Friday, January 15, 2016

Stubblefield sentencing

Anna Stubblefield
Today Anna Stubblefield (previous post) will be sentenced and I've been mulling a piece I read by a person with disabilities.

She argued that many people with disabilities have sexual relationships with non-disabled so why can't this so-called victim. Why should the court deny him the right to a relationship with Anna Stubblefield, the writer asked.

The problem with that argument is that this victim, even if he does have sexual desires, may not be inclined to satisfy them with Stubblefield. Should society enable her to force herself on him simply because he's unable to express his sexual preferences? For all we know, profoundly disabled though he is, he may not fancy her. Just because he's disabled doesn't mean that any and every woman is entitled to have sex with him on the presumption that he wants that.

And regarding Facilitated Communication as a clarifier of his preferences: let's not forget it isn't a controversial method anymore. It has been indubitably debunked.

No comments: