I said before, preachy and condescending. I ended up feeling very frustrated because it seemed to me you weren't really addressing the basic points of jrossi's post, but instead went on and on about some other agenda you wanted to discuss (and I'm really not even sure what that was, exactly).

Paulsc, I disagree with you but I feel that I was rude in my responses to you. I am sorry. I was/am in a foul angry mood.

Miko, your responses here have been great.