Written by: Dr. Alan Martino, Ph.D. (he/him) & Thomas Tri, BSW (he/they)
Edited by: Nadra Musse (she/her)
Sexual health education, as it is traditionally taught, tends to assume a “default” body and mind: non-disabled, cisgender, heterosexual, and neurotypical (1). This one-size-fits-all approach to sex education can not only fail disabled learners but also actively exclude them, reinforcing harmful stereotypes, myths, and silences around disability and sexuality. However, a growing movement led by disabled activists, educators, and allies is advocating for a radical rethinking of sexual health education, often called “cripping” sex ed (2). This approach insists on
creating space for all bodies and identities, and challenges us to reimagine how we learn, teach, and experience our sexuality.
What Does “Cripping” Mean?
The term “cripping” emerged from disability justice circles and disability studies scholarship, particularly in the area of “crip theory” (3). Historically, words like “cripple” were wielded as slurs to devalue disabled people. Over time, some disabled communities began reclaiming “crip”—not unlike how many LGBTQ+ folks have reclaimed “queer” (4,5). Embracing “crip” seeks to transform a once-harmful label into a source of political identity and collective pride, challenging the negative stereotypes and societal norms that have historically marginalized disabled people. To “crip” something is to center the lived experiences of disabled people and to critically examine social norms and practices that exclude or marginalize them (5).
“Cripping” is also about disruption (6). It challenges deeply held assumptions about what counts as sex, who gets to be seen as desirable, and how pleasure is experienced in all its forms. When we embrace a crip perspective, we question the narrow scripts that define “normal” sex solely in terms of penetrative intercourse between two non-disabled bodies (7). We reclaim a broader spectrum of intimacies—many erogenous zones may be discovered through assistive devices, alternate forms of touch, or imaginative role-plays that accommodate pain, mobility, or sensory differences (8,9). This disruption opens up creative possibilities for not just disabled folks but everyone who wants to expand how they experience and express intimacy.
In the context of sexual health education, it means reframing lessons, curricula, and community practices so that
disabled people’s desires, relationships, access needs, and personal agency become an integral part of the conversation
(10). When educators and advocates “crip” sex ed, they do more than add a paragraph about disability. They ask tough questions about who is represented, how information is shared, and which assumptions about bodies and pleasure are taken for granted (11).
Why Is This Important?
- Representation Matters: Many disabled individuals grow up feeling invisible in sexual health discussions (12). Their questions, desires, and concerns remain unaddressed, and when they do appear in mainstream sex ed, it’s often in the context of cautionary tales or medical discourses (13,14).
Recognizing that disabled people can and do have fulfilling sexual lives is vital for self-esteem, personal growth, and public health.
- Combating Stereotypes: Disabled individuals are frequently de-sexualized and infantilized (15). Society often sees them as perpetual children or lacking sexual agency. By bringing disability into the conversation as a natural part of human diversity, we dismantle harmful stereotypes that deny disabled people full intimate citizenship (16).
- Improving Access: Traditional sex ed materials may not be accessible to those with different learning needs or sensory modalities (17). Cripping sex ed ensures resources are available in multiple formats—Braille, large print, easy-read text, visual aids, captioned or signed videos, plain language versions—which allows all learners to engage with vital information (18).
Foundational Principles of “Crip” Sexual Health Education
- Center Disabled Voices: Consulting with and employing disabled educators, activists, and workshop facilitators is crucial. The disability community should shape what inclusion looks like in sexual health conversations.
- Use Inclusive Language: Terms matter. Encouraging the respectful use of identity-first or person-first language—depending on individual preference—affirms people’s self-identification (19). In workshops or classrooms, offering alternatives to ableist terms can create a profound impact.
- Emphasize Consent and Autonomy: Consent is the cornerstone of any comprehensive sex ed curriculum. In “crip” sex ed, this includes addressing how physical or cognitive impairments can influence communication styles around consent (20). Role-playing scenarios might include alternative communication devices or nonverbal cues (21).
- Recognize Adaptive Strategies for Pleasure: Adaptive sex toys, accessible sexual positions, and mobility aids all represent creative ways disabled people navigate intimacy (21). Providing practical resources—for instance, how to talk to a partner about combining mobility devices with physical intimacy—creates an environment where disabled learners feel seen and affirmed (12).
- Address Intersectionality: Disability intersects with race, gender, sexuality, class, and other identities, compounding the marginalization or creating additional barriers. An intersectional approach ensures that “crip” sex ed doesn’t replicate other forms of bias (17).
Looking Ahead
“Cripping” sexual health education is not just about adding a few disability-specific bullet points to an existing curriculum. It requires a fundamental shift in our mindset—
moving beyond tokenization toward true cultural transformation.
This journey involves listening to disabled voices, challenging our preconceptions, and actively working to create accessible, affirming, and comprehensive sexual health resources for everyone.
Although “cripping” sexual health education emphasizes the needs and experiences of disabled individuals, its benefits extend to everyone. By opening up discussions about alternate ways of experiencing pleasure and intimacy, we broaden the scope of what sex can look like for all bodies. Whether it be a desire for gentler or more adaptive forms of intimacy, everyone has the potential to gain through the expansiveness and liberation from rigid norms through a crip lens.
