The Desirability of Disability: The Social Misconception of Asexuality

The Desirability of Disability: The Social Misconception of Asexuality

Written by Keith R. Murfee-DeConcini

Disability should be seen as a desired variation on what is considered beautiful, not something to be feared --- but people fear what they do not understand.  So instead, society views disability as a weakness and something to be avoided. The cultural perceptions of masculinity and femininity do not allow disability to fit into them. Men are supposed to be strong and in control and women are supposed to be nurturing and to bear children. These perceptions are crude and thankfully have evolved and expanded over the years to empower women, for example, into having more roles than only bearing children. When people with disabilities try to embrace broader perceptions for themselves, they are looked down upon by society. There could not be a clearer example of this than when it comes to being sexual. In fact, society denies the sexuality of people with disabilities and prefers to see them as asexual.

Sexual desire is the driving force of humanity. We are made to seek out sex from desirable partners. The media plays a huge role in shaping the normalized view of desirability. In Sexuality and Disability: The Missing Discourse of Pleasure, Mitchell S. Tepper, Ph.D. states “However, the media has exploited sexual pleasure for gain. Sex is portrayed as a privilege of the white, heterosexual, young, single and non-disabled.” (Tepper, 2000, p.285)

Therefore, it is not hard to grasp that social attitudes towards people with disabilities in general and especially in regards to sex are negative, albeit most of them may stem from the unconscious level. Society would rather not see people with disabilities as sexual beings with the same sexual needs as everyone else. Why? There are many reasons, and the most prevalent reason is discussed by Alex Comfort, M.B in Sexual Consequences of Disability. “The needs of such people [people with disabilities] are better minimized or ignored, rather than discussed, for fear of embarrassing them---by which we mean that they embarrass or disturb us.” (Comfort, 1978,  p. 1) It is much easier for society to label people with disabilities as asexual rather than facing the collective insecurities around sexuality and disability.

Parents, too, struggle with accepting that their son or daughter with disabilities can have romantic desires. In The Sexual Politics of Disability: Untold Desires, Tom Shakespeare et al, offers this example: “As the mother of a disabled young woman stated, on hearing her daughter had a boyfriend, 'I thought your disability meant that you wouldn't be interested in boys, and that your father and I would be saved this embarrassment.’” (Shakespeare, 1996, p. 17) Understanding the underlying beliefs of this asexual label allows one to better understand the magnitude of the problem this label creates.  It is a microcosm of all the stigmas associated with disabilities.

The first belief is that people with disabilities cannot or even should not reproduce.  If someone cannot do that, then why should they have access to sex or even want it to begin with?  “Disabled populations are not viewed as acceptable candidates for reproduction or even capable of sex for pleasure. We are viewed as child-like and in need of protection.” (Tepper, 2000, p.285) While it is true that some people with disabilities cannot reproduce, it does not mean that they are not able to find pleasure in having sex. Furthermore, not every disability prevents the bringing of new life into this world, which is the most fundamental creative experience that should not be denied to people with disabilities.

The second belief touches on the details of the sex act itself. Those with physical disabilities sometimes require adaptions to sexual intercourse that society finds unnatural or repugnant, at least when used by people with disabilities. For the general population, it is widely accepted that pleasure is enhanced by multiple positions available for sexual intercourse. So the different standard is contradictory. Just like people without disabilities, those who have disabilities rely on the pleasurable exploration of different positions. This is just an adaption but society finds some adaptions less wholesome than others.

The attitudes and perceptions towards disability and sexuality are steeped in misconceptions. As a study on this topic done by Shaniff Esmail et al, finds “People have a really specific perspective of what being sexual means and it would be challenging for a lot of people to expand that to include people with disabilities… it is automatically impossible in many people’s minds for people with disabilities to have sex.” (Esmail, 2010, p.1151)  Many people consider sex to be a sacred act and the mere thought of people whom society deems as defective engaging in that act can be very disconcerting.

Facing the fact that it is not impossible for people with disabilities to have sex is beyond many people’s comprehension. They even go so far as to demonize the very idea. It calls to mind a parallel taunt to in Othello when Iago tells Brabantio “I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs.” (Shakespeare, 2004, p. 6) The very notion of this act is viewed as vile and unnatural, because the Moor is of a different race than his new wife. So too, sexuality and disability are viewed as vile and unnatural.

Even romance between someone without disabilities and someone with disabilities makes society uncomfortable.  In Enabling Romance: A Guide to Love, Sex and Relationships for People with Disabilities (and the People who Care About Them), one of the authors, Erica, who does not have a disability but was dating (and later married) someone who has a disability, recalls a shocking experience: “…when I walked into a local bookstore one day and asked the sales assistant whether they had any books about disabled people and romantic relationships, ‘Why would anyone want to read a book about that?’ he said, his face clearly showing his disdain.” (Kroll, 1992, p. 12)

These “mixed” relationships are considered essentially unbalanced.   According to one study, this is attributed to an overlying “fear of being a caregiver rather than a partner.” This idea stems back to the general public’s inability to reconcile the concepts of physical impairment and emotional/sexual relationships.” (Esmail, 2010, pp.1151)  Likewise, people with disabilities are also affected by this attitude, fearing that “their partners would assume that ‘I deserve better than to be with a defective person.’” (Esmail, 2010, p.1151)

Both of these fears are understandable and they are very common fears to have; but they are mainly influenced by social pressure.  People are taught from a very young age to strive for perfection and to find that special someone who is also perfect. Ideally these beliefs evolve as people grow out of childhood fantasies into a more mature mindset. These beliefs, however remain as deeply rooted as the ones presented at the beginning of this paper. Disability does not fit the ideal of perfection or the imagined picture of that special someone who is perfect for us, by society’s standards. Having a partner with a disability is seen as settling for something less than desired.  When people see someone with a disability, they most often only see the disability and not the person themselves.

