Teaching disability and sexuality.

[rivka]

Not posted to the OWL filter.

I know I have some very smart, very clued-in people with disabilities on my Friends List. I'm pleading with you to help me fix the one messed-up session in OWL, the grades 7-9 sex ed class I'm teaching. Feel free to point other friends here, if you think they may have helpful comments.

So, Session 7 of OWL is supposed to be about "Disability and Other Diversity Issues." And it's... not very good. It reads as if they knew they ought to have some disability awareness stuff in the curriculum, but didn't know enough about it - or weren't comfortable enough with it - to address it in a way that would be meaningful or engaging for the kids.

There's one good activity: a "What Would You Do" thing where the kids privately note how they'd respond to a variety of situations which might take them outside of their comfort zones, and then there's a group discussion of each scenarios. The scenarios include things like "a really attractive person in your neighborhood who has a very different religious life asks you out - what would you do?" and "you're looking for a seat in the cafeteria and see a group of classmates who are bilingual Haitians. As you get ready to join them, you notice that they're all speaking French. What would you do?" ...So that one's fine. I think it'll draw the kids in and spark some good discussion.

The other half of the session is devoted to a story: a personal account of a 17-year-old disabled girl talking, in detail, about her first romantic relationship and losing her virginity. We're supposed to read this lengthy story to the kids (you can read part of it here, if you do "search inside" for the phrase "Prince Charming") and then draw them into a discussion. As the OWL discussion guide condescendingly notes: "Antoine had a lot of exposure to people in wheelchairs. His knowledge and experience reduced his anxiety and fear and increased his comfort. He was able to see beyond the wheelchair to see the person - Ofelia. How wonderful!"

Okay, gag me.

Beyond the irritating discussion guide, though, the whole "activity" doesn't sit well with me. The passivity of it. The use of one person's experience to represent the entire world of disability. The, uh, lurid aspects of the story, which I think will embarrass our kids rather than teaching them anything. And the... I can't really express this well, but the way the whole segment is set up seems intended to evoke a sort of sickly-reverential "oooh, the things people like that have to deal with - she must be so strooooong" reaction. It doesn't seem like it gives the kids any kind of toehold to engage with disability issues in any kind of honest way.

So Adrian and I agreed to keep the "What Would You Do" activity and scrap the rest of the session. In its place, I want to present a different reading, or a couple of short readings, and a brief discussion/presentation of disability and sexuality issues. Then I want to do some Values Voting with the kids, since we did it last week and they loved the whole concept. In Values Voting, you designate parts of the room to mean "Strongly Agree," "Strongly Disagree," and the whole spectrum in between. You read out a statement, and the kids take up a physical position in the room that corresponds to their opinion. Then you draw out opinions from (hopefully) different parts of the spectrum.

Here's where I need your help:

1. I need readings. Anyone got anything they love? I knew I'd lent out my copy of With the Power of Each Breath years ago and never gotten it back, but I foolishly assumed that our library would have it. Nope.

2. I have three "Values Voting" statements. Please critique them, fix the wording, and suggest any better, or additional, ideas:

a) Mentally retarded people shouldn't have sexual contact, because they're not really able to give consent.
b) It's fine for disabled people to have children, even if the disability might be inherited.
c) Being in a relationship with someone who is seriously disabled would just be too hard. (Possible alternate wording: "It takes someone really special to be willing to have a relationship with a disabled person.")

I want to make this a good, engaging, educational experience for the kids. But I'm a little nervous about, um, how far inside I am on this issue. It makes it hard to know exactly what's going to be appropriate and helpful.

So... help?

Comments

[tavella.livejournal.com]

a) Mentally retarded people shouldn't have sexual contact, because they're not really able to give consent.

Hmm, this strikes me as covering such a large spectrum as to not be useful in any kind of vote. There's no way I could answer it with a simple agree/disgree -- just how mentally disabled are they? If they are living independently, I'd have no issues with them sleeping with whoever they want. Disabled enough to require custodial care, I'd be really wary of relationships with noncustodials because of the power differential, yet I wouldn't want to deny sexuality to the many people in group homes... it strikes me as a better *discussion* topic than voting topic.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

for c, i like the alternate wording better, because it's more subtle. it gets at the same point-- that we, as disabled people, are "too hard" to deal with.

as a data point, i recently went out on a few dates with someone who needs a hip replacement and also on a few dates with someone who was a heavy smoker. the smoker was *waaaay* harder to deal with...

