Augmenting the Body: Disability, Bodily Extensions and the Posthuman, Sadler Seminar Series, LHRI 2016

Below is my contribution to the brilliant Augmenting the Body Sadler Seminar Series which, thanks to the flu, I’m too poorly to be at. I wanted to share it in my absence, so please feel free to read and share. The paper is written from my keynote for Normalcy 2016 at MMU and my talk at the Society for Disability Studies Conference in Atlanta, US, 2015. It builds upon my collective work on the dis/human with Rebecca Lawthom (MMU), Dan Goodley (University of Sheffield) and Katherine Runswick-Cole (MMU). I thank them for their contributions to this paper. To read more about the dis/human, click here.

Our seminar, with Dan Goodley (University of Sheffield) and Angharad Beckett (University of Leeds), is entitled: Augmenting the Body: Disability, Bodily Extensions and the Posthuman, Leeds Humanities Research Institute, University of Leeds, 5th December 2016.

Kirsty

Please note:

  • The contributions I share below are written in the style of a conference paper.
  • Feel free to tweet its contents! @kirstyliddiard1
  • To cite this paper, please use the following: Liddiard, K. (2016) ‘Provoking Pleasures: Dishuman Possibilities’. Paper presented at Augmenting the Body Sadler Seminar Series, Leeds Humanities Research Institute, University of Leeds, Decemer 2016, viewed DATE, https://kirstyliddiard.wordpress.com

Provoking Pleasures: Dishuman Possibilities

First Slide
Illustration courtesy of Lecia Bushak

Introduction

I want to begin with the words of Mitchell Tepper (2000: 288), ‘pleasure adds meaning to our lives… [it] is particularly powerful in making one feel alive. It is an anecdote to pain, both physical and emotional. It can add a sense of connectedness to the world or to each other’.

Through being denied access to our bodies and to pleasure, disabled people have been rendered on the margins/peripheries of what it means to be human.

In this short provocation I want to centre pleasure to imagine emancipatory modes through which to think about bodies, self and desire in affirmative ways – that bodies with what Wendell (1996:45) calls ‘hard physical realities’ – bodies that droop, sag, spit, dribble, spasm, ache and leak in ways deemed inappropriate (Liddiard and Slater, fc; Morris 1989; Leibowitz 2005) and minds that confuse, forget, hallucinate, or take longer to learn are not non-human or subhuman but can be situated in the realm of the posthuman and dishuman, and as I later claim, the dis/sexual (Goodley, Runswick-Cole and Liddiard 2015) – where disability opens up new ontologies of pleasure and prises open alternative economies of desire.

Disability, Desire and Disqualification

As I have argued elsewhere (Goodley et al. 2015: 11), disabled people’s exclusion from the category of the Human operates on a number of levels within sexual and intimate life (Plummer 2003): ‘it compromises our entry into normative sexual and gender categories; refutes our sexual agency and selfhood; and silences our calls for sexual, reproductive and parenting rights and justice. It is not surprising, given that humanness, humanity and sexuality are so tightly bound in our cultures, that sexual normalcy subsists as a very powerful cultural and political category of which to gain entry’ (Goodley et al. 2015: 11).

Shildrick (2007: 58) argues that contexts of ableism – the privileging of ability, sanity, rationality, physicality and cognition (Braidotti 2012) – have long disqualified disabled people from ‘discourses of pleasure’ that remain the preserve of those deemed human enough.

Disabled desires are, she suggests, dangerous in ‘a cultural imaginary that privileges corporeal wholeness and predictability above any form of bodily anomaly, and that supports fears that non-normative sexuality is always a potential point of breakdown in a well-ordered society’ (Shildrick 2007: 54). Such a thirst for social order disqualifies the pleasures of myriad Othered bodies, as sick and ill people, fat people, women, queer and Trans people, and Black and people of colour (POC) are rendered disgusting and beyond control (Tepper 2000).

But how might we understand disqualification?

But how might we understand disqualification? For many disabled people, pleasure is institutionalised through multiple forms of incarceration, as particular individualised regimes of care and a disciplining therapeutic surveillance disrupt the expression of pleasure (see Siebers 2008; see also Liddiard and Goodley 2016).

Through similar paternalistic processes, pleasure is also colonized, co-opted and pathologised through the interventions of education, medical and social care professionals. For example, masturbation training, chemical castration and over-medicating are routinely used to assuage the assumed animalistic hypersexuality of learning disabled, Black, queer and Mad disabled people (primarily men) (Gill 2015).

Or pleasure is denied (particularly to disabled women and queer people) through a lack of access to sexual and reproductive healthcare (Browne and Russell 2005; Wong 2000; Anderson and Kitchen 2000).

Ignagni et al. (2016) argue that pleasure is further mitigated through material deprivation/poverty, and through exposure to multiple forms of violence: most notably sexual violence (see Sherry 2004).

And, as I have maintained elsewhere, pleasure is readily criminalised through non-normative sexual activities such as sex work (see Liddiard 2014).

And then there are the emotional, psychic and affective politics of pleasure, which includes things like: the absence of Crip sexuality and pleasure in the cultural sphere (film, TV, media); the endemic shaming of disabled people’s sexual expression through oppressive care practices (Slater and Liddiard, forthcoming); and psycho-emotional disablism – what the wonderful Carol Thomas (1999, 60) calls ‘the socially engendered undermining of emotional well-being’ – which can exacerbate the existing denials of an erotic self (Liddiard 2014).

And if that isn’t enough, there’s internalised ableism: the insidious process learning to hate ourselves (Stevens 2011). Crip Sexologist Bethany Stevens (2011: 12) describes this as not being able to ‘muster the capacity to see love for my body’.

Theorising a dishuman disabled sexual subject

Despite such routine and persistent disqualification, however, Crip pleasure exists, persists, survives and thrives – (Liddiard 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).

Elsewhere, I have used Goodley, Runswick-Cole and Lawthom’s (2014) generative tool of the dis/human to explore what I label the dis/sexual (Goodley et al. 2015). Through the dis/human, it becomes possible to ‘recognise the norm, the pragmatic and political value of claiming the norm while always seeking to disrupt and contest it’ (Goodley and Runswick-Cole 2014: 5).

In an easy digestible sentence, the dis/human acknowledges a desire for the Human, at the same time as challenging its very narrow boundaries.

Similarly, then, the dis/sexual positions disability as productive disruption to the idealised forms of human sexuality from which we are excluded, but recognises that the majority of disabled people, like those in my own research, hold a desire to be included (Liddiard 2012).

The dis/sexual offers a space through which disabled people can claim their humanness through conventional modes of sex and gender (if they so choose), yet simultaneously defy and exceed its confines (Goodley, Runswick-Cole and Liddiard 2015).

I want to give 3 brief everyday dishuman examples from my own research to embody some of this theory and ask, what is the dis/sexual?

Example 1:

In this first example, the Dis/sexual might mean welcoming non-normative and queered pleasures and practices (that some impaired bodies often demand) into heterosexual, or otherwise normative, sex.

On the slide is a verbal exchange from Shaun and Hannah, a couple I interviewed for my research. They are discussing the wondrousness of the displaced erogenous zone – a product of Shaun’s impaired body – and the ways in which this re-inscribes their heterosexual sex with new meanings (for them):

Shaun: “I have very sensitive areas on my shoulders and… ‘cos that’s where I was injured so that’s kind of a natural thing… so it’s nice just for the touching side of things, really.”

Hannah: “Yeah, I remember the first time, because I didn’t know that about spinal injury and I was stroking Shaun’s shoulder and he was like “wow!” [Collective laughs] I was like, “What?!” I think I must have stroked it for an hour!”

Shaun: “She gets bored after a couple of minutes now! [Laughs]”

Hannah: “So that was an eye opener; that wow, so… I think you could get to the stage of having an orgasm through touching above the injury, which is amazing really.”

The ability to orgasm through ones shoulder undoubtedly queers the sexually embodied norms of the conventional erotic body that dictates that orgasms are, rather boringly, bound only to genitals (Ostrander 2009). But what makes this quintessentially dis/sexual is the desire for orgasm. Hannah and Shaun laboured extensively to ensure that Shaun experienced orgasm, reinforcing the primacy of orgasm for sexual pleasure (see Hawkes et al 1996) whereby the orgasm is, as Thea Cachioni (2007: 306, my emphasis) suggests, is positioned as the ‘natural outcome of sex – the only option for successful sex’. Thus, it was considered too abnormal by the couple (at that point) to embrace sexual intimacy without orgasm.

So, the dis/sexual recognises this desire for the norm (orgasm as integral to sexual practice) at the same time as contesting and disrupting the very entrenched notions of the conventional, charted orgasm and the embodied ways in which this materialises (Masters and Johnson 1959).

Example 2:

In this next example the Dis/sexual means privileging normative modes of phallocentric sexuality via non-normative practices either with/without genitals and/or with the support of (sexual) bodily technologies or enhancements.

At the top of this slide is an image of a piece of equipment called the Intimate Rider. For those of you who don’t know, The Intimate Rider was designed to enable men with paralysis to enhance their mobility during intercourse. Much of its marketing is aimed at re/gaining the physicality synonymous with a normative masculine sex role. The product emphasises a reclamation discourse based on ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ ways of ‘doing’ (importantly, only) normative heterosex.

From a dis/sexual perspective, the Intimate Rider at once extends and restores the naturalised male body to its “expected” purpose at the same time as queering and technologising that same sexual body as hybridised, a mix of flesh and machine, thus constituting a form of sexual cyborg (Haraway 1991) – opening our minds up to the possibilities of dis/sexual technologies, perhaps?

Example 3:

In this final example, the Dis/sexual means having intimate and loving relationships through paid-for sexual encounters. In this example on the slide, Abram is describing an intimate encounter with his sex worker, to whom he lost his virginity. On the slide is a small excerpt of a long and cherished email exchange with her that he generously shared with me during the telling of his sexual story:

[Reading her email aloud] Abram: “It was the most incredible privilege for me to be intimate with a human being as beautiful and sexual. She said, ‘I was a bit nervous that I wouldn’t live up to your expectations and I truly wanted it to be a really wonderful and comfortable experience’. Um … she said it was a ‘privilege to be the lady that you chose to experience sexuality with for the first time – it’s an honour that will stay with me for my whole life’.”

The intimacy between Abram and his sex worker challenges prevailing discursive and legal constructions of sex work as social deviancy and anti-social behaviour (see Kantola and Squires 2004; Outshoorn 2001), and disabled male sexualities as deviant when they contradict the typical dis/ableist tropes of passivity, vulnerability and innocence. In terms of the dis/sexual, disability emerges as an extraordinary vector through which devotion, affection, and tenderness can materialise within commercial transactions/interactions. We can see this in commercial caring relationships, too, as Fritsch (2010: 8) argues in her work on intimate assemblages within what she calls ’transactions mediated by capital’. Disability can (re)inscribe, then, commodified, saleable and typically-alienable labour with reciprocity, affect, and affinity.

To move towards a conclusion, then, disability, by its very nature – offers possibilities for opening up new ontologies of pleasure and alternative economies of desire, even within the very confining boundaries of Human Sexuality.

Drawing Some Conclusions

As ever, I’m conscious not to over-conclude; but as a brief summary:

  • Each of the examples I have offered – taken from disabled people’s own sexual stories – aspires to a dis/ableist human sexual normalcy and normative modes of pleasure while inherently being non-normative and – in part – non-human.
  • Each claims the normative sexual/ised self as a marker of humanity, yet revises human sexuality as we know it.
  • Each strives for the “natural” through technologies, enhancements and extensive labour. Thus, each these – I tentatively conclude – embody the dis/sexual.

A couple of critical questions I want to finish on, and which I hope will build into our discussions today, are:

  • Do we all – as the sexy posthuman/dishuman subjects that we are (regardless of whether we hold/live an impairment label or not) – want to claim the dis/sexual?
  • What is the value in doing so, where our sexual liberation/emancipation, however we might imagine them, are concerned?
  • What might it mean – both individually and collectively – to be part of a dis/sexual culture?

 

References

Anderson, P. and Kitchen, R. (2000) ‘Disability, space and sexuality: access to family planning services’, Social Science & Medicine, 51, 1163-1173

Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. London: Polity.

Browne, J. and Russell, S. (2005) ‘My home, your workplace: people with physical disability negotiate their sexual health without crossing professional boundaries’, Disability & Society, 20:4, 375-388

Cacchioni, T. (2007) ‘Heterosexuality and ‘the Labour of Love’: A Contribution to Recent Debates on Female Sexual Dysfunction’, Sexualities, 10: 3, 299–320

Fritsch, K. (2010) “Intimate Assemblages: Disability, Intercorporeality, and the Labour of Attendant Care.” Critical Disability Discourse 2: 1- 14.

Gill, M. 2015 Already Doing It: Intellectual Disability and Sexual Agency. Minnesota: University Of Minnesota Press

Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies. Theorising disablism and ableism. London: Routledge.

Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Posthuman disability studies. Subjectivity, 7(4), 342–361. doi:10.1057/sub.2014.15.

Goodley, D., Runswick-Cole, K. & Liddiard, K. (2015) ‘The DisHuman Child’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education: Special Issue: Fabulous Monsters: alternative discourses of childhood in education, 37: 5, DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2015.1075731

Ignagni, E., Fudge-Schormans, A., Liddiard, K. and Runswick-Cole, K. (2016) ‘Some people aren’t allowed to love: Intimate Citizenship in the lives of people labelled with intellectual disabilities’, Disability and Society, DOI:10.1080/09687599.2015.1136148

Leibowitz, R.Q. (2005) ‘Sexual Rehabilitation Services after Spinal Cord Injury: What Do Women Want? Sexuality and Disability, 23: 2, 81-107

Liddiard, K (2012) (S)exploring Disability: Sexualities, Intimacies and Disabilities. PhD Thesis, University of Warwick, UK.

Liddiard, K. (2013). Reflections on the process of researching disabled people’s sexual lives. Social Research Online, 18(3), 10.

Liddiard, K. (2014). The work of disabled identities in intimate relationships. Disability and Society, 29(1), 115–128. doi:10.1080/09687599.2013.776486.

Liddiard, K. (2014). ‘“I never felt like she was just doing it for the money”: The Intimate (Gendered) Realities of Purchasing Sexual Pleasure and Intimacy’, Sexualities, 17: 7, 837–855

Liddiard, K. (2014). ‘Liking for Like’s Sake: The Commodification of Disability on Facebook’, Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20: 3, 94-101

Liddiard, K. and Goodley, D. (2016) ‘The Mouth and Dis/Ability’, Community Dental Health: Special Issue, 33, 152–155

Masters W.H., Johnson E.J. (1966) Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Morris, J. (1989) Able Lives: Women’s experience of paralysis. London: The Women’s Press Ltd

Ostrander, N. (2009) ‘Sexual Pursuits of Pleasure among Men and Women with Spinal Cord Injuries’, Sexuality and Disability, 27, 11-19

Plummer, K. (2003) Intimate Citizenship: Private Decision and Public Dialogues. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press

Runswick-Cole, K. & Goodley, D. (2015) ‘Disability, austerity and cruel optimism’, CJDS, 4.2: 162-186

Scoular, J & O’Neill, M (2007) ‘Regulating prostitution: social inclusion, responsibilisation and the politics of prostitution reform’, British Journal of Criminology, 47: 5, 764-778

Sherry, M. (2004) ‘Overlaps and contradictions between queer theory and disability studies’, Disability & Society, 19:7, 769-783

Shildrick, M. (2007) Contested Pleasures: The Sociopolitical Economy of Disability and Sexuality’, Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 3: 3, 51-75

Siebers, T. (2008) Disability Theory. USA: University of Michigan Press

Slater, J. and Liddiard, K. (in press) “Like, pissing yourself is not a particularly attractive quality, let’s be honest”: Learning to Contain through Youth, Adulthood, Disability and Sexuality’, Sexualities Special Issue: Pleasure and Desire.

Stevens, B. (2011) ‘Politicizing Sexual Pleasure, Oppression and Disability: Recognizing and Undoing the Impacts of Ableism on Sexual and Reproductive Health’, Barbara Faye Waxman Fiduccia Papers On Women And Girls With Disabilities: Center For Women Policy Studies

Tepper, M.S. (2000) ‘Sexuality and Disability: The missing discourse of pleasure’, Sexuality and Disability, 18: 4, 283-290

Tepper, M. (2002) ‘Forbidden Wedding: Movie Review’, Disability Studies Quarterly, 22: 4, 162-164

Thomas, C. (1999). Female forms: experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Wendell, S. (1996) The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Wong, A. (2000) ‘The Work of Disabled Women Seeking Reproductive Health Care’, Sexuality and Disability, 18: 4, 301-306

 

Multiple Modalities: Disability in film, TV, radio & on social media

In this post you’ll find details of upcoming events that I’m involved in which take up disability, representation, power and humanness across various modalities. These core themes are spread throughout my research and teaching, but with the Paralympics starting in Rio, it seems a good time to think critically about representations of disability and how they relate to the everyday lives of disabled people.

1. Disability on Screen, Tuesday, 8 November 2016 from 18:00 to 19:30 (GMT), University of Sheffield

The first of these events is Disability on Screen, an event funded as part of the Economic and Social Science’s Festival of Social Science. When disabled people have featured on the big and small screen in recent years in popular programmes like The Last Leg and The Undateables, and in films such as The Theory of Everything and Me before You, are such representations accurate, fair and just, and to what extent do they alleviate or exacerbate disabled people’s experiences of disablism?

Disability on Screen

Disability on Screen

Come and join in the discussion with an exciting panel of speakers including:

Adam Pearson, Actor and Television Production: Adam is an actor and starred alongside Scarlett Johansson in ‘Under the Skin’. Adam has Neurofibromatosis and has been involved in outreach programs to prevent bullying associated with difference. He has also worked in television production for the BBC and Channel 4 including the shows ‘The Undateables’ and ‘Beauty and the Beast’.

Ramy El-Bergamy, On-screen Diversity Executive at Channel 4: Channel 4 has a world class reputation for innovation their ambition to be the most Creatively Diverse broadcaster in Europe.

Dr Kirsty Liddiard & Professor Dan Goodley, University of Sheffield: Kirsty researches disability, intimacy and austerity. Dan specialises in theorising and challenging the conditions of disablism.

WHEN: Tuesday, 8 November 2016 from 18:00 to 19:30 (GMT)

WHERE: Auditorium – Sheffield Students’ Union University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TG

Click here for FREE tickets and to find out more.

2. FIXED: The Science/Fiction of Human Enhancement, Monday, 7 November 2016 from 18:30 to 20:30 (GMT), University of Sheffield

Next up is a screening of FIXED, also an event funded as part of the Economic and Social Science’s Festival of Social Science.

‘From bionic limbs and neural implants to prenatal screening, researchers around the world are hard at work developing a myriad of technologies to fix or enhance the human body. FIXED: The Science/Fiction of Human Enhancement takes a close look at the drive to be “better than human” and the radical technological innovations that may take us there’ (http://www.fixedthemovie.com, 2016).

Come and see the critically acclaimed, multi-award winning documentary ‘FIXED: The Science/Fiction of Human Enhancement’ (2015), in association with the University of Sheffield’s newest research institute, iHuman: The Institute for the Study of the Human. The screening will be followed by discussion and refreshments.

To watch the trailers, click here.

WHEN: Monday, 7 November 2016 from 18:30 to 20:30 (GMT)

WHERE: The Foundry – Sheffield Students’ Union University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TG

ACCESS: Wheelchair accessible venue; accessible parking; film will be subtitled. If you have any other access requirements or questions, please don’t hesitate to get in touch: engage@sheffield.ac.uk

Click here for FREE tickets and to find out more.

