Essay: Examining Societal Barriers to Sexual Rights for Disabled Males

This essay provides a critical analysis of two articles concerning disability and male sexual rights, focusing on the societal barriers and discrimination faced by individuals with disabilities. The essay examines the arguments of Abbott (2013) and Jeffreys (2008), highlighting how societal norms and expectations often deny disabled men the opportunity to express their sexual desires and experience sexual fulfillment. It explores issues such as the lack of equal rights, the impact of masculinity, and the challenges faced by gay men with disabilities. The essay also discusses potential solutions, such as the use of sex surrogates and the role of the state in advocating for the rights of the disabled. Furthermore, it acknowledges the limitations of the research and the need for further empirical data to fully understand the complexities of this issue. The essay concludes by emphasizing the importance of recognizing and addressing the sexual needs of disabled individuals, including those in same-sex relationships, and advocating for greater societal understanding and support.

Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE 1
Article critique
Student’s Name
University

ARTICLE CRITIQUE 2
Article critique
Sexual right is a privilege that every individual in the society needs to enjoy regardless of
their state of body or mind. Jeffreys (2008) suggests that the society discriminates and denies
priveledges to people who have some disability especially males. Further Abbott (2013), argues
that this becomes worse if the individual has an intellectual disability. The inability to behave
like the rest in the society makes others treat them as lesser beings who do not require equal
rights like other people. For example, gay people with some form of disability suffer silently
since the society denies them the opportunity to express their sexual desire like others do. This
essay analyses the two articles on Abott (2013) and Jeffrey (2008) on disability and the male sex
right.
Aboot (2013) asks whether there is a human right to love and have a love life for people
with disability. In most cases, gay people are denied certain rights or privileges since studies tend
to focus more on HIV prevention and sexual abuse. The society presents barriers through the
absence of parity that starts from childhood. They are denied sexual experiences like flirting,
dating and sexual interaction that will define their sexual orientation. Further, Jeffrey (2008)
adds that the society is developed on masculinity with men having the right to abuse and use the
bodies ofwomenne for sexual desires. The law of the male sex right allows those who lack any
form of disability to explore the world around them and achieve sexual desires. Since the society
is designed tosegregate people with disabilityn through state sponsored programmes, male
people with disability are denied an opportunity to have sex since their female counterparts can
be forced to such desires by men. These men are denied their sexual rights through exclusion
from the basic rights that other citizens enjoy.

ARTICLE CRITIQUE 3
The society denies disabled men sexual Jeffery (2008) argues that the prostitution niche
is designed to look like it serves the noble purpose. Therefore, people with disability are seen as
less noble and may not qualify for such services even if they can afford. The issues are more
worse if the disabled want to access same-sex privileges like the case of gay men. Even though
some countries like Australia have made strides in achieving the rights of people with disability.
Abbott (2013) states that the male syndrome threatens such rights making the society to ignore
them. further, mobility issues may deny such men the rights since they may lack resources or the
means to interact with other people in the society to achieve their sexual desires.
Jeffreys (2008) a feminists scholars who fights for the rights of the people suggests that
proper strategies can be put in place to achieve the rights of people with disability. This will
include the an intellectuallydisabled and gay people with disability. The use of sex surrogates
and facilitated sex customised brothels for disabled persons is a step in achieving sex rights for
disabled people. Further Abbott (2013) who was once a socialists and now an anarchists adds
that, the state can act as a choice architect through creating theenvironmentthat pushes the
society to realise the rights of people with disability and allow them the right to enjoy other
sexual privileges that are beyond sexual intercourse.
The authors recognise the fact that the society is male dominated which leads to
exploitation of people with disabilities. Indeed, all over the society, sex has been attributed as a
male right wherewomenen may be exploited in one way or the other. However, male masculinity
allows men to explore the world for their sexual desires thus leaving out people with disabilityies
(Swango-Wilson, 2008). This even becomes worse for same-sex relationship people. However,
they fail to recognise the lack of empirical data on how the rights of such people are violated.
The two researchers gathered their data from a few sources which may only reflect one side of

ARTICLE CRITIQUE 4
the situation. sexual health rests on the right to freely express desires. Therefore, the researchers
did not exhaustively focus on the critical factors that need to be address to allow people with an
intellectual disability and disabled gays to express their desireto people of the same-sex that they
are interested with.
The authors view sexuality as a central aspect of being human thus every individual needs to be
giventhat right. However, only female disabled have been said to be exploited while their male
counterparts have not been reported. Turner (2016) adds that the male syndrome forces men to
die silently rather than report their sexual frustrations. Could it be that there are a lot of disabled
men who are sexually exploited by their family members or in areas where they seek satisfaction.
What role do surrogates play in sex therapy?. On the other hand, Fitzgerald & Withers (2013)
suggests that disabled people may fail to recognise what they exactly need. This may form the
basis of discrimination and limited assistance since a right cannot come from ignorance. At the
same time, although governments may putstrategies in place to improve the conditions of people.
Sexual desires are catered for under expression and not directly provided by governments since
sexual and reproductive needs are located in the individual. Does it mean that there is need for
the government to revisit the rights provided to its citizens.
The authors conclude that people with disability face disproportionate difficulty in sexual
fulfilment despite possessing the same needs. The society fails to recognize the silence in the
society where people fail to address sexual needs of disabled people (Aunos & Feldman, 2002).
From an anarchist perspective of Abbot, the rights of the disabled are violated while Jeffrey
believes that the society needs to take responsibility and assist the disabled. For example, there
are challenging issues like sexual assistance to disabled people which may be more demanding to
the society especially for those who wish to engage in same-sex relationships. Alexander &

ARTICLE CRITIQUE 5
Gomez (2017) suggest that the society may recognize the rights of straight people but find it
challenging to address the rights of this specific segment of the society since it may be difficult
to understand them. Therefore, the society has to learn how to recognize and understand the
needs of this special segment to address them. Assisted sex for people with disabilities exists but
in most cases, gay disabled people’s same-sex rights may go unnoticed since the society fails to
notice them.

ARTICLE CRITIQUE 6
References
Abbott, D. (2013). Nudge, nudge, wink, wink: love, sex and gay men with intellectual
disabilities – a helping hand or a human right? Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 57(11), 1079–1087.
Alexander, N., & Gomez, M. T. (2017). Pleasure, sex, prohibition, intellectual disability, and
dangerous ideas. Reproductive Health Matters, 25(50), 114-120.
Aunos, M., & Feldman M.A. (2002). Attitudes towards sexuality, sterilization and parenting
rights of persons with intellectual disabilities. Intellectual Disability, 15, 285–296.
Fitzgerald, C., & Withers, P. (2013). I don’t know what a proper woman means’: what women
with intellectual disabilities think about sex, sexuality and themselves. British Journal of
Learning Disability, 41(1), 5-12.
Jeffreys, S. (2008). Disability and the male sex right. Women's Studies International Forum, 31,
327–335.
Swango-Wilson, A. (2008). Caregiver perceptions and implications for sex education for
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Sexual Disability, 26(2), 75-
81.
Turner, G. (2016). Pleasure is paramount: adults with intellectual disabilities discuss sensuality
and intimacy. Sexualities, 19(5), 677-697.