Skip to content
1981
Transforming Genitals in Culture and Media
  • ISSN: 1601-829X
  • E-ISSN: 2040-0586

Abstract

Deploying theories of power and stigma, this article aims to discuss the perceptions of genitalia and the cultural expectations of genital transformations and representations in consideration to disability. Through a transcription-based content analysis of the audio description (AD) used in Series 10 of (2016–present), this article aims to explore how the media shapes expectations and feeds into the problematic and powerful impact that audio description can have upon disabled individuals. This article focuses upon the representational transformations of genitalia from the corporeal into the visual, then, delving deeper, from the televisual to the audio, using this double layer of transformation to look at the deeper complexities at play. By AD not using the correct terminology for genitalia, an inclusion/exclusion or us/them dualism is formed based on power relations which make assumptions about disabled individuals. These assumptions are that disabled individuals either do not want or do not have the capacity to consent to sex. This links to the infantilization and patronization that disabled individuals are subjected to within wider society. A further aim is to interrogate how these expectations are perpetuated through televisual representations to create power relationships, and the impact this has upon disabled individuals. The shielding/censorship of genitalia from disabled individuals is evident in AD on television shows such as this, which contains euphemisms for genitalia rather than accurate descriptions. This feeds into the desexualization of disabled individuals and conflation and confusion between asexuality and disability alongside the dismissal of disabled individuals as potential sexual and life partners. This article shows how ableism runs through society perpetuated by the media and the effects this has on the disabled community.

© 2023 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/nl_00036_1
2023-10-16
2026-04-12

