博碩士論文 951404009 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:25 、訪客IP:54.221.145.174
姓名 鄭揚宜(Zheng YangYi)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 哲學研究所
論文名稱 智能障礙者性權探究
(A Study into the Sexual Rights of People with Intellectual Disabilities)
相關論文
★ 對佛洛依德之自我發展歷程的剖析★ 賣淫的道德研究--當代西方性倫理學中的辯論
★ 隱私(權)議題中化約主義與功能主義之探究★ 當代西方兒童與成人平權爭議之探討
★ Nancy Fraser的正義理論:從經濟重分配、文化認可到政治代表權★ 論資本主義之下的家務勞動──馬克思主義與女性主義的觀點和爭論
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 智能障礙者性權探究涉及(智能)障礙研究、女性主義、性/別研究、自主與性同意等領域,本文將接合各層面進行討論。雖然當代障礙研究以及障礙者權利運動已有許多進展,然而智能障礙者無法為自己發聲,因此其相關權利也容易遭到社會漠視,尤其是智能障礙者的性權,更是傳統障礙研究所忽略的重要議題。其中的關鍵在於人們將智商視為現代社會生活的核心,智力不足的智能障者由於缺乏相應的理性與自主能力,因此難以融入現代社會的生活當中。智力也被社會認為是從事性行為的標準,因為有效行使性同意是取得性權道德資格的基礎。智能障礙者由於無法有效地行使性同意,因此也就難以證成其性權。由此可見,對性同意進行道德分析,將是探究智能障礙者性權的重要工作。
  本文將從障礙研究脈絡展開探討,釐清障礙者面貌在不同障礙研究模式中的觀看方式。西方社會主要的障礙研究模式為道德模式、醫療模式以及社會模式,這三種障礙研究模式雖然無法直接解釋智能障礙者性權,卻為理解障礙者所處社會結構以及如何形成智能障礙概念提供了重要的背景知識。其次則釐清討論智能障礙者性權時存在的矛盾現象,亦即如何要求一個不具理性能力的人進行理性的道德判斷。此一問題涉及幾個重要爭議:平等的理性個體觀是否為現代社會不可質疑的性道德預設?智力是否為決定能否從事性行為的標準?智能障礙者如何行使性同意?性同意是否只涉及當事人,如何理解智能障礙者代理人的角色?我將以此審視三種障礙研究模式在智能障礙者性權中可供參考與不足之處,並提出能力參與模式作為探討此一議題的理論基礎。
  事實上,正常化原則和教育輔導系統已在處理智能障礙者的性議題,然而由於沒有對其性權進行道德分析,因此只能要求智能障礙者從事符合社會規範的性行為。然而此舉不但使得智能障礙者難以達到標準,也只能使其繼續處在不平等的社會位置而無助於解消壓迫結構。能力參與模式將對構成性權的相關條件進行論證,並借用基進女性主義對於性/別關係的分析架構,反駁自由主義對於性同意採取的平等理性個體預設。同時援引關懷倫理學對於關係的重視,以證成智能障礙者與照顧者在性同意決策過程中的道德根據。另一方面,能力參與模式也修正基進女性主義將性當成女性受到不平等待遇關鍵的立場,認為性反而能夠成為智能障礙者解消不平等待遇的實踐策略。本文預期貢獻在於兩個層面,不僅釐清智能障礙者性權議題,同時更能拓展障礙研究與性道德的研究空間。
摘要(英)
The study of the sexual rights of people with intellectual disabilities involves in the fields of (intellectual) disability studies, feminism, gender studies, autonomy, and sexual consent. This study aims to bring up the discussion from various perspectives. Although great progress has been made in modern disability studies and disability rights movements, the intellectually disabled cannot speak for themselves, hence their rights are often neglected. Among these rights, sexual rights of the intellectually disabled are especially critical issues overlooked by traditional disability studies. The key to this phenomenon lies in people nowadays treat intelligence as the center of social relationship. The intellectually disabled cannot fit in the modern society for their lacking of rationality and autonomy capability. Intelligence is also regarded as a criterion for engaging in sexual behaviors, because giving affirmative consent is the basis to obtain sexual rights morally. For the reason that the intellectually disabled are unable to give such consent, it is difficult to prove the presence of their sexual rights. Therefore, the morality analysis of sexual consent will be an important task for the researchers of the intellectually disabled.
  This study will stem from disability studies and determine how the people with disabilities are viewed under different research models, and the major ones in the Western world are moral, medical, and social models. While these three models are not sufficient to illustrate the sexual rights of the intellectually disabled, they provide a broader view for the public to understand the social structure in which the intellectually disabled are situated, as well as the causes of their intellectual disabilities. Moreover, a paradox existing in the discussion of the sexual rights of the intellectually disabled will be clarified, which is how to ask a person without rationality to form a moral judgment rationally. This paradox involves with a number of critical controversies: Can the modern fair and rational individualism grant definite sexual morality? Should intelligence be the criterion for a person to engage in sexual behaviors? How can people with intellectual disabilities give affirmative sexual consent? Should sexual consent only include the parties actually involved in sexual behaviors? And what′s the role of the disabled person′s agent? This study will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the three disability studies models regarding the sexual rights of the intellectually disabled, and propose a capability engagement model as the theoretical foundation for this topic.
