[UPDATE] The comments and reactions on this post got weirdly screwed up and separated by Disqus into two threads. The original comments can be viewed using this link. I’ve closed that thread to avoid further confusion; please add any additional thoughts to the bottom of the page found at http://tumblr.com/xkb3pejv1. Sorry for the confusion!

Earlier today, @msjennylin posted a tweet that has inspired a lively discussion amongst myself, @musingvirtual, and @whereslulu:

I wish women with disabilities would band against devotee issue. Tired of fighting them off on Facebook only to see 40 contacts added them.

The issue of disability devotees — and let’s call a spade a spade here: they’re fetishists — divides the disability community at every level, from academia to, well, Facebook. It’s something women with visible disabilities encounter regularly. And I believe that, while the extremists are relatively rare, the growing acceptance of “devotees” online will trickle down into the broader social constructs around disability.

It’s widely believed that people with disabilities are viewed (in contemporary Western culture, at least) as “asexual.” The truth is more complex. We certainly do not fit the airbrushed-cover-of-Vogue ideal of beauty that is shoved down our throats. But then again, neither do all but a few supermodels on the planet; we don’t consider 99.99% of women as asexual, though. So here’s a key point: differentiating beauty (or physical attractiveness) from sexuality. To be sure, sex can be different and require a bit of creativity and patience, but most women with physical disabilities (at least, the ones I know!) have pretty normal sex lives. Nevertheless, because we can fall so far outside the norm of what is considered attractive, we (like all women) tend to conflate general beauty with sexual attractiveness, making us easy targets for people calling themselves “disability devotees” — sexual fetishists who objectify women with disabilities and reduce them to the sum of their (disabled) parts. Many women with disabilities entertain such advances, or even encourage them; when you’ve lived in a society rife with ableism it can be easy to believe that your disability defines you (and as a woman, that your sexuality defines you), and fetishists play right into that mindset.

This is an area that can (and should) be researched and discussed much more. For now, here are a few of my thoughts and experiences to help facilitate conversation.

• On the net, much of the photographic material shared by fetishists seems to originate in developing parts of the world (Eastern Europe, Russia, China) where women with disabilities may be extremely marginalized. How does the trade in this material connect to other exploitation of women in these countries? On the other hand, if a woman amputee can support her family selling fully clothed photos of herself, who are we to say she shouldn’t?
• It’s worth exploring the spectrum of fetishism and naming it when it occurs. I dated a woman many years ago who was, from the start, very involved in my self-care/medication/diet, etc. I was initially flattered, but eventually realized it was all power play that was, for her, foreplay. I suspect this is far more common than people who identify as devotees.
• So how much of this fetish really is about power, playing on perceptions of helplessness? And how do we convince other women with disabilities (especially young ones) that it’s better to be single than to surrender your power to someone who strictly sees you as a body?
• Those of us who want to speak out on this issue should investigate and unpack our reasons for rejecting “devotees.” We will be accused (by women who welcome them) of internalized ableism in the form of rejecting disabled expressions of sexuality. While this may not be accurate, a reasoned response is needed.

These thoughts are disjointed and incomplete, but let them, and today’s serendipitous exchange, provoke more dialogue and solidarity. Join the conversation on Twitter by following the #antidev hashtag.

As I asked @msjennylin: What can we do?