I understand this can't be what you mean, but when talking about this, for safeguarding purposes, you should explicitly state that it is not acceptable to ever make any assumptions about consent, regardless of someone's disabilities. Any communication ambiguity or ambiguity around capacity to consent means you have to assume someone is not consenting and cannot consent to sexual contact. We can never assume what someone's inner world is like, that's true- that's why we must always err on the side of not raping people. The way you phrased this reads as the type of rhetoric used to justify crimes such as Anna Stubblefield's assault of a disabled man, which was enabled by her belief in forms of facilitated communication that allow for these crimes to be justified in the abuser's mind. I get that this isn't what you mean, but it needs to be explicitly made clear, because safeguarding means creating an environment where it's clear everyone is in agreement about what is and isn't sexual violence. Your post as you wrote it creates a grey area that a bad actor can read as endorsing the idea that because someone can consent internally despite an outward lack of successful and unambigous communication, people who can't communicate unambiguously enough (in one medium or another) to clearly demonstrate capacity to consent and consent itself, aren't necessarily being assaulted if touched sexually. They are, it's illegal, it's rape. I get that you must know that but we need to be very explicit on this because this is a very vulnerable population and there are people who want to violate them and can easily convince themselves their victims are consenting.
Hey anon. Iām not even sure how to come about this, or even talk about this subject. This subject is so important, and I think itās also important to realize. I am intellectually disabled. And autistic, and learning disabled, and schizospec, my wording is not going to be 100% but I will say this now. Not once did I say that I agree if someone is not able to explicitly consent, they can consent. If someone is able to explicitly consent in their manner of communicating, then they consent. If theyāre not, then they have not consented.
I want people to realize that there is more ways then verbally saying it because verbal words, arenāt the default for many. Sign language users, AAC users, people who write one letter at a time on a piece of fucking paper. These are all ways that people communicate. Verbal. Words. Arenāt. The. Default. Thatās what Iām getting at.
Itās also important to realize that a LOT an insanely amount of people with ID are purposefully withheld being taught sex education even if they can comprehend the process of consent. Even verbal, seemingly ok on the outside ID folks who were in special education have been withheld from learning about special education. Thatās what Iām getting at.
My posts are not a rapists way of saying āWell you never know they might be able to consent blah blahā No. Consent is explicit. It is something that is heavily debated on within the medical community because they still donāt believe that people with ID, even mild ID, have the minds of adults instead of āchildrenā. Mental age is a HUGE problem, thatās what Iām getting at.
Iām not creating a grey area. Iām not intending to at least. Either someone consents or they donāt, either theyāre able to or theyāre not. That is between them, their caretakers/parents/support team, and doctors. Although, these people can be wrong. And thatās what Iām also getting at.
Do you see what Iām saying? Iām not creating a grey area, Iām trying to open up a conversation that had been in the ID community for DECADES. Decades of being ignored and being told that ALL people with ID cannot consent when that isnāt true. See what Iām saying?
I hope this helps. Have a nice day.