  In fact, normalization and educational guidance are already addressing the sexual issues of the intellectually disabled. However, the intellectually disabled are only asked to engage in sexual behaviors abided by social norms, for the absence of morality analysis in their sexual rights. This not only makes it difficult for them to be qualified for sexuality, but also limits them to stay in the unfair social position, which does not help them separate from the oppressive structure. The capability participation model will validate the sexual rights criteria, and refute the fair and rational individual presumption by introducing radical feminism’s gender relationship analytical framework. Moreover, the importance of relationship in care ethics is also referenced as the morality basis of the intellectually disabled and their caregivers. On the other hand, the capability engagement model also adjusted the standpoint of radical feminism’s treating sexuality as the key to the injustice of women’s rights, and instead consider sexuality as the practicing strategies for the intellectually disabled’s correction of injustice. This study hopes to contribute to two aspects: to clarify the sexual rights of the intellectually disabled, and probe into a broader scope of disability research and sexual morality studies.
關鍵字(中) ★ 智能障礙
★ 障礙研究
★ 性權
★ 性同意
★ 基進女性主義
★ 能力參與模式
★ 關懷倫理
關鍵字(英) ★ Intellectual Disability
★ Disability Studies
★ sexual rights
★ sexual consent
★ radical feminism
★ capability engagement model
★ care ethics
論文目次
第一章 總論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 障礙研究的背景 6
第三節 智能障礙者性權爭議 14
第四節 性同意與智能障礙者 19
第五節 障礙研究模式的限制與突破 24
第二章 歐美障礙研究脈絡 29
第一節 障礙研究的知識脈絡 29
第二節 道德模式的形成 31
第三節 醫療模式的觀點 34
第四節 社會模式及對醫療模式的批判 36
第五節 對社會模式之批判 39
第六節 三種障礙模式與智能障礙研究 44
第三章 智能障礙的知識脈絡 47
第一節 智力與智能障礙 47
第二節 神學主導的古代與中世紀 51
第三節 城市化、工業化、科學發展與近代歐美社會 55
第四節 從福利到權利的當代社會 58
第五節 重新看待智能障礙者 62
第四章 智能障礙者的性議題 65
第一節 智能障礙者的性議題演變歷程 65
第二節 性權概念與實務的落差 68
第三節 障礙研究模式與照顧者的侷限 74
第四節 智能障礙者自己說性 76
第五節 從智能障礙者的性輔導到性探究 79
第五章 智能障礙者的性道德內涵 81
第一節 智能障礙者性議題的矛盾 81
第二節 障礙研究、性觀念的演進與具體實踐 83
第三節 PLISSIT模式與正常化原則及其批判 85
第四節 性道德基礎、性快感與自我存在感 92
第五節 開展智能障礙者的性同意 95
第六章 智能障礙者的性同意與性權 97
第一節 同意的道德脈絡 97
第二節 性同意的道德意涵 100
第三節 兒少觀點與性同意 106
第四節 正常性行為與智能障礙者的限制性劇本 108
第五節 異常的再現:智能障礙者的性/別、障礙與差異 113
第六節 基進女性主義與智能障礙者的性同意 116
第七節 能力參與模式及其脈絡 122
第八節 能力參與模式與三種障礙研究模式的互相參照 131
第七章 結論 137
參考文獻 141
參考文獻

Amundsen, Darrel W. (1987). Medicine and the Birth of Defective Children: Approaches of the Ancient World. In McMillan, R. C., Engelhardt, H. T., and Spicker, S. F. (Eds.), Euthanasia and the Newborn (pp3-22). Dordrecht, Netherlands: D Reidel.
Annon, Jack S. (1976). The PLISSIT Model: A Proposed Conceptual Scheme for the Behavioral Treatment of Sexual Problem. Journal of Sexuality of Education and Therapy, 2(2), 1-15.
Archard, David. (1998). Sexual Consent. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Barnes, Colin. and Geof. Mercer. (2010). Exploring Disability. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Baxter, Carol. (1994). Sex education in the multiracial society. In Ann Craft (Ed.), Practice Issues in Sexuality and Learning Disabilities (pp79-89). New York: Routledge Press.
Beauchamp, Tom L. (2010). Autonomy and Consent. In Franklin G. Miller and Alan Wertheimer (Eds.), The Ethics of Consent -Theory and Practice (pp55-78). New York: Oxford University Press.
Beckett, Angharad E. (2006). Citizenship and Vulnerability-Disability and Issues of Social and Political Engagement. Durham : Durham University.
Brown, Hilary and Sheila Barrett. (1994). Understanding and responding to difficult sexual behavior. In Ann Craft (Ed.), Practice Issues in Sexuality and Learning Disabilities (pp49-77).New York: Routledge Press.
Couwenhoven, Terri. M. S.(2007). Teaching Children with Down Syndrome about Their Bodies, Boundaries, and Sexuality. Bethesda, Maryland: Woodbine House.
Craig, Leam A. and William R. Lindsay. (2010). Sexual Offenders with Intellectual Disabilities: Characteristics and Prevalence. In Leam A. Craig, William R. Lindsay and Kevin D. Browne (Eds.), Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offenders with Intellectual Disabilities (pp13-36). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Davis, Lennard J. (2006). The End of Identity Politics and the Beginning of Dismodernism: On Disability as an Unstable Category. In Lennard J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader- Second Edition (pp231-242). Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis Group.
Di Giulio, Gina. (2003). Sexuality and People Living with Physical or Developmental Disabilities: A Review of key issue. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p53-68.
Driedger, Diane. (1989). The Last Civil Rights Movement: Disabled Peoples′ International. New York : St. Martin′s Press.
Emerson, E. (1992) What is Normalisation?. In H. Brown and H. Smith (Eds.), Normalisation: A Reader for the Nineties (pp1-18). London: Tavistock/Rouