Who Counts as a Sexual Subject? The Impact of Ableist Rhetoric for People with Intellectual Disability in Sweden

2Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: The ableist rhetoric around sexuality in disability services and beyond can hinder subjective sexual expression and have a powerful impact on health, self-esteem, and everyday life through internalized ableism, structural marginalization, and interpersonal discrimination. The aim of this study was to explore the ableist rhetoric of sexuality and its impact on sexual scripting for people with intellectual disability. Methods: A thematic analysis was carried out on data generated through ethnographic fieldwork at five sheltered accommodations and semi-structured interviews with ten individuals with intellectual disability. Results: The results show that people in Sweden with intellectual disability are desexualized within a moral order that is maintained in post-institutional social care. Through this moral order, which is deeply embedded in an ableist rhetoric about sexual relationships, sexual scripting for disabled people is constrained both inside post-institutional social care initiatives, and in the broader community of “ableist environments.” In response, disabled people employ various strategies of resistance. Conclusions: A rhetoric of positive sexuality should be a guiding principle for successfully supporting the development of sexual agency on each individual’s own term. Policy Implications: We conclude by encouraging the development of initiatives that will empower and support people with intellectual disability to learn about their sexual rights and to find solutions that allow for development of sexual agency and subjectivity.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bahner, J., Gäddman Johansson, R., & Svanelöv, E. (2024). Who Counts as a Sexual Subject? The Impact of Ableist Rhetoric for People with Intellectual Disability in Sweden. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 21(1), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00873-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free