[naomikritzer]

I don't have a disability, but I would also cringe over the "isn't it wonderful how Antoine sees the person in the wheelchair?" reading.

Have you read "Too Late to Die Young" by Harriet McBryd Johnson? She doesn't talk about her sexuality, but she talks about the sensual pleasures that are unique to her life (vs. those of an able-bodied person) in a really interesting way. She's probably best known for her essay Unspeakable Conversations, about her debate with Peter Singer. Each chapter of her book is a cohesive story. She is, however, an old lady by teenager standards.

[naomikritzer]

I meant to add that one of my frustrations with the portrayal of disabled people in books and movies as that overwhelmingly, they're about other people's reactions to the disabled person. So you get a story about how great Antoine is for not being prejudiced against the girl in a wheelchair, rather than a story where the girl in the wheelchair decides whether Antoine is attractive or not.

[tassie-gal.livejournal.com]

Not disabled, but having a PhD supervisor who is physically disabled, and is big in disability ethics as well as a teacher of religion has kinda influenced my thinking.
The first voting values statement might read better as "People with metal disabilities should not have sexual contact as they are not aware of exactly what it may entail and are thus not able to give permission"

I suspect you have access to alot of online journals?
You could see if a journal like "Journal of Religion, Disability and Health" has something you could use.
Anyhow I'll shut up now and let you get on with being awesome.

[kiya]

I also like the alternate reading better, partly because it's less obviously a gotcha question, and because the positive framing feels like it works better than a negative one for some reason I cannot articulate.

[saoba.livejournal.com]

I like the re-wording of (c).

I recall realizing a particular person I knew was an alien when zie explained that zie was considering a divorce because zir spouse was having health issues which were chronic and disabling and zie said 'I am not the kind of person who can be in a relationship with someone who is sick or disabled'.

And because I am Ms. Not Always Tactful Woman I replied 'Then you are not someone who should expect a long term relationship because people do not come with factory warranties.'

Ok, here goes.

[moeticae.livejournal.com]

Remember, you asked. :)

a). Having looked over the UUA's OWL links that you provided, I wonder whether you'd be better off couching this one in terms of what are good, and what are bad, reasons for entering into a relationship with someone mentally disabled. This was touched upon by one of your other readers (the power discrepancy thing), but I think that possibly putting the issue in terms of the responsibility of respecting the integrity of both yourself and your potential partner might produce an interesting discussion.

b). I'd personally say that it's nobody's G.D. business but the couple's whether they have kids or not, instead of going with that it's fine (that suggests that there's a valid argument for saying that it's not fine), but that should hardly surprise you. :)

c). I'd go with the first version, as I think that you want kids to open up to their worries, rather than not speak 'em because they don't want to give what they think's the wrong answer. Then again, I have no idea if that's normally a problem for your program.

Hope this helps.

Moe

[echosupernova.livejournal.com]

The teacher in me suggests:

It might be useful to compile a variety of readings, if people could suggest, have the students each read one or two, and share their general impressions of the reading and answers to a few questions we developed. What do you think? This way, they could hear/learn about a variety of issues without a huge chunk of time.

Quite honestly, when I was going over the lesson in general, I was thinking that one session is waaay too short a time to cover the whole spectrum of issues that they seem to be trying to cover in one session. I suppose the whole point is to address the value of all persons being sexual, which makes sense.

[ladyotterfae.livejournal.com]

Having attempted to pass this along to my SO, who is in a wheelchair, for input, he has inquired as to how long a 'session' is. He's very active in student activities on his campus, and has access to rather scads of programs and activities for diversity and disability awareness, some of which might possibly be relevant.

Speaking for a more personal take on it, line c really hit me. I'm not entirely sure which way would be better for evoking the response/discussion you're looking for - it kind of depends, as someone else mentioned, whether they would be apt to get into a valuable discussion of _why_ they deem it "too hard" and what that means to different people, or it would be easier to go in through the positive door, and try to dissect why we put partners of disabled people on some sort of pedestal. I'm leaning towards the former, but I'm certainly not a teacher, and I don't know these kids or the rest of the curriculum.
I can, however, state emphatically that I have gotten rather sick of that attitude in my own life. *wrygrin* I hear "oh, I just wouldn't be able to handle that" from some of my closest friends, and others have tried to 'help' me by encouraging me to break up with my SO, or declared me to be "an angel" when I indicated that I had no intention of doing so, thank you very much.