3. The Archers: Archers story is disabled women’s dark reality

The fictional trial of Helen Titchener for the attempted murder of her abusive and controlling husband Rob has reached its crucial point in BBC Radio 4’s daily soap. As avid fans, Professor Katherine Runswick-Cole from Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) and I have reflected in Disability Now on how this storyline all too clearly reflects the reality of life for too many disabled women. You can read this article here.

We have donated our fee for this article to the Helen Titchener Fund, a fund set up whereby all monies go to Refuge, for women and children against domestic violence. Please donate if you can afford to.

Tweet your thoughts to @kirstyliddiard1 and @k_runswick_cole or @BBCTheArchers and @DisabilityNow #thearchers

The Archers' Helen and Rob

The Archers’ Helen and Rob

Photo credit: The Archers: Helen Archer (LOUIZA PATIKAS), Rob Titchener (TIMOTHY WATSON) – (C) BBC – Photographer: Pete Dadds

4. Social Media: Liking for Like’s Sake – The Commodification of Disability on Facebook

Lastly, in the spirit of sharing, I felt it a good moment to re-post about an article I wrote some time ago, published in the Journal of Developmental Disabilities, a journal run by the Ontario Association of Developmental Disabilities, entitled Liking for Like’s Sake – The Commodification of Disability on Facebook. The article explores dominant representations of disability on social media, or more specifically, the very insipid images – or internet “memes” – of disability which have been labeled “inspiration porn” and “cripspiration” by disabled people. Read my original post, which was an accessible version of the journal article, or read the journal article itself here.

Liking for Like’s Sake – The Commodification of Disability on Facebook

Liking for Like’s Sake – The Commodification of Disability on Facebook

 

Pleasure, porn and power: rethinking sex and disability

I recently had the below article published in The Conversation; please click here to go to the original article.

Alluring woman in red dress laying down.

Is sexual attraction to curving spines, scarred stumps, leg braces and prostheses any different to finding certain types of breasts, waists, and legs appealing? Devotees don’t think so.

If you don’t know, a (disability) devotee is someone who identifies as having a sexual attraction to disability – someone who finds the kinds of bodily difference that impairment can invoke sexually appealing, titillating and desirable.

In prevailing sexual cultures that reify sexual normalcy, this form of sexual attraction is pathologised as sexual perversion and paraphilia – a state in which a person’s sexual arousal and gratification includes fantasising about something deemed “atypical”, “abnormal” or “extreme”. Examples of this include abasiophilia – an attraction to disability aids such as leg braces, and acrotomophilia – an attraction to amputees.

documentary on devoteeism, with a disabled presenter, the wonderful Emily Yates, recently aired on the now online-only BBC Three.

As a proud disabled woman who researches the intersections of gender, sexuality and disability as a sociologist, it struck me as I sat watching – at 31 – how seldom I’d ever seen a disabled woman as a presenter or protagonist on television. We so rarely get to see disabled women as thinking, feeling, and acting subjects.

Yates’ confident and interventionist approach – which involved making her own devotee porn as part of her research for the documentary – served to counter common assumptions of disabled women as inherently vulnerable, undesirable and sexless.

Her self-made devotee porn film, in which she filmed herself transferring from her wheelchair to her car (it is not uncommon for devotees to want to see the pragmatics of living with disability), has since had more than 4,000 views, much to the excitement of the Daily Mail.

Such an approach embodied for the audience a woman – a disabled woman – provocatively playing with power, desire and pleasure in ways seldom avowed.

Hopelessly devoted to you

The debates that surround devoteeism as a practice are complicated, and take place both inside and outside of disabled people’s own communities and movements.

Devoteeism is a vehicle that opens up possibilities for rethinking the conventional erotic body at a time when narrowing aesthetic ideals – which very few people embody – are closing it down.

Devoteeism is often only viewed as a sexual fetish – a pleasure taken from the product of niche pornography – rather than a sexual preference, a form of intimacy, or part of a loving relationship. The latter are some of the ways disabled people in my own research have spoken about devoteeism, and of their own experiences with devotees.

Representations of devoteeism often reiterate well-rehearsed “preference or perversion” debates, when in reality devoteeism can be both, neither, and anything in between.

Proponents of devoteeism often argue that it serves to challenge conventional notions of beauty and attractiveness, as common understandings of the impaired body as “abject” and “grotesque” radically shift.

Power and pleasure

But for many, devoteeism is often far more about power than pleasure; a form of exploitation. Disabled people of all genders – but particularly women – can be abused and exploited by devoteeism.

In the documentary we see Yates become upset at the objectification of devoteeism – she questions whether the devotee with whom she is engaging is looking at her or her body, herself or, as she puts it, her “struggle”, the daily tasks she finds hard.

Devotees’ potential arousal at Yates’ “struggle” – marked as a point of shame for her – is degrading. A common thematic across much of mainstream pornography. Maybe, then, this raises broader questions about the limits of pornography, and disability within it?

Disabled people are routinely objectified, made a spectacle of and denied a lack of privacy in their lives; often reduced to object, other and burden. But the visual politics of pornography do not always have to render the subject an object. There are forms of pornography, such as self-directed porn and feminist porn (porn made by self-identifying feminists), which can give the subject much greater control over representation.

Sexual violence?

