Disability and Sexuality: When Discourse Misses the Point
Share this Article
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
RedditAuthor:
Carrie NelsonTags:
disabilities Prostitution sex work Sexual Health stigma UKSexuality is one of those topics that is simultaneously commonplace and taboo. People love to talk about sex, but only in specific contexts. This often leaves marginalized communities — such as queer people, transgender people, the elderly and people with disabilities — out of the discourse entirely. And when those communities are included, the discussion tends to miss the point by using patronizing language or crude shock value.
Take, for instance, the recent coverage of the ways in which the Putting People First initiative, a government-funded program for people with disabilities and the elderly in the UK, are assisting some people with disabilities with their sexual health. Rather than explore the reasons why government support of the needs — including sexual ones — of people with disabilities might be a good thing, the press has exploited the private cases of specific individuals. The initial attack was launched last week by The Sunday Telegraph, which “investigat[ed]” Putting People First and discovered that the program covers activities such as internet dating, trips to lap dance clubs and visits with sex workers. Naturally, this revelation has lead to a knee-jerk moral panic in the UK, as able-bodied taxpayers are shocked that their money is being spent on programs that support the sexual well-being of people with disabilities.
From the Telegraph:
Matthew Elliot, chief executive of The Taxpayers’ Alliance said it was “deeply worrying” that public money had been spent on the services of prostitutes, lapdancing clubs and to pay for holidays.
He said: “Many taxpayers will be appalled and offended that money intended for social care has been used in this way. What’s more, it’s deeply worrying that this scheme has been so vulnerable to these abuses. It’s essential that where public funds are involved, there are the sort of checks and balances in place that prevent money being wasted in this way”.
It is important to note that none of the services endorsed by Putting People First are illegal. On the contrary, prostitution is legal in the UK, meaning all citizens — including people with disabilities — are entitled to participate in sex work. If prostitution was illegal, I could see why this might be a problem, but there is no sense in moral outrage over anyone participating in an institution that is open to everyone in the UK anyway.
Also, I find the argument that it is wrong to use “taxpayer money” in this way disingenuous. I pay taxes in the U.S., and I have no say in how the U.S. government uses my money. I would prefer that it not go toward fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is not up to me to decide. As a citizen, it is my duty to pay taxes, regardless of how those taxes are spent. It doesn’t matter whether or not people in the UK believe that sex work is moral or that people with disabilities have a right to have sex. Since sex work is legal, and people with disabilities do have the right to be sexual, I see no problem with social services concerned with the well-being of people with disabilities condoning prostitution and other activities.
The focus the private needs of specific individuals should not have been the focus of public discourse. People with disabilities are just like able-bodied people — they may be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, queer or asexual, and none of those identities or practices should be open for public scrutiny. In fact, it it the public scrutiny itself that should be open for discussion. Naomi Jacobs sums it up best at the Guardian:
Disabled people’s sexuality is a social issue. Many of us are having sex. We choose both disabled and non-disabled partners. We come in straight, lesbian, bi, gay and trans varieties. We’re at it – get over it. For for those disabled people who want to be at it but aren’t, the reasons are endemic in our society. They can be seen in the patronising language used in media commentary and in the irresponsibility of discussing confidential care plans at all.
That “icky” response towards disabled people having sex is not about evolutionary impulses – a fashionable excuse by people who want to justify feeling this way. It’s about ignorance. That same distaste is to blame for some real human rights violations, such as the right to marry and found a family: a recent case brought under the Mental Capacity Act is just one of many examples of disabled people who are forcibly prevented from having children. And this ignorance, not the personal intricacies of people’s sex lives, is what we should be discussing.
All people have a right to education, support and care when it comes to sexual health. Moreover, all people have a right to engage in legal, consensual sexual activity, including prostitution and other sex work. So why should the activities of people with disabilities be the focus of discussion. It seems to me that the prejudices against people with disabilities — such as the attitudes that people with disabilities should not be having sex or benefiting from the sex industry — are what should be discussed. If we keep ignoring those negative attitudes, people with disabilities will continue to be marginalized in conversations about sex. The only way to begin to break the cycle is to call out prejudice when it appears.
Like Gender Across Borders on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter and Tumblr. Subscribe to our monthly newsletter. UPDATE: to take part in our survey regarding international feminism, click here.
8:21 am
It could also be argued that these people are being marginalized by receiving money for sex workers, lap dances, etc.
I also find your statement “I pay taxes in the U.S., and I have no say in how the U.S. government uses my money. I would prefer that it not go toward fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is not up to me to decide.” very disturbing.
You have the right to vote, protest, and boycott all you want. The USA is not a dictatorship. Your say can be heard! just as the Brits have every right to express their concern about their tax dollars being spent on sexual favours for the disabled.
In fact you just did have your say in how the U.S. government spends its money. They may not listen but you still had your say!
2:42 pm
JB –
You are right that voting, protesting and boycotting are all good ways for citizens to express dissent. But when it comes to the government endorsing activities that are already legal, the answer isn’t to say, “Hey, I don’t want my taxes spent this way!” The government is going to spend taxes how they want, regardless of public dissent. The best way to proceed, in my mind, is to protest the underlying problem instead. For instance, rather than protesting the fact that my taxes are being spent on the war in Iraq, it would be more productive for me to protest the war itself instead. In the case of disability services in the UK, I think the people who are expressing dissent are missing the point. If they truly are morally against sex work, perhaps they should protest the legality of sex work in general. If they believe that prostitution should only be accessible to able-bodied people and that people with disabilities should not benefit from the sex industry when seeking help for sexual health issues…well, that’s not for them to decide.