I personally would really like to see not only a story from the perspective of someone in a wheelchair, or with some other notable physical disability, but a more realistic view from the other side. Because it _isn't_ easy. And you do have to see the person, not the disability. But phrasing it that rather preachy way just glosses over the realities, both of it being a relationship like any other, with strong and weak points, and the very real challenges of pairing with a disabled person - the activity restrictions, the strange looks, the special health considerations or extra worries, etc.

ahem. Sorry. Got a tad wordy. :) At any rate, if there's something in particular you're looking for, or need to flesh out an activity or some other tidbit, the boy is quite willing to see what he can find, if he knows the parameters and time restrictions you're working with.

[silkensteel.livejournal.com]

therealocelot asked me to take a look here. I have a 15 year old daughter in the OWL program.

Good comments, and honestly when in the "parental evaluation" OWL parents meeting, I had some similar comments about the slides picturing people in wheelchairs, etc, and the readings supposed to g with them. It seemed really "token" to both my husband and I.

Disabilities take many forms, and not all of them are obvious.

My 12 year old daughter is autistic, and REALLY likes physical contact. What would a teen do if she came up to one of them and playfully suggested something sexual? She can't communicate that yet, but it won't be many years before she can.

So what if a guy's in a wheelchair. Well, you can't just ignore the wheelchair. Would it be appropriate to explore that movie "Coming Home" I think it was, about the wheelchair-bound vet. Maybe some readings from John Callahan's book "Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far On Foot - the Autobiography of a Dangerous Man." He's a quadroplegic, and is VERY open in the book about its effect on his sex life. Funny, bitter, and in the end also life-affirming - but realistic about his life.

What if someone's blind? Or deaf? Or has something like dwarfism, acromegaly, or some other physical difference? There's a variety of disabilities out there which could have an effect on social interactions, dating, etc - and maybe the OWL program doesn't have time to explore them, but honestly I wish there was a way to do it.

Good luck!

[erisian-fields.livejournal.com]

1. Sorry, I can't help with readings.

2. a) This is a huge can of worms to open for discussion, but, as stated, is too black-and-white. I used to work with mentally retarded adults back in the late 80's when some of the lawsuits and rulings about them having the right to have sex started making headlines. There are no easy answers.
b) Do you have an "it ain't nobody's business" section of the room for values voting?
c) I hate both wordings, but the second one is especially annoying. I'm married to a man who happens to be totally blind. It's not "too hard" and I'm not "really special." What it takes to have a relationship with a disabled person is the same as what it takes to have a relationship with anyone else--the maturity to do what's necessary to foster, grow, and maintain that relationship.

Does this unit completely forget that people have relationships with other people and some of those people might have abilities that are vastly different than their own? I married Chris, not his disability (I forget he's blind because he's so independent most of the time). And even if my dad was an amputee before I was born, he's my dad first.

Treating a disability any differently than any other difference amongst people makes no sense to me.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

It's hard to agree with the first wording and not feel like a cad. Even if you *do* feel that you couldn't cope with the challenges that relationship brought. (I think there needs to be a discussion on what 'disabled' means, because it can present in so many forms, and be anything from 'I can't do certain things' to 'I need a lot of support.'

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I like your wording.

[therealocelot.livejournal.com]

I agree about mental disabilities vs. retarded.

[firecat]

(1) Play them the song "Talking Wheelchair Blues" by Fred Small (available on iTunes or on Heart of the Appaloosa. Lyrics are here (scroll down) and will give you an idea, but you have to hear it to appreciate it.

(2)(a) "Mentally retarded" is a potentially offensive term. The suggested "mental disability" wording is interesting because some mental disabilities (e.g., dyslexia) don't affect the ability to give consent. (And it might be an interesting way into a discussion that "disability" isn't a monolithic thing.)

[telerib.livejournal.com]

a) Mentally retarded people shouldn't have sexual contact, because they're not really able to give consent.