The documentary touched upon devotees secretly filming disabled people on the street, and stealing their images from social media – which of course, without consent, is sexual violence.

Disabled women already experience sexual violence in greater numbers than disabled men and non-disabled women. They also experience an overwhelming lack of access and support to leave situations of violence – partly because the majority of women’s services and refuges don’t cater to their needs.

But while abuse, exploitation and violence can be a reality for disabled people, these aren’t necessarily behaviours inherent to devoteeism as a practice – as long as full consent is present.

But we must also be mindful that disabled people can exploit and abuse devotees – vulnerability isn’t inherent to, nor the preserve of, disability.

So while devoteeism isn’t for everyone, sexual modes through which disabled people can erotically play with disability – in ways that do not reproduce them as an object – can be progressive.

It might be more helpful then, to consider the ways in which devoteeism, like kink, BDSM, and voyeurism can be safe, consensual, and reciprocal; and acknowledge that together pleasure, power and play are not innately deviant or dangerous, even in the context of disability.

Either way, Yates’ explorations embodied these complex debates in new and interesting ways. She has moved the conversation forward and done so from a perspective that is so often missing – that of disabled women themselves.

Lancaster Disability Studies Conference 2016

Inaugural Sexuality Stream 2016 Call for Papers

Convened by Tom Shakespeare, University of East Anglia, and Kirsty Liddiard, University of Sheffield

The foundational text, The Sexual Politics of Disability, was ‘the first book to look at the sexual politics of disability from a disability rights perspective’ (Shakespeare, Davies and Gillespie-Sells, 1996: 1). Ground-breaking in its contents and its approach, the sexual stories contained within the covers of the book – told by disabled people themselves – challenged the prevailing myth of asexuality and other tropes which render disabled people as perverse, hypersexual, or as lacking sexual agency.

Despite this scholarly activism, the sexual, intimate, gendered, and personal spaces of disabled people’s lives remain relatively under-researched and under-theorised in comparison to other spaces of their lives. Rarely are disabled people themselves authors or co-producers of this work. Where austerity policies dominate, we are unsure of how this impacts the possibilities for intimacy and relationships. Conversely, we lack evidence about the impact of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Significant gaps remain in our knowledge of disabled people’s experiences of sex, love and relationships, then, often in marked areas.

This inaugural sexuality stream marks the 20th anniversary of The Sexual Politics of Disability (1996). In this stream, we aim to celebrate and encourage the broad bodies of work that have emerged within the ever-expanding field of disability studies, gender studies and sexuality studies. For this stream, we will prioritise papers containing original social research, as a response to the relative dearth of empirical work within the field.

We are thrilled to have Don Kulick, Distinguished University Professor of Anthropology at Uppsala University, Sweden, as keynote speaker. His books include Travesti: sex, gender and culture among Brazilian transgendered prostitutes (1998), Fat: the anthropology of an obsession (2005, edited with Anne Meneley), Language and Sexuality (2003, with Deborah Cameron) and most recently Loneliness and its Opposite: sex, disability and the ethics of engagement (2015, with Jens Rydström).

We welcome papers on the following themes:

  1. Identity and imagery: masculinities, femininities, Queer and Trans* identities
  2. Intersections of gender, race, sexuality, class, nationality, age, and religion/faith/spirituality.
  3. Sex education and sexual health
  4. HIV/AIDS
  5. Pleasure, sensuality and desire
  6. Sexual and bodily esteem, confidence, self-worth and self-love
  7. Impairment, embodiment and corporeality
  8. Psycho-emotional disablism
  9. Barriers to sexual expression
  10. Youth
  11. Parenting
  12. Learning disability and sex/uality
  13. Mental health, distress and intimacy
  14. Intersections of personal assistance, residential and social care, and intimacy
  15. Sex work and sex industries
  16. Sexual, emotional and intimate-partner violence
  17. BDSM, kink, and fetish
  18. Online and cyber sexuality
  19. Sexual drugs, enhancements and technologies
  20. Human rights law and disabled sexualities
  21. Researching sex/uality: data collection, methodology and analysis
  22. Theoretical contributions: Critical Disability Studies, Feminist disability studies; Queer Theory; Crip Theory; Posthuman and DisHuman studies.

Contributions that reflect on any of these themes are invited from academic and non-academic researchers, scholars, activists, and artists. These themes are indicative only, and we will consider proposals that fall outside them so long as these relate to the overall conference stream. We welcome offers of traditional academic papers (20 minutes max) and also welcome proposals and presentations in alternative and/or creative formats (e.g. film, animation, poetry). Submissions should be made through easychair and please specify you wish to be considered for this stream.

If you have any other questions, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Kirsty or Tom: k.liddiard@sheffield.ac.uktom.shakespeare@uea.ac.uk

Please see here for the Mad Studies stream and here for the main conference call for papers.

 

#ScholarTed and the Academics with Cats Awards 2015

While I typically blog purely about my scholarly work, research and activism, this month is a little different. That’s because – without further ado – the legendary Scholar Ted has won the Academics with Cats Awards 2015!

