Securing sexual justice for people with intellectual disability: A systematic review and critical appraisal of research recommendations

Abstract

Scholarship has long-recognized the vital importance of social relationships to human welfare (Cohen, 2004). A burgeoning body of research is now illuminating the particular significance of sexual and partnered relationships to many people's well-being (e.g. physical and mental health), identity development and satisfaction in life (Anderson, 2013;Dush & Amato, 2005;Kansky, 2018). People with intellectual disability are no different than the general population in valuing intimate relationships, citing them as vital sources of reciprocal care, enhanced autonomy and companionship (Fulford & Cobigo, 2018;Lafferty et al., 2013). Like many people, those with intellectual disability report sexual pleasure as integral to their relationships (Turner & Crane, 2016a) and seek privacy, cohabitation and marriage with their partners (Feely,

Action against inequalities: a synthesis of social justice & equity, diversity, inclusion frameworks

“…In conjunction with the Politics of Difference, Young's Social Connection Model proposes that the same structure which creates inequalities for certain groups can simultaneously advance the opportunities and influence of other groups [81]. This highlighting of structural inequalities Multiple Statuses: (tally statuses below) [115][116][117][118][119] Poverty [120,121] Intellectual Disability [122,123] Physical Disability [124,125] Chronic Health & Chronic Mental Health [126,127] Addiction, including Neonatal Abstinence [128,129] Lifelong Caregiver [130,131] Foster Experience [132,133] Indigenous/ Aboriginal [134,135] Survivor of Abuse [136,137] Victim of Crime [138,139] Incarceration [140,141] Homelessness or Street/Shelter Experience [142,143] Race [144,145] Rural or Isolated Geography [146,147] Ageism: Children & Seniors [148] Gender [149,150] Hayvon International Journal for Equity in Health (2024) 23:106 is complemented by Young's argument for Five Faces of Oppression, which categorizes inequalities into: economic exploitation, socio-economic marginalization, powerlessness over one's work, cultural imperialism, and systematic violence [55]. In combination, Young's theories of social justice informs the synthesis of constructs number 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.…”