The stares and hushed whispers from other people can be very difficult for a “mixed” couple to handle, especially when concerns come from people they care about, such as friends and family. Comments such as “They’ll always hold you back.” or “Wouldn’t a partner with a disability understand you better?” may seem well intended but they do nothing to inspire confidence in a new relationship, rather only voice society’s distain. (Kroll, 1992, p. 13)

In a modern retelling of Beauty and the Beast, Actress Julie Atlas Muz tells the story of her engagement to Mat Fraser, one of U.K’s best known disabled performers.  Muz’s mother was more than a little horrified and blurted out, “Why do you want to marry someone like that?” Her response was unusual in that she thanked her mother for being so honest about how she felt. Julie was able to then openly share her feelings about the many wonderful things that Mat brings to her life. (ONEOFUS, 2014)

As Tepper concludes, “In the words of Benjamin Seaman, a visitor to sexualhealth.com, access to pleasure is ‘the real accessibility issue.’…Full inclusion means access to pleasure. It means a reasonable chance for relationships.” (Tepper, 2000, p.289) When people hear the term “accessibility,” they think of things like ramps, lifts or specialized restrooms. However, the term actually has a broader focus, one that includes interpersonal relationships at all levels because these enhance the quality of life most of all.

The third and final belief that attributes to the asexualization of people with disabilities, which is the most shocking and demoralizing, is the notion that if someone who does not have a disability is intimate with someone with a disability, then they will get infected with that disability.  There is no data or research to support this fear.  Disabilities are not contagious, yet the idea persists.

According to an article published by Disabled World, a worldwide disability news site, “The medical model is presented as viewing disability as a problem of the person, directly caused by disease, trauma, or other health condition which therefore requires sustained medical care provided in the form of individual treatment by professionals.” (Langtree, 2010)  This model puts the term “disability” on the same level as the term “disease” and it has been used historically as the normalized view of how society constructs disability. Disease equals danger--- which brings the possibility of substantial pain or death.  Since the act of sex is the physical merging of two separate life forms into one, spiritually and emotionally speaking, the fear might be understandable, however completely irrational.

Society has referred in the past and, still to some extent continues to refer to people with disabilities as “unnatural,” “unclean,” “defective,” “weak,” “diseased” to name but a few choice phrases.  This paper has only scratched the surface in exposing the magnitude of the problem imposed by society of labeling people with disabilities collectively as asexual beings.  This puts them in a sterile box, thereby taking away their basic humanity. It is this act, above all else, which the author finds truly hideous.

There is another way and it is beginning to emerge more and more. It happens when disability is appreciated as a part of someone’s beauty, like seeing a beautiful sculpture of a desired variation. As artist Riva Lehrer says, “Variant bodies are infused and vibrating with lived histories….Variant bodies are wondrously alive and inhabited in ways that make unmarked bodies seem silent and vacant.” (Lehrer, 2014, p. 163) People with disabilities can be seen as entities of pleasure, taking their rightful place in the most rewarding of human connections.  This view is possible and it is within our reach, closer than ever. 

References

Comfort, A. (1978). Introduction. Sexual Consequences of Disability (pp. 1-4). Philadelphia: George F. Stickley Company.

Esmail, S., Darry, K., Walter, A., & Knupp, H. (2010). Attitudes and perceptions towards disability and sexuality. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(4), 1148-1155. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09638280903419277

Kroll, K., & Klein, E. (1992). Our Own Love Story. Enabling Romance: A Guide to Love, Sex and Relationships for People with Disabilities (and the People who Care About Them) (p. 12). Horsham: No Limits Communications.

Langtree, I. (2010, September 10). Definitions of The Models of Disability. Disabled World. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from http://www.disabled-world.com/definitions/disability-models.php

Lehrer, R. (2014). Beauty in Exile. In Caitlin Wood (Ed.), Criptiques (pp.151-175). San Bernardino, CA: May Day Publishing.

ONEOFUS in co-production with Improbable, Beauty and the Beast, Abrons Arts Center, New York City, March 13-30, 2014

Shakespeare, T., Gillespie-Sells, K., & Davies, D. (1996). Barriers to Being Sexual. The Sexual Politics of Disability: Untold Desires (p. 17). London and New York: Cassell.

Shakespeare, W. (2004). Act 1, Sc. 1. Othello (p. 6). New York City:  Simon & Schuster.

Tepper, M. (2000). Sexuality and Disability: The Missing Discourse of Pleasure. Sexuality and Disability, 18(4), 283-290. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from https://thesorce.co.nz/assets/Resources/Sexual-Diversity/Tepper-2000-SD.pdf