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bahner, Julia (2019), Sexual Citizenship and Disability: Understanding Sexual Support in Policy, Practice and Theory, London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Balter, Rochelle (1999), ‘From stigmatization to patronization: The media’s distorted portrayal of physical disability’, in L. Linzer Schwartz (ed.), Psychology and the Media: A Second Look, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 147–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardini, Floriane (2020), ‘Audio description and the translation of film language into words’, Ilha do Desterro, 73:1, pp. 273–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennett, James (2008), ‘Television studies goes digital’, Cinema Journal, 47:3, pp. 158–65, https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.0.0019.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Butler, Judith (1993), Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell, Fiona (2001), ‘Inciting legal fictions: “Disability’s” date with ontology and the ableist body of the law’, Griffith Law Review, 10:1, pp. 42–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell, Fiona (2009), Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness, Basingstoke and New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Carr, Jimmy (2021), Jimmy Carr: His Dark Material, UK: Netflix.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Charlton, James (2010), ‘The dimensions of disability oppression’, in L. J. Davis (ed.), The Disability Studies Reader, 3rd ed., New York and London: Routledge, pp. 147–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Clare, Eli (2003), ‘Gawking, gaping, staring’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 9:1, pp. 257–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Colligan, Sumi (2004), ‘Why the intersexed shouldn’t be fixed: Insights from queer theory and disability studies’, in B. G. Smith and B. Hutchison (eds), Gendering Disability, New Brunswick, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press, pp. 45–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Curran, James (2012), Media and Power, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Davis, Lennard J. (1995), Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body, London and New York: Verso.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Davis, Lennard J. (ed.) (2006), The Disability Studies Reader, 2nd ed., New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Davis, Lennard J. (ed.) (2010), The Disability Studies Reader, 3rd ed., New York and London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Earle, Sarah (2001), ‘Disability, facilitated sex and the role of the nurse’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36:3, pp. 433–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Elias, Justine (2000), ‘Final answer: Colleen heads back to school, clothed’, Entertainment Weekly Online, 15 August, https://ew.com/article/2000/08/15/colleen-heads-back-school-clothed/. Accessed 3 January 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Erikkson, Goran (2015), ‘Ridicule as a strategy for the recontextualization of the working class’, Critical Discourse Studies, 12:1, pp. 20–38, https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2014.962067.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Flynn, Nicole (2021), ‘6 benefits of audio description for all audiences’, cielo24, 6 May, https://cielo24.com/2021/05/6-benefits-of-audio-description-for-all-audiences/. Accessed 28 December 2022.
  20. Fryer, Louise (2016), An Introduction to Audio Description: A Practical Guide, Oxford and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gadsby, Hannah (2020), Hannah Gadsby: Douglas, Australia: Netflix.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Goffman, Erving ([1963] 1986), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, New York: Simon and Schuster.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Halperin, David (1995), Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography, New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hidayati, Wilma R. and Nurhafizah, Nurhafizah (2022), ‘Introduction of sex education to early childhood: To reduce cases of child sexual abuse’, Indonesian Journal of Early Childhood Education Studies, 11:1, pp. 75–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ho, Anita (2008), ‘The individualist’s model of autonomy and the challenge of disability’, Journal of Bioethic Inquiry, 5, pp. 193–207.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Jeffress, Michael S. (ed.) (2021), Disability Representation in Film, TV, and Print Media, London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kaufman, Miriam, Silverberg, Cory and Odette, Fran (2003), The Ultimate Guide to Sex and Disability, San Francisco, CA: Cleis Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, Eunjung (2011), ‘Asexuality in disability narratives’, Sexualities, 14:4, pp. 479–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Linton, Simi (1998), Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity, New York: New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Linzer Schwartz, Lita (ed.) (1999), Psychology and the Media: A Second Look, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Livneh, Hanoch (2012), ‘On the origins of negative attitudes toward people with disabilities’, Rehabilitation Literature, 43:11&12, pp. 338–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Love Is Blind (2022-present, USA: Netflix).
  33. Merskin, Debra L. (ed.) (2020), The Sage International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society, Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Michielsen, Kristien and Brockschmidt, Laura (2021), ‘Barriers to sexuality education for children and young people with disabilities in the WHO European region: A scoping review’, Sex Education, 21:6, pp. 674–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Miller, Paul S. and Levine, Rebecca L. (2013), ‘Avoiding genetic genocide: Understanding good intentions and eugenics in the complex dialogue between the medical and disability community’, Genetics in Medicine, 15:2, pp. 95–102, https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.102.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Milligan, Maureen and Neufeldt, Aldred (2001), ‘The myth of asexuality: A survey of social and empirical evidence’, Sexuality and Disability, 19:2, pp. 91–109.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Muir, Lorna (2020), ‘Reality television’, in D. Merskin (ed.), The Sage International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society, Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage, pp. 1461–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Nelson, Jack (2000), ‘The media role in building the disability community’, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 15:3, pp. 180–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. ‘Nico & Patrice’ (2022), Ollie Bartlett (dir.), Naked Attraction, Season 10 Episode 2 (22 September, UK: Channel Four).
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nigianni, Chrysanthi and Storr, Merl (eds) (2009), Deleuze and Queer Theory, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Novak, Kim (2020), ‘Naked Attraction viewers realise audio description takes show to a new level’, Metro, 8 December, https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/08/naked-attraction-viewers-realise-audio-description-takes-show-to-a-whole-new-level-of-funny-13723081/. Accessed 28 December 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Ofcom (2021), Ofcom’s Guidelines on the Provision of Television Access Services, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/212776/provision-of-tv-access-services-guidelines.pdf. Accessed 26 November 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Oliver, Mike (1984), ‘The politics of disability’, Critical Social Policy, 4:11, pp. 21–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ouellette, Laurie and Hay, James (2008), Better Living through Reality TV, Malden, MA, Oxford and Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Owens, Tuppy (2014), Supporting Disabled People with Their Sexual Lives: A Clear Guide for Health and Social Care Professionals, London and Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Parsons, Alexandria, Reichl, Arleigh and Pedersen, Cory (2017), ‘Gendered ableism: Media representations and gender role beliefs’ effect on perceptions of disability and sexuality’, Sexuality and Disability, 35:2, pp. 207–25, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-016-9464-6.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Pompper, Donnalyn and Holtzthum, Krystan (2021), ‘Women with disability: Sex object and supercrip stereotyping on reality television’s push girls’, in M. S. Jeffress (ed.), Disability Representation in Film, TV, and Print Media, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 24–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Pompper, Donnalyn and Merskin, Debra (2020), ‘The more things change?: Femininity and masculinity representations among “The 50 Best Kids’ Books Published in the Last 25 Years”’, Journal of Popular Culture, online first, https://doi.org/10.1111/jpcu.12959.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Quarmby, Katharine (2015), ‘Disabled and fighting for a sex life: How misperceptions about disability can prevent people with physical and cognitive impairments from being able to express their sexuality’, The Atlantic, 11 March, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/sex-and-disability/386866/. Accessed 28 April 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Reid, Claire (2020), ‘Naked Attraction viewers can’t get enough of the audio descriptions’, LADbible, 9 December, https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/tv-and-film-naked-attraction-viewers-cant-get-enough-of-the-audio-descriptions-20201209. Accessed 28 December 2022.
  51. Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) (2022), Audio Description (AD), https://www.rnib.org.uk/living-with-sight-loss/assistive-aids-and-technology/everyday-tech/tv-audio-and-gaming/audio-description-ad/. Accessed 26 November 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Saxton, Marsha (2006), ‘Disability rights and selective abortion’, in L. J. Davis (ed.), The Disability Studies Reader, 2nd ed., New York: Routledge, pp. 105–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Shakespeare, Tom (2000), ‘Disabled sexuality: Toward rights and recognition’, Sexuality and Disability, 18:3, pp. 159–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Shildrick, Margrit (2009), ‘Prosthetic performativity: Deleuzian connections and queer corporealities’, in C. Nigianni and M. Storr (eds), Deleuze and Queer Theory, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 115–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Sievers, Tobin (2001), ‘Disability in theory: From social constructionism to the new realism of the body’, American Literary History, 13:4, pp. 737–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Smith, Bonnie G. and Hutchison, Beth (eds) (2004), Gendering Disability, New Brunswick, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. ‘Smörgåsbord’ (2022), B. Hardy (dir.), QI, Season S Episode 10, (14 January, UK: BBC).
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Taleporos, George and McCabe, Marita (2001), ‘Physical disability and sexual esteem’, Sexuality and Disability, 19, pp. 131–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Teng, Chan E. and Joo, Tang M. (2020), ‘Representation of disabled community in mainstream media’, International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, 10:2, pp. 19–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Tepper, Mitchell (2000), ‘Sexuality and disability: The missing discourse of pleasure’, Sexuality and Disability, 18:4, pp. 283–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Thomson, Rosemarie Garland (2017), Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature, New York: Columbia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Tilley, Christine (1996), ‘Sexuality in women with physical disabilities: A social justice or health issue?’, Sexuality and Disability, 14:2, pp. 139–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Weingarten, Mark (1999), ‘MTV moves the “real” fishbowl to Honolulu’, Los Angeles Times, 14 June, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jun-14-ca-46317-story.html. Accessed 29 April 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/nl_00036_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): audio description (AD); censorship; disability; media; power; representation; stigma

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test