“Do Not Disturb sign on a hotel room door (the text message is in four languages). Space for text, high resolution – 16 Mpx.”
“Do Not Disturb sign on a hotel room door (the text message is in four languages). Space for text, high resolution – 16 Mpx.”

SocietyAugust 12, 2018

Yes, we can. And we can also change the way we talk about disability and sex

“Do Not Disturb sign on a hotel room door (the text message is in four languages). Space for text, high resolution – 16 Mpx.”
“Do Not Disturb sign on a hotel room door (the text message is in four languages). Space for text, high resolution – 16 Mpx.”

There are major barriers for disabled people who want to pursue sex and relationships. They are real and deeply felt. Yet the stigmatising tone of public conversation makes me wary, writes Henrietta Bollinger

“Um … advice? From me? Yes, we can,” was my cautious, then tongue-in-cheek answer. “As Obama would say!”

The others laughed. It was a joke. But I’d just been asked what advice I might have for young people like me who were exploring sex and sexuality. It was also a pithy summary of what 16-year-old me had needed to know.

As a disabled woman this was not something I’d been sure of: could sex be part of my life? When I later conducted research on the experience of young disabled people in sexuality education the question repeated itself. Being unsure if sex and relationships would feature in their lives meant they were unsure if any of the information about safe sex or healthy relationships applied either. They largely disregarded what they had learnt as irrelevant , increasing the risk of abuse. So, I know how important it is to clearly say: “Yes. As a disabled person sex is for you, too.”

This sentiment in the piece headlined “The reality of having sex when you live with a disability” I had to agree with. I also agree that there are major barriers for disabled people who want to pursue sex and relationships. These range from a lack of affirmative education, to the inaccessibility of places where people usually meet potential partners, disabled people’s social isolation and stigma towards disabled people, including assumptions that may come from their own families or the people who support them. There are related issues too, like people’s rights to marriage, fertility or to have children. In this country, it is still legal under the Adoption Act for children to be removed from their parents’ care on the grounds of parental disability. Disabled people are also still far too frequently subjected to sterilization.

The barriers are real and deeply felt. They absolutely need addressing as part of realising equitable and full lives for disabled people. I would absolutely advocate for the removal of all barriers that inhibit us from exploring sexuality or entering sexual relationships as equals to non-disabled people. Yet the tone of public conversation makes me wary. On the rare occasions we do talk about disability and sex it is either to highlight the barriers or to equivocate about sex work. Advocacy which claims the act of sex as something we are entitled to often misses the fact that good sex should be a negotiation, a social interaction. Nobody – including those who work in the sex industry – owes it to anyone.

Sex work as a way for disabled people to access sex has been brought to popular attention by films like The Sessions or Scarlet Road. The Sessions was a dramatization of Mark O’Brien’s life; a man with polio who decided he wanted to have sex before he died. Scarlet Road is a documentary about an Australian sex worker who visits disabled clients. Stories like these have a lot of value in terms of amplifying the “Yes we can” message. For many disabled people working with sex workers – or, in O’Brien’s case, a sexual surrogate – provides intimacy they may not have and the opportunity to explore their own bodies, take “safe-risks”. But these stories are told into a context where sex workers continue to be stigmatised and so do disabled people.

When this is made the dominant narrative, it allows the rest of “able” society off the hook in terms of examining its own prejudices. Instead of asking hard questions about attitudinal, social, educational and physical barriers that exist to all people being full sexual citizens – we outsource. We tell sex workers that there are morally more and less acceptable ways of doing their jobs, instead of constantly supporting them in their choice of work.

Disabled people, we say to ourselves, are entitled to sex as a service, the uncomplicated meeting of a need. But as partners, lovers in their own right?

There is another story, too, a story that we tell less often – maybe because it is more mundane.

This is the idea that disabled people can and do have sex – without the help of any support or sex workers. We are straight, queer, alone, together. We are partners, lovers, parents and all the rest. It is the kind of conversation that is happening privately, or being just lived. It is the mundane story we need to make sure people know is out there too.

Because after we understand that “Yes we can” we ask: how? And we have to know there is not one reality of sex and disability but many. The more varied the stories we tell, the more will seem possible to the disabled kid in their sex ed class, as well as to their potential partners.

Keep going!
donbrashfeat

SocietyAugust 10, 2018

And the winner is: Don Brash, by a mile

donbrashfeat

An otherwise unremarkable Auckland University debate on free speech and PC culture turned into a cause célèbre when one of the participants, Don Brash, was banned by Massey University. Madeleine Chapman tunes in to the livestream.

“Good evening”

“Good evening”

“Good evening”

“Good evening”

“Good evening”

The head of the University of Auckland debating society, introduced only as Chris, repeated himself five times. Don Brash had moments earlier walked onstage to a chorus of cheers, boos, and the waiata Te Aroha, sung by those who weren’t keen to hear him speak. But they were there and the very purpose of the debate had, in the week prior, morphed into Let Don Brash Speak.

