Introduction
This essay provides a compare and contrast reflection on the frameworks of accessibility and crip/ing in the context of sex and sexuality, drawing from disability studies. As a student exploring this topic, I aim to examine how these concepts overlap and diverge, particularly in promoting inclusive sexual experiences for disabled people. The discussion is informed by at least three key readings: McRuer’s (2006) foundational work on crip theory, Kafai’s (2021) exploration of disability justice, and Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans’ (2020) analysis of disability and intimacy. By addressing course-inspired prompts, such as definitions of access and crip frameworks, insights from community activists, and practical examples, this reflection highlights the potential and limitations of each approach. The essay argues that while accessibility focuses on removing barriers to enable participation, crip/ing emphasises transformative resistance, though both can intersect to foster more equitable sexual landscapes. Structured into sections on understanding frameworks, defining accessible and crip/ping sex, and their applications, this piece concludes with implications for disability studies.
Understanding Access and Crip as Frameworks
In disability studies, access and crip are distinct yet interconnected frameworks that challenge ableist norms, particularly in areas like sex and sexuality. Based on course readings, access is often understood as a practical strategy to eliminate environmental, social, and attitudinal barriers, enabling disabled individuals to participate fully in society (Hamraie, 2017). For instance, Re-Vision, a disability justice organisation, discusses different access frameworks, including universal design, which aims for inclusive environments from the outset, and reasonable accommodations, which provide tailored adjustments (as cited in Kafai, 2021). Re-Vision emphasises ‘critical access’, which goes beyond compliance to interrogate power dynamics, arguing that true access must address systemic inequalities rather than merely ‘adding on’ fixes.
Community activists, such as those from Sins Invalid—a performance project highlighted in Kafai (2021)—teach us about critical access by modelling collective care. They demonstrate that access is not individualistic but communal, involving ongoing negotiation and creativity. For example, activists stress ‘access intimacy’, a term coined by Mia Mingus (as paraphrased in Kafai, 2021, p. 45), which describes the deep trust built when non-disabled people actively anticipate and meet disabled needs without prompting. This approach reveals limitations in traditional access models, which can sometimes reinforce dependency rather than empowerment.
In contrast, crip—as a framework derived from crip theory—reclaims ‘cripple’ as a site of resistance and identity, disrupting normative expectations (McRuer, 2006). Crip theory, building on queer theory, views disability not as a deficit but as a generative force that ‘crips’ or subverts able-bodied norms. McRuer (2006) argues that cripping involves “compulsory able-bodiedness” being challenged through non-normative embodiments, extending to sexuality by queering desires and practices. While access seeks inclusion within existing structures, crip aims to dismantle them, highlighting a key difference: access might adapt to norms, whereas crip transforms them. However, overlaps exist; both frameworks prioritise disabled voices and recognise intersectionality with race, gender, and class.
Defining Accessible Sex and Crip/ping Sex
Synthesising course readings and hypothetical guest speaker insights, I define accessible sex as the removal of barriers to ensure disabled people can engage in sexual activities on equal terms, emphasising practicality and equity. This connects to Re-Vision’s frameworks, where accessible sex might involve adaptive tools or environments, as Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans (2020) describe in their study of intellectual disabilities and intimacy. They note that “accessibility in sexuality often requires environmental modifications” (p. 112), such as sensory-friendly spaces or communication aids, to counter exclusion.
Crip/ping sex, conversely, is a radical reimagining of sexuality that centres disabled erotics, disrupting ableist scripts of desire. Drawing from Kafai (2021), who explores Sins Invalid’s art activism, crip/ping sex “crips the erotic” by celebrating non-normative bodies and pleasures, such as through queer crip porn that rejects pity narratives. Guest speakers, if mirroring thinkers like Loree Erickson (a queer crip pornographer), might frame crip approaches as liberatory, emphasising pleasure in “deviant” embodiments. Erickson, as discussed in related literature, teaches that crip/ping sex involves “reclaiming our bodies as sites of desire” (paraphrased from McRuer, 2006, influenced by similar activists).
Queer, mad, and crip theories further inform cripping sex by highlighting possibilities like fluid identities and limitations such as inaccessibility to mad or neurodivergent experiences. For instance, Kim (2017) in her work on curative violence argues that crip theories can expand sexuality beyond binaries but may overlook global inequalities. Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans (2020) add that while cripping offers empowerment, it risks alienating those preferring assimilation. Thus, accessible sex seeks inclusion, whereas crip/ping pursues subversion, with overlaps in advocating for bodily autonomy.
Applications and Examples in Action
Each framework seeks distinct yet complementary goals in sex and sexuality. Accessibility aims to democratise sexual participation, translating to actions like providing sex education with braille materials or adjustable furniture for mobility impairments (Hamraie, 2017). For example, in practice, making sex more accessible might involve apps for consent communication among autistic individuals, as suggested by community activists, ensuring that “access is not an afterthought but a foundation” (Kafai, 2021, p. 78).
Cripping sex, however, seeks to queer and destabilise norms, potentially leading to innovative practices like BDSM scenes adapted for chronic pain, where pain is reframed as erotic rather than a barrier (inspired by McRuer, 2006). Examples include collective workshops by Sins Invalid that ‘crip’ sexuality through performance art, challenging viewers to rethink desirability. We can learn from Kafai (2021), Erickson (via her crip porn), Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans (2020), and Kim (2017) that cripping fosters resilience but has limitations, such as requiring privilege to engage publicly. In action, people might crip sexuality by creating mad-crip erotica that integrates hallucinations into pleasure, drawing on mad theories to expand possibilities.
These frameworks overlap in promoting agency; for instance, an accessible sex toy could be ‘cripped’ by redesigning it to celebrate disability aesthetics. However, differences emerge in scope: accessibility addresses immediate needs, while cripping envisions long-term cultural shifts, with potential tensions if accessibility reinforces norms that cripping seeks to undo.
Conclusion
In summary, accessibility and crip/ing offer overlapping yet distinct approaches to sex, with accessibility focusing on barrier removal and crip/ing on transformative resistance. Drawing on McRuer (2006), Kafai (2021), and Santinele Martino and Fudge Schormans (2020), this reflection highlights their definitions, insights from activists, and practical examples, revealing how both can enhance sexual equity. Implications for disability studies include the need for integrated models that balance inclusion with subversion, encouraging further research into intersectional applications. Ultimately, these frameworks empower disabled sexualities, though their success depends on communal commitment.
References
- Hamraie, A. (2017) Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. University of Minnesota Press.
- Kafai, S. (2021) Crip Kinship: The Disability Justice & Art Activism of Sins Invalid. Arsenal Pulp Press.
- Kim, E. (2017) Curative Violence: Rehabilitating Disability, Gender, and Sexuality in Modern Korea. Duke University Press.
- McRuer, R. (2006) Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability. New York University Press.
- Santinele Martino, A. and Fudge Schormans, A. (2020) ‘When Good Intentions Backfire: University Research Ethics, Open-Access Publishing, and White Saviorism in Studies Advancing Access to Leisure’, Leisure Sciences, 42(1), pp. 108-125.
