“Sexuality” by Robert McRuer, selected from “Keywords for Disability Studies”

Summary:

McRuer begins by acknowledging that the word “sexuality” is already intertwined with words like “freakish” and “abnormal”. He introduces Michel Foucault’s concept of the “cures” and “visibility” of sexuality as a system of control, often to obtain a sense of normalcy or correction. McRuer then compares Foucault’s views of “sexuality” as being similar to “ability” and what resulted in sexuality being pathologized, or specifically linked to a disability. McRuer acknowledges that sexuality is a social construction, which brought out the emergence of heteronormativity and ableism. Because the two were so linked, McRuer talks about how homosexuality led to “feebleminded” diagnoses and stricter regulation for control. He bridges the link between an “abnormal” sexuality being caused by illness or disability, which creates the conception that people who are disabled have an excessive sexuality. These two “excessive” notions led to violent treatments, misinformation about both sexuality and disability, and eventual ruling by the Supreme Court for sterilization. McRuer discusses a shift in the 20th-century from excessive sexuality and disability to the notion that people with disabilities are without sexuality at all. He mentions the link between poor and people of color being seen as “excessive” while white and middle-class are seen as “without” sexuality. Following this, he talks about the idea of people with disabilities having alternate sexual experiences outside of what was understood, which leads into modern day rebellion of both “excessive”, “innocent” and “alternative” sexuality. McRuer ends with discussing the efforts of disability activists against prior notions, and the acknowledgement that efforts are still ongoing and a source of conflict for the modern day person with disabilities.

Quote Bank:

“…in other words, sexuality was endlessly talked about, managed, pathologized, and (often) “corrected” ” (167).

“In 1927, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court famously ruled that Carrie Buck, who had been deemed “feebleminded” and institutionalized for “incorrigible” and “promiscuous” behavior and who became pregnant after being raped, must be compulsorily sterilized” (168).

“Disabled people often have been discursively constructed as incapable of having sexual desires or a sexual identity, due to their supposed “innocence” ” (168).

Reflection:

In all of my academic studies I have come to understand that if there is one thing that white men love to do, it is to control others. The author does a fantastic job at digging into the intertwined history of sexuality and disability and how they cannot truly be analyzed without the other. The pathologization of sexuality as a disability is in itself offensive, but it also gives the people in power the ability to declare someone “of unsound mind” and to strip them of all autonomy altogether. The development of the “correctional” treatments like shock therapy or sterilization was an inhumane way to tell people with disabilities that they had no choice in life, not even a choice to love and be loved without it being controlled. The case of Carrie Buck is not new to me, and I am fully aware that sterilizations like this continue to the present day. Often people assume that if someone has a severe disability, whether of the body or mind, others assume that the person is “too disabled” to have desires to seek out relationship, sexual or romantic. This concept is widespread enough that growing up and seeing people in wheelchairs or people with Down Syndrome in relationships was a televised phenomena, including shows like “Little People, Big World”. Episodes of medical dramas are committed to showing people with disabilities who are in relationships as “strange” or just straight up ill, especially if the other partner is not disabled. But I chose this chapter specifically because I was curious about the idea that people with disabilities are often seen as “innoccent” or “lacking sexuality”. There is a modern day movement to take back sex and sexuality for people with disabilities, not in an excessive or alternative notion like the text discusses prior, but as a sort of “this is me” kind of mentality. But I wanted to address a very specific point of tension within the disabled community on the base of sexuality. While there is a danger of being “too loud” (read: excessive), or “too kinky” (read: alternative), there is an even finer line between the concept of innocence or being without sexuality. Specifically, there is a subgroup of the asexual community who have an inner struggle of recognizing their sexuality (asexuals being people who experience no sexual attraction) and being ostracized. On one end, the LGBT community will always look at them as “disabled”, and sometimes not in a positive context, but the disabled community, especially those fighting to be recognized as sexual, look at them at perpetuating the “innocent/without” stereotype. So not only do people with disabilities walk a fine line to even be recognized as human at times, but they are also often denied their true lives, living and loving who they want because there is even added pressure being LGBT+ and disabled.

Citation:

Adams, R., Reiss, B., & Serlin, D. (Eds.). (2015). Keywords for disability studies. “Sexuality”. McRuer, R.