Peer Reviewed Articles and Chapters
(forthcoming). Asexuality and Disability: Mutual Negation in Adams v. Rice and New Directions for Coalition Building. Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives. Megan Milks and Karli June Cerankowski, editors. Routledge.
Abstract: This paper examines how two activist projects centered on sexuality – the effort by disability activists to “redefine people with disabilities as sexual citizens” (Siebers 2008) and the effort by asexual activists to gain visibility for asexuality as a sexual identity – have engaged in reciprocal exclusionary processes. I briefly examine the historical factors that have contributed to this mutual repudiation, including the unwanted ascription of asexuality to many sexual people with disabilities and the medicalization and pathologization of asexual people. I then use a case study to explore this process of mutual repudiation as it played out in a specific encounter. In 2008, in the case Adams v. Rice, a court defined sexual activity as a “major life activity” according to the criteria of disability rights law. The reaction to this decision by asexual activists was largely negative, while the reaction to the decision by disability activists was generally positive. I show that in their reaction to this court decision, some asexual activists invalidated disability identities while some disability activists invalidated asexual identities. I argue that such a process of mutual disavowal elides the potentially productive intersections of asexuality with disability and further marginalizes people with disabilities who also identify as asexual. I conclude by offering some suggestions for how disability and asexual activists and theorists might begin to negotiate a common agenda for sexual justice, or, at the very least, avoid stigmatizing each other in their ongoing quests for recognition.
Abstract: Adding to a small but growing feminist literature, this article critically examines popular, contemporary American sex manuals from a feminist social constructionist perspective, focusing specifically on how these manuals construct gender and sexual norms. With notable exceptions, the majority of these manuals are geared toward white, heterosexual, middle-class, able-bodied, and cisgendered audiences. We argue that in addition to positioning sexual activity as a biological, essential (albeit gendered) human need, and as the ultimate path to individual fulfillment and empowerment, a new rationale for the importance of sex (and working on sexual improvement) is now prominent in contemporary sex manuals. Reflecting the ‘‘healthicization’’ of sex in the post-Viagra era, authors frame frequent pleasurable sexual activity as an important factor in the maintenance of health and wellness, an argument that gives further weight to the importance of ‘‘sex work’’ as a fundamental aspect of particularly women’s work in heterosexual relationships. These findings are in keeping with a growing body of literature that highlights the rise of the ‘‘sex as health’’ discourse as well as literature examining the growing pressure to master, improve, and work on sex.
Abstract: This article examines representations of lesbian nonsexuality in the film The Kids Are All Right and in responses to the film by feminist and queer scholars. In some moments, the film offers a limited endorsement of lesbian nonsexuality, placing pressure on the category lesbian to include nonsexuality and asexuality. However, in their responses to the film, many feminist and queer scholars rejected nonsexuality as an aspect of lesbian experience, placing pressure on the category lesbian to exclude nonsexual and asexual women. Asexual activism challenges scholars to question their sex-normative commitments and to keep the category lesbian open and flexible.
Abstract: In this article, I analyze the ethical and social implications of using neurotechnological interventions to alter sexual desires and behaviors. I focus on the psychopharmaceutical interventions that exist or are being developed to treat paraphilias, sex addiction, hypoactive sexual desire disorder, and “marital discord.” I argue that these interventions may simultaneously reflect and reinforce troubling social norms about sexuality and relationality while potentially reducing sexual diversity. Thus, if we wish to use these psychopharmaceuticals, we must think carefully about how to do so without threatening sexual diversity or further marginalizing sexual minorities.
Abstract: Recently, scientific and popular press articles have begun to represent sex as a health-promoting activity. A number of scientific studies have identified possible health benefits of sexual activity, including increased lifespan and decreased risk of certain types of cancers. These scientific findings have been widely reported on in the popular press. This “sex for health” discourse claims that sexual activity leads to quantifiable physical and mental health benefits in areas not directly related to sexuality. Analyzing this discourse provides an opportunity to better understand both broader health promotion discourses and current norms and anxieties about sexuality. In this article, I place this “sex for health” discourse within the context of broader health promotion discourses and within the context of a number of historical and contemporary discourses connecting health and sexuality. I argue that although the “sex for health” discourse may serve to de-stigmatize sexual activity for some, it may also increase pressure on others to be sexually active and may further pathologize sexual “dysfunction.” In addition, these representations often serve to further privilege a normative form of sexual behavior – coitus in the context of a monogamous heterosexual partnership – at the expense of non-normative sexual desires, identities, and practices.
Gupta, Kristina and Sara Freeman. 2013. Open Peer Commentary: Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Intersex Conditions: Beyond Parental Decision Making. The American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB). 13(10): 49-51.