References:
1. Martino AS, Moumos E, Parks J, Uliki N, Robbins M. Growing up queer with a disability in Canada’s bible belt: 2SLGBTQ+ people with disabilities’ perspectives on religion. Intl J Disabil Soc Justice. 2024 Dec;4(3):87-105. Doi:10.13169/intljofdissocjus.4.3.0087
2. Martino AS, Jones CT, Eastman N. Cripping sex education. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Sexuality Education. 2024 Feb: 1-12. Doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95352-2_110-1
3. McRuer R, Bérubé M. Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York University Press; 2006.
4. Lajoie C. Disability studies and phenomenology. In de Warren N, Toadvine T, editors. Encyclopedia of phenomenology. Springer;2023. p. 1-13. Doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47253-5_330-1.
5. Schalks S. Coming to claim crip: Disidentification with/in disability studies. Disabil Stud Q. 2013 Apr;33(2). Doi:10.18061/dsq.v33i2
6. Martino AS. Schormans AF. Theoretical developments: Queer theory meets crip theory. In: Shuttleworth R, Mona L, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Disability and Sexuality. 1st ed. London, Routledge;2020. p. 50-65. Doi:10.4324/9780429489570
7. Bahner J. Legal rights or simply wishes? The struggle for sexual recognition of people with physical disabilities using personal assistance in Sweden. Sex Disabil. 2012 May;33:337-56. Doi:10.1007/s11195-012-9268-2
8. Smith Rainey S. The pleasures of care. Sexualities. 2017 Apr;21(3):271-86. Doi:10.1177/1363460716688677
9. Martino, AS. Toward a “crip” sociology of fucking. Sexualities. 2025 Aug;OnlineFirst:1-19. Doi:10.1177/13634607251365765
10. Campbell M, Löfgren-Mårtenson C, Santinele Martino A. Cripping sex education. Sex Educ. 2020 May;20(4):361-65. Doi: 10.1080/14681811.2020.1749470
11. Martino AS, Moumos E, Parks J, Uliki N, Robbins M. “She couldn’t say the word penis”: Experiences of the 2SLGBTQ+ people with developmental and intellectual disabilities with sexual education in Alberta, Canada. Arch of Sex Behav. 2024 Feb;53:1927-39. Doi:10.1007/s10508-023-02755-8#Sec18
12. Chambers GC. Disabled sexuality and negotiations with sexual partners. Sex Disabil. 2013 Mar;41:357-86. Doi:10.1007/s11195-023-09784-0
13. Löfgren-Mårtenson L. “I want to do it right” A pilot study of Swedish sex education and young people with intellectual disabilities. Sex Disabil. 2011 Dec;30:209-25. Doi:10.1007/s11195-011-9239-z
14. Sloane HM. Tales of a reluctant sex radical: Barriers to teaching the importance of pleasure for wellbeing. Sex Disabil. Oct 2014;32:453-67. Doi:10.1007/s11195-014-9381-5
15. Martino AS. The intersection of sexuality and intellectual disabilities: Shattering the taboo. In: Fischer NL, Westbrook L, Seidman S, editors. Introducing the new sexuality studies. 4th ed. Routledge;2022. p. 453-63. Doi:10.4324/9781003163329
16. Ignagni E, Shormans AF, Liddiard K, Runswick-Cole K. ‘Some people are not allowed to love’: Intimate citizenship in the lives of people labelled with intellectual disabilities. Disabil Sex. Jan 2016;31(1):131-35.Doi:10.1080/09687599.2015.1136148
17. Davies AWJ, Bryan MK, Martin T, Shay B, Akers T, Soud R, Balter A-S, O’Leary S, Neustifer R. Dismantling barriers to access: The necessity of cripping sexuality education in Canadian schools. Can J Hum Sex. 2023 Feb;32(1):1-19. Doi:10.3138/cjhs.2022-0031
18. Lepore-Stevens M. Adapting a human sexuality curriculum for students with disabilities. Health Educ J. Oct 2024;83(3):841-54. Doi:10.1177/00178969241280442
19. Sharif A, McCall AL, Bolante KR. Should I say “disabled people” or “people with disabilities”? Language preferences of disabled people between identity and person-first language. In: Froehlich, J, Shinohara, K, Ludi, S, editors. ASSETS: Proceedings of 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility; 2022 Oct 22-26, New York, NY., ASSETS; 2022;10: p. 1-18. Doi:10.1145/3517428.3544810.1145/3517428.35448
20. O’Connell K. Hot girl bummer: Achieving disabled sexual liberation in an ableist world. In: Bones, PDC, Gullion, JS, Barber, D, editors. Redefining disability. Personal/Public Scholarships. Vol. 12. Leiden, The Netherlands, Brill; 2022. p. 161-70. Doi:10.1163/9789004512702_028
21. Kattari SK, Hecht HK, Isaac YE. Sexy spoonies and crip sex: Sexuality and disability in a social work context. In: Dodd, SJ, editor. Routledge International Handbook of Social Work and Sexualities. 1st ed. London, Routledge;2021. p. 266-82. Doi:10.4324/9780429342912
