I imagined having a photograph at the top of this article. It would have been of two naked men having sex. Nothing unusual in that one may consider. However, I wanted one of the chaps to be in a wheelchair or at least visibly physically disabled. Alas, I could not track one down.
To me this was rather surprising. Inputting 'gay disabled sex' into the Google search-engine returned 178,000 hits. Over the first six pages only three items were serious articles, the rest were links to porn sites. I clicked on a few, but none really seemed to offer what was on the label, but rather were simply channelling able-bodied pornography.
Perhaps I should not have felt so astonished at my inability to locate a photo. The issue of straight (heterosexual) disabled sex only really started being the focus of feminist writers in the 1980's. No doubt I just have not found them, but the only article I discovered that directly referred to men was T. Shakespeare's 1999 article "The sexual politics of disabled masculinity". No wonder I could not find items relating to gay/bisexual/queer disabled menfolk! (Actually, after a subsequent brain-wave, I did locate some academic research articles via Google Scholar (q.v.).)
We seem to be almost invisible, at least to the mainstream. Why is this? I rarely frequent Manchester's gay village as many of the venues are not accessible. Moreover its streets are uneven, and I am likely to fall when able to walk and I am too embarrassed/proud to be wheelchaired, as I prefer to be independent and wheel myself when needing to use my chair. I am not saying they do not exist, but I have never seen anyone in a wheelchair there. Nor anyone with dark glasses and a white cane. I have never seen an amputee. Nor someone physically mutated by pharmaceuticals. I have never seen an obvious burns victim. Never even seen someone else walking with a stick. The only visibly disabled folk I have observed in bars are the deaf, with their hearing-aids and signing.
Perhaps gay culture's obsession with the body beautiful is at fault? Or, perhaps it is we disabled folk's fault: for not asserting our right to participate, to be accepted; for not accepting ourselves in our physicality and sexuality; for not pursuing alternative eroticisms?
Research has demonstrated that most able-bodied pity we disabled or, worse, abuse us. We are objects for charity. Certainly not erotic objects of desire. Usually we are perceived as being child-like or asexual - 'sexual eunuchs' if you will.
Many factors militate against disabled minds and bodies being able to engage in sexual relations, including: accessibility; negative attitudes; transport; assistance; and, above all, trying to find that willing desirable someone. (All of these could be the germ of an article in themselves.)
Manchester has dozens of support groups for gay this, queer that; but I could unearth only one for disabled folk, the hearing-impaired. (Bless 'em!) However, there is nothing I could join. I once wrote to the main Mancunian LGBT support group enquiring whether they knew of any gay disabled groupings. They did not even bother to reply. (This particularly hurt because, when able-bodied, I used to do volunteer work on their behalf.)
I perceive myself as almost imperceptible: partly due to being mainly house-bound; partly because I do not feel able to fully express who I am. I'm not after sex three times a day, once a week, even once a month; but every now and then would be a great start. I still have needs and desires. My disability did not geld me.
I wish I could have found that image of queer wheelchair sex in the real world, not just in my head...
This article is part of "Blogging Against Disablism Day".
This article is part of "Blogging Against Disablism Day".
