Scholarlink

<p>Sexual relationships are central to many people’s satisfaction and well-being in life. However, Capacity to Sexual Consent (CTSC) policies can abridge the right to intimate relationships among people labeled with intellectual disability (ID). Assuming the inalienability of human rights and with particular focus on ID-labeled women, this conceptual analysis offers a three-part critique of CTSC policy and associated standards of practice. First, CTSC requirements are <i>unattainable</i> for many due to systemic deficiencies. Inequities in both assessment practices and the broader conditions of ID-labeled women’s lives pose numerous impediments to meeting CTSC stipulations. Second, policies of sexual prohibition are often <i>ineffectual</i> in forestalling sexual violation and can paradoxically exacerbate women’s sexual vulnerability. Third, the requirements of CTSC are <i>unjust</i> because they pose a discriminatory double-standard for ID-labeled women. Moreover, the standards compound the injustices women already experience by responding to sexist and ableist conditions with rights abridgment. To uphold sexual rights, I propose a replacement CTSC policy guided by tenets of Nussbaum’s (2011) Capability Approach. I argue that such a policy can counteract the substantial sexual vulnerability women experience while simultaneously upholding their right to direct their sexual lives.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Sexual Prohibitions on Sexually Ableist Grounds: A Conceptual Analysis Critiquing “Capacity to Sexual Consent” Policies

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月6日

查看全文
  • Hannah G. Ginn

摘要

Sexual relationships are central to many people’s satisfaction and well-being in life. However, Capacity to Sexual Consent (CTSC) policies can abridge the right to intimate relationships among people labeled with intellectual disability (ID). Assuming the inalienability of human rights and with particular focus on ID-labeled women, this conceptual analysis offers a three-part critique of CTSC policy and associated standards of practice. First, CTSC requirements are unattainable for many due to systemic deficiencies. Inequities in both assessment practices and the broader conditions of ID-labeled women’s lives pose numerous impediments to meeting CTSC stipulations. Second, policies of sexual prohibition are often ineffectual in forestalling sexual violation and can paradoxically exacerbate women’s sexual vulnerability. Third, the requirements of CTSC are unjust because they pose a discriminatory double-standard for ID-labeled women. Moreover, the standards compound the injustices women already experience by responding to sexist and ableist conditions with rights abridgment. To uphold sexual rights, I propose a replacement CTSC policy guided by tenets of Nussbaum’s (2011) Capability Approach. I argue that such a policy can counteract the substantial sexual vulnerability women experience while simultaneously upholding their right to direct their sexual lives.