11:40 am
The issue is tricky. There’s the question of quite how far public bodies SHOULD be going in the PROCURING of these services, as opposed to providing individuals with money that they can use as they see fit. I would agree that there was some knee-jerk reaction in the press, though.
As a side-note, what REALLY struck me was the reference to “tax dollars”. Yep, this is gender “across borders”, but from a US-centric perspective alright! Come on, if you’re monitoring the UK news, don’t you know we have pounds?
2:28 pm
recorta -
I agree that it might make sense for individuals to use the government money they are granted as they see fit, but I also wonder whether everyone who may benefit from sexual health and sex industry services even realize that it is an option for them. Even though sex work is legal, it may take the guidance of a counselor or case worker for a person to realize that he or she may really be able to benefit from such services. Were it left totally up to the discretion of the individuals themselves, I wonder how many of them would go through with seeking this type of service on their own and how many would choose not to out of fear of stigma.
Also, thank you for calling me out on my use of “dollars.” All of us at GAB do our best to use correct language and avoid writing from a U.S. perspective, but sometimes mistakes still happen, and we always appreciate it when readers point out those mistakes to us. I’ve edited the post to say “money” instead.
8:00 pm
Disability and Sexuality: When Discourse Misses the Point http://www.genderacrossborders.com/2010/… ~ Posted today on @GABblog
8:02 pm
RT @GABblog: Disability and Sexuality: When Discourse Misses the Point http://www.genderacrossborders.com/2010/… ~ Posted today on @GABblog
8:00 pm
Disability and Sexuality: When Discourse Misses the Point http://www.genderacrossborders.com/2010/… ~ Posted today on @GABblog
8:02 pm
RT @GABblog: Disability and Sexuality: When Discourse Misses the Point http://www.genderacrossborders.com/2010/… ~ Posted today on @GABblog
12:22 am
as someone with a disability that affects my appearance and puts some limits on my physical activity, i kind of feel like the program itself is missing the point. should providing funds for disabled clients to employ a sex worker be out of the question? no. disabled people are going to want to go to prostitutes and strip clubs for the same reasons able-bodied people do. however, i can’t help but take away from this the implication that prostitution must be necessary to satisfy a disabled person’s sexual needs, because what able-bodied person would volunteer to have sex with them?
when you’re disabled, you’re constantly made to feel like an “other.” you’re often separated or excluded from able-bodied activities, and your body and appearance are clinical-ized by doctors and therapists and scrutinized by peers. not only do the limitations of your disability make you feel trapped inside your own body, but everyone around you is making you feel like it’s an abnormal, undesirable body. building self-confidence and recognizing yourself as a sexual being is exponentially more difficult.
that being said, i see that sexual health courses for the disabled clients is a part of the PPF initiative, which i think is wonderful. rather than making those clients feel like they have to resort to prostitution to get any lovin’, i think the money would be better spent on peer education courses that teach people of all abilities about alternative forms of beauty and sexuality. then maybe when they meet a disabled person they won’t dismiss them as undesirable or asexual. and maybe disabled people won’t be as likely to become victims of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their partners.
3:38 pm
I found this article interesting as an American who has lived in the UK for 5 years and who has been in a relationship with a disabled boyfriend for 2 1/2 of those years. Disabled people in the UK have access to a wide variety of assistance and programs that are not available to their counterparts in the US, allowing people to live a relatively comfortable life without having to worry that they will not have enough money with which to pay rent and bills, and without having to worry about most medical expenses, and as noted in the Sunday Telegraph article, paying for carers when needed and helping with things like transportation expenses for those who need it to carry out regular tasks of daily living, such as going to work, shopping for food, etc.
I can understand that people in the UK might find some of the sex-related expenses that are covered under the Putting People First programme excessive, and I personally believe that employing sex workers exploits both the sex worker and those vulnerable individuals who are employing them for all of the many reasons Caitlin mentioned above, but raising sexual awareness and educating people about sexual health issues are as important for disabled people as for non-disabled people, and potentially more so for those who are vulnerable to exploitation, and for that kind of assistance I have absolutely no problem paying for that with my taxes because knowledge truly is power. Additionally, raising awareness among non-disabled people is important to counter stereotypes and preconceptions that we might have about disabled people as sexually active human beings and as potential partners. And it is equally important that disabled people are able to enjoy a normal range of life opportunities which include going on vacations and signing up for internet dating sites, just like a non-disabled person might do. I would rather have my taxes paying for someone to have the same opportunities I have than to pay for two simultaneous wars or to pay for politicians’ private expenses (like the great duck pond controversy, for example).
I think it’s sad that people with disabilities in the U.S. don’t have anything even remotely like the opportunities and supports available in the UK, and the point of the issue for me isn’t that my taxes are being used to support expenses like these, but why there isn’t more out there to promote sexual health and awareness for everyone, regardless of disability or sexual orientation or age or gender identity or race or religion or whatever. I’d much rather have someone learn how to negotiate safer sex and how to have healthy, happy relationships than to have them go out into the world vulnerable and without the necessary sexual knowledge to keep themselves safe and healthy, which can easily occur when someone is consistently thought of as asexual because of a disability, which is generally far from the case, and not taught the same sexual health skills or treated as sexual beings as their non-disabled counterparts are.