Women with intellectual disabilities talk about their perceptions of sex.
Women with ID call sex scary and stay abstinent—add self-efficacy and safer-sex practice to lessons instead of only warnings.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Tassé et al. (2013) sat down with women who have intellectual disabilities. They asked open questions about sex, love, and protection. The women spoke freely while a recorder ran. Later the team read the transcripts and pulled out common themes.
What they found
Most women said sex is scary. They stayed abstinent because they feared pregnancy, disease, or shame. They wanted sex only after marriage, with one partner, and with condoms. Feelings had to come first.
How this fits with other research
Older trials showed people with ID can learn sex facts. Demello et al. (1992) ran a nine-month class and knowledge scores jumped. Lancioni et al. (2009) added role-play and safety skills rose. Yet the women in Tassé et al. (2013) still saw sex as dangerous. The gap shows facts alone do not calm fear.
Caregiver studies explain why. Winburn et al. (2014) found staff feel torn between protecting and supporting. Fox et al. (2001) showed half of staff want more training. When workers are unsure, they lean on “just say no” messages. Those messages echo in the women’s stories.
Pettingell et al. (2022) scanned 42 papers and found almost no tools that measure sexual confidence. Without good measures, programs keep teaching facts while fear stays hidden. The field now needs curricula that build self-efficacy, not just knowledge.
Why it matters
You can shift the message tomorrow. Start by asking, “What feels safe or scary about dating?” Use the answer to pick lessons that build choice, mood management, and assertive refusal. Add practice with condoms, feelings talk, and staff role-play. Measure confidence, not just quiz scores. When fear drops, facts stick and adults gain real control.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your next session by asking the learner to name one safe and one scary thing about dating, then build the lesson around their answer.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexuality is learned through sexual socialisation that women with intellectual disabilities (IDs) understand and express. Rules of sexual engagement for these women can include barriers for their socialisation, intimate partner selection, and sexual expression. These rules can become more limiting when coupled with rules of femininity that encourage sexual restraint for women. METHODS: This ethnography explored how women with IDs perceived their sexuality and how sexuality functioned in their lives. Sources of data included 48 multiple and in-depth interviews and observations with 14 women. This article specifically describes how the women constructed 'sex' and how they described experiencing sex as two of their multiple expressions of sexuality in this study. RESULTS: Most of the women had very limited and exclusively heterosexual sexual experiences, and the majority of women reported practicing abstinence. Criteria they identified for sex included having protected sex, marital and monogamous sex for the purpose of procreation or parenting, and having feelings for a sexual partner. Most held negative perceptions of sex they attributed to fear of the first act, fear of experiencing negative consequences, physiological concerns about the act, and perceived or actual lack of pleasure. CONCLUSIONS: Although the women displayed some sense of self-determinism in their sexual behaviour, negative perceptions of sex resulted in self-imposed abstinence predicated by fear of intercourse, intimacy, or outcome. Central to their sexuality education then is increasing self-efficacy perceptions and performance of safer sex practices to prevent negative sexual consequence. Sexuality education from a positive perspective that enhances their sexual self-determinism and encourages sexual health is recommended.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2013 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01529.x