The moot was PC culture has restricted free speech in New Zealand.

Elliot Ikilei, New Conservative Party leader, spoke first for the affirmative team. He spoke well, the best orator of the night, but he didn’t do much to convince me that PC culture was restricting anything. In fact, his real-life example was Israel Folau being challenged on his homophobic comments. Ikilei spoke of how it was ‘wrong’ for a Labour MP Louisa Wall to say that Folau’s comments could kill. “That is horrific. That is absolutely disgusting. And that is wrong,” he said of Wall, unintentionally paraphrasing much of the response to Folau’s original comments. In short, Ikilei used his freedom of speech to criticise someone for using their freedom of speech to criticise someone else for using their freedom of speech.

If nothing else, he sounded good.

Two of my flatmates joined me to watch Simon Wilson speak first for the negative team. He essentially read what would make for a pretty good Herald column about why Don Brash is bad. One of my flatmates loves Simon Wilson and I could see him nodding in agreement. The other loves to be edgy and disagree with everyone. He looked unimpressed.

“He’s not really arguing the point though, is he?” he said, angling for yet another flat debate. I was tired and mumbled something vague in disagreement before returning to the livestream.

“Why are the brave heroes of the free speech campaign so selective? Did you know some of them want RNZ to stop using Te Reo? That’s a complaint that we have too much free speech and it’s because of PC culture.”

It was a good and necessary burn. Because although the debate was pitched as being about free speech, it was really about Don Brash. And Brash, Wilson argued, had used his free speech in 2004 to derail the Labour government’s ‘Closing The Gaps’ policy, which aimed to assist socioeconomically disadvantaged Māori and Pacific Island ethnic groups.

“The attack on Closing The Gaps was, in my mind, the most egregious use of free speech we’ve seen in New Zealand in decades.” Wilson’s argument wasn’t just that PC Culture hadn’t restricted free speech, but that perhaps it should have.

In the Facebook livestream comments section, viewers debated whether or not KFC should be banned in New Zealand.

“Piper has a cold” is how the affirmative team’s second speaker, New Zealand student debater Piper Whitehead, was introduced. It was already clear that she did not want to be there, having looked supremely embarrassed when her team entered the theatre. Two minutes into her argument, I muted the livestream. It wasn’t that her thoughts were bad – in fact, on rewatching the debate, she made good points about the dangers of driving unpopular opinions to echo chambers such as 4Chan – she simply spoke incredibly fast and analytically. It was a good reminder of the importance of delivery. For all I know, everything she said was right. But judging by the crowd’s reaction, the livestream comments, and my own muting, no one was listening.

Luckily for Piper, she was followed by the night’s most perplexing performer, Fran O’Sullivan. If I wasn’t already aware which side the Herald business editor was arguing, I would’ve had trouble figuring it out based on what she said. Her extensive list of humorous PC gone mad moments in media was a “hello, fellow kids” moment if I ever saw one, followed by an endorsement of Brash himself and his challenging of property rights. “But back to my side,” she concluded. “I’m just giving Don a leg up because I think he needs it tonight.” I’m not sure what side she was arguing, which was perhaps her intention.

A protest (Screengrab: NZHerald facebook)

Arun, a New Zealand team mate of Piper, spoke last for the negative team. He spoke clearly and slowly, and did well to adjust when someone tried to heckle him. But even Arun couldn’t resist ending with a warning to his own side: “When people who claim to be politically correct feel the need to scream, shout and prevent people they disagree with from speaking, that doesn’t signal to people that you have confidence in your arguments. It signals to people that you don’t want the opposition to be heard because you’re afraid they might be correct.”

Three minutes later, a group of protesters screamed and shouted and prevented Don Brash from speaking. It was unfortunate timing to say the least, and allowed Brash to simply say “Madam, you’re proving my case absolutely, thank you.”

When the protesters had been quieted, Chris the moderator attempted to bring Simon Wilson back for his team’s conclusion. Instead, he too was yelled down and a chant of “Don Brash, Don Brash, Don Brash” was started. Brash returned to the mic, grinning, and said “I haven’t had this much fun in a long time.”

In that moment, Brash won. His actual argument was borderline incoherent and included the line “it’s impossible to ignore the possibility that Jewish culture is in some respects more advanced or superior to other cultures”. And yet he still won. Because where Brash would have typically spoken to a small tutorial room of PolSci101 students, he was now speaking to a full lecture theatre after receiving what must surely have been the first encore chant of his life. Even Wilson was forced to chastise a protestor who was disrupting Brash’s speech.

The whole debate was a bit of a farce. Two student debaters did their best to actually argue the moot, and four public figures presented their own personal opinions on various topics. At the end of the night, freedom of speech was not the talking point. Don Brash was. Which means he alone won.

Don Brash winning anything in 2018 means a whole lot of people are losing.