Scholar Ted

Scholar Ted’s trying to shake off his radical feminist tendencies…

The awards, run by the brilliant Academia Obscura blog, asked academics to tweet pictures of their cats as they “work” alongside them: flopped over the keyboard; laying over books; getting in the way; pawing playfully at studious faces… the list is endless. Check out the #AcademicsWithCats hashtag to see the brilliance. Entrants were shortlisted and after a nervous wait, winners were announced just before Christmas. Scholar Ted won Best in Show (1st Place) and also Best Writing…

Scholar Ted

Scholar Ted loves how posthuman politics contest the anthropocentrism of life.

Scholar Ted, who lives through the perils of academia with me, usually on my desk, has been a scholar for some time – the awards merely offered a chance to show his scholarly self in action. Scholar Ted is the scholar I would love to be: he is confident; he knows his worth; he is openly critical of the dis/ableist neoliberal academy, venting without fear; and simply refuses to work the obligatory 60 hours a week. Instead, he chooses self-care: napping up to 14 hours a day, putting himself first, and only crying for another pouch of Felix As Good As It Looks (other reputable cat foods are available…) In short, he’s a bit of a legend. He also sits on my desk everyday, meaning he’s a great collaborator. He has now been featured in the Guardian and The Times… Checkout our #ScholarTed on Twitter, and send Ted a tweet if you’d like. He has a growing fan base and would like to get to know you.

Scholar Ted

Hmm… So it’s Dis/Ability now…

Finally, a MASSIVE THANK YOU to Academia Obscura and to everyone who voted for Ted; he’ll be taking up his new role as Mice Chancellor in the next academic year.

IMG_0757

Paw-Reviewing

Scholar Ted

Paw-Reviewing

Scholar Ted Scholar Ted Scholar Ted Scholar Ted

Talking about Sex, Sexuality and Relationships: Guidance and Standards

(PLEASE NOTE: This blog post has been re-blogged from here).

Assistance for supporting young people with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions (sic) who want to explore their sexuality and develop relationships is offered to practitioners in a new comprehensive guide co-authored by Dr Kirsty Liddiard from the Faculty.

Talking about Sex, Sexuality and Relationships: Guidance and Standards is published by The Open University in partnership with UK children’s palliative care charity Together for Short Lives and the OU Sexuality Alliance. The publication gives guidance and standards for health, social care and education practitioners who support young people with limited lifespans.

The guide has been developed with young people, local and national organisations to help break down taboos around disabled young people and sexuality, and to help professionals develop communication skills and confidence in exploring sexuality for these young people both safely and legally.

It aims to boost the confidence of practitioners in talking to young people about intimacy and their sexuality and help organisations to provide robust governance and better understand the legal framework.

Dr Kirsty Liddiard, Postdoctoral Research Associate at the School of Education said: “Participating in the OU Sexuality Alliance and co-authoring the Guidance and Standards was a way for me to utilise and apply new key knowledges of disability, sexuality and youth from my doctoral at the University of Warwick, and later, my postdoctoral research at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada. It also offered experience of working across practitioner, academic and charity settings, and with a range of multidisciplinary health and social care professionals.

“I am really proud to say that a key part of creating the Guidance and Standards was seeking the views of young disabled people themselves, listening to their experiences and responding in ways that centre their sexual and intimate rights.

“The aim of the guide, for me, was to ensure that the myriad of professionals and carers that work with young disabled people are well equipped to support, advocate and care in holistic ways.”

More than 25 young people with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions contributed to the report. Two of the young people, Hameed Jimoh (Junior) and Lucy Watts jointly wrote the report’s foreword.

They said: “Yes, talking about sex, intimacy and providing practical support for young people like us can be challenging, but such discussions shouldn’t be ignored and swept under the carpet. Staff just need training and support.”

Here are some articles on the project featured in the Independent and BBC Newsbeat.

Talking About Sexuality and Relationships: Guidance and Standards

Talking About Sexuality and Relationships: Guidance and Standards

Considering Intimate Lives: Ways Forward

On Monday 9th November, Considering Intimate Lives: Ways Forward, took place at St Mary’s Church, Sheffield, as part of the Economic and Social Science Research Council’s Festival of Social Sciences. Considering Intimate Lives: Ways Forward was a workshop for people with learning disabilities and/or autism (hereby labelled people), self-advocates, their families, friends, allies and those who work with and for them (e.g. care staff, support workers, social workers, and associated professionals). Members of the public, students, and activists who share an interest in the workshop themes were also welcome. See here for a blog post I wrote pre-event.