Potential offense aside, I think I'd keep the "mentally retarded" wording, unless there is another phrase that accurately conveys the degree of mental disability you mean. You would know far, far better than I what the right clinical expression is.

I only wonder about including the "because" clause. I'd think that would be something you'd want the kids to come up with on their own, as part of a potential reason for Strongly Disagreeing. Unless the intent of the question is to explore the possibility of consent, rather than other potential reasons why they think mentally retarded people should/should not have sexual contact?

[ailsaek.livejournal.com]

You are my idol.

[fairoriana.livejournal.com]

How about "It's impossible for someone who can't walk to have sex"

When I was in college, there was a guy who had muscular dystrophy. I remember him confiding to me that although he was completely wheelchair bound and couldn't lift his hand to his face, he very much wanted the eligible bachelorettes out there to know that his penis did in fact work.

Another good one, although touchy for you, "It would be gross to have sex while pregnant/with a pregnant woman."

[baratron.livejournal.com]

Newspaper article from The Guardian last year: Meet Tyran and Leanne - they learnt of love and sex in a school for the disabled. A pioneering policy is breaking an old taboo by encouraging disabled teenagers to form sexual relationships, with help from carers if necessary.

Also, I hope you'll mention mental health problems, which are every bit as disabling as physical health problems. To be honest, most of my physical health stuff doesn't impact on people outside my body, whereas dealing with the mental health stuff is difficult for partners. And there are consent issues when a person is insufficiently or incorrectly medicated and has lost their usual ability to reason.

Also, social vs medical model of disability? Looking at it from a social model perspective could take away some of that "oh, you must be sooo special to deal with an impaired partner"? *gag*

[baratron.livejournal.com]

'Then you are not someone who should expect a long term relationship because people do not come with factory warranties.'

Hell, yes.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

We're supposed to read this lengthy story to the kids (you can read part of it here, if you do "search inside" for the phrase "Prince Charming") and then draw them into a discussion.

I went and looked through the book, and to save anyone else having to battle Amazon, the whole of the relevant section about sexual behaviour goes:

The instant he starts putting me in the bed, it flashes through my mind, "I don't want to be here." I don't say anything. Antoine is good. He doesn't push me. Still, sex is not wonderful. Since I can't walk, the hymen never stretches. His penis inside me really hurts. Afterward I'm, like, that's it? I try to hide from Antoine that it takes so long before the hurt goes away. He asks me, "How was it? Tell the truth." "Well, it was not what I expected," I say.

So I'm not sure how the discussion is going to go, but what an able-bodied reader is presumably going to take away from this is presumably:

1) that sex (defined exclusively as penis in vagina) is going to be painful for disabled people
2) but that they are going to lie and say it doesn't hurt to save your feelings
3) and also that they don't actually want to have sex but won't say anything about that to save your feelings.

Or in summary, "disabled people don't want to have sex, are hurt by having sex, and only have sex to save the feelings of their able-bodied partners". I think I would be insulted if I was physically disabled, and I think as an able-bodied person I'd come away wondering why anyone would be so cruel to a disabled person as to allow a relationship with them to go beyond the platonic.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

Also, I hope you'll mention mental health problems, which are every bit as disabling as physical health problems. To be honest, most of my physical health stuff doesn't impact on people outside my body, whereas dealing with the mental health stuff is difficult for partners.

THANK YOU, yes. This really does need saying as well. Thank you for articulating something I wouldn't have said as well.

[lizardling.livejournal.com]

Yup. There's such a wide range of mental retardation. It's a pretty gray area, which may be a bit hard to present appropriately to kids in middle school.

[quiet000001.livejournal.com]

By contrast, I don't really like the alternative wording because the "must be really special" bit makes me want to hit someone. This is possibly just a me-thing, though. I was in a relationship with someone who was severely disabled and I got "you're so WONDERFUL" type stuff all the time and it got really frustrating.

(I mean, yes, we did have a lot of issues to deal with which were different from what 'healthy' people deal with, and at times it was quite difficult, and people who understood the situation could tell me they thought I was wonderful and it was okay, but people with only an outside perspective would say it as if I was making some huge sacrifice by lowering myself to be in a relationship with a disabled person or something, you know?)

I'm not sure what I'd suggest as an alternative phrasing, though, since the first phrasing of c doesn't quite work either. :)