IMG_3367

Event poster (2015)

I’d been planning the event for some time with academic and community colleagues: Dan Goodley, University of Sheffield; Katherine Runswick-Cole, Manchester Metropolitan University; Nick Hodge and Jill Smith, The Autism Centre, Sheffield Hallam University; and Sinead McHugh-Hicks and Sam Matthews from Dimensions, a not-for-profit organisation which supports around 3,500 disabled people and their families throughout England and Wales. We were really lucky to have local autistic activist Grace Parry come to speak on the day. Grace shared her experiences as an autistic woman on the asexuality spectrum (as she described it); Grace’s talk reminded us also of the right to not desire intimacy with others and to listen to labelled people first. We were also thrilled that Romeo Biggs, a labelled Trans self-advocate co-researcher from Making Space, Canada, told his story through a screening of his short film, which you can see here. Attendees were really taken by Romeo’s poignant film in which he centred his denial of institutional and familial support as a Trans person. We also had self-advocate Jodie Bradley from Speak Up Self-Advocacy Rotherham, who at the beginning of the day spoke about her recent international work on intimate citizenship. In short, collaborating in these ways enabled us to bridge academic, community, practitioner, activist and disciplinary divides to host a seminal event exploring the complex interplay of labelled people’s lives, intimate citizenship, and austerity. In this post, I’d like to speak a little bit about what happened on the day. Additionally, check out our lively Twitter hashtag #WaysForward2015 to see the tweets from the day.

What is intimate citizenship?

‘Intimate citizenship’ is a term coined by the British Sociologist Ken Plummer (2003). It refers to the evolving relationships between the private and personal with public aspects of our lives. More simply, matters of sexuality, childbearing and rearing, loving partnerships, intimate labour and work, gender identity, friendships, care and caring relationships, spirituality and other ‘personal’ concerns are increasingly contoured by, and penetrate, public life. Intimate citizenship necessarily involves negotiating body-based, psycho-emotional and social contact with others. As such, intimate problems, commonly understood as private, have significant public and policy implications. Intimate citizenship brings into relief how our apparently private and personal choices — who we love, our work to maintain loving and intimate relationships, and our consumption and capacities that shape and sustain this work — inevitably involve and affect others. Inevitably, changing political and socio-economic relations of public life significantly shape such relations, making austerity a key determinant in the extent to which socially disenfranchised and vulnerable groups have access to and can make claims for intimate citizenship. Katherine Runswick-Cole and I made a short accessible film to explain intimate citizenship; you can watch it here.

IMG_3385

Intimate Citizenship: A Brief Introduction… (Runswick-Cole and Liddiard, 2015)

What happened on the day?

One of the initial activities of the day was discuss the question: What does it take for you to be intimate in your life? This was purposeful towards getting attendees to think beyond “what disabled people need” and more towards a shared reflexivity of the complexities of intimate life for all people, and about the many components that go into making intimacy a reality. I wanted to challenge our far-reaching naturalised cultural assumptions about intimacy, to show that intimacy is always political, economic (with tangible material underpinnings), cultural and social, and that intimacy (for those who want it) is a form of privilege and seldom a right.

IMG_3391

Group Art Work: What does it take for you to be intimate in your life?

Attendee Art Work

Group Art Work: What does it take for you to be intimate in your life?

We held Considering Intimate Lives: Ways Forward because intimate citizenship is fragile for many, and is often routinely contested, controlled and contained in the lives of labelled people. This is despite the fact that the rights of disabled people to pursue several spheres of intimate life associated with love, labour and care, including sexual identity and expression, friendship, marriage and cohabitation, family life and parenthood, are enshrined in the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

In short, we wanted to make space to bring together a range of people – academics, labelled people, community folk, service providers, and students to consider this reality and imagine ways forward to something more; a better reality for labelled people who desire intimacy. This really took shape in Dimensions’ presentation, which asked attendees to consider its practice as a care provider and suggest improvements. It was deeply refreshing for a service provider to open itself up to wanting to learn more (from a range of voices) in order to improve its service provision in this area and, in turn, the lives of those it supports. I would really relish the chance to work with Dimensions again: its positioning of sexual and intimate politics as a priority area speaks volumes about its ethics of care as an organisation.

IMG_3404

Artist Dan Goodley’s pictorial representation of discussions.

To do so is particularly important when, in practice, we actually know little of disabled people’s experiences of intimate citizenship; little detailed exploration of people’s intimate experiences has been undertaken. Even less is known about the spaces disabled people may easily access and stake claims to their intimate citizenship, especially in austere times, and how this may shape intimate subjectivities, relations and practice. Nor do we know what new ableisms — the exclusions, disadvantages and silencing of people with impairments — or other barriers are encountered within the exercise of intimate rights – particularly in the context of austerity. Considering Intimate Lives: Ways Forward served to create a space where these (changing) facets of intimate life could be discussed, heard, politicised, provided and acted upon. Dan Goodley and Katherine Runswick-Cole’s knowledge cafe at the end of the day asked attendees what they had learned, what they were going to take forward from the day, and the impact it would have in their own work, lives, service and practice. This accountability affirms that the intimate lives of disabled people are not individual problems, but are shared, collective, and social; we are all accountable as disabled people, activists, advocates and allies.

If you’d like to know more about any of the contents of this blog, don’t hesitate to get in touch: k.liddiard@sheffield.ac.uk

 

Attendee Art Work

Dan Goodley: Graphic note-taking.

IMG_3403

Dan Goodley: Graphic note-taking

IMG_3408

Dan Goodley: Graphic note-taking

IMG_3411

Dan Goodley: Graphic note-taking

IMG_3407

Dan Goodley: Graphic Note-taking

IMG_3410

What needs to be done and how? Dan Goodley: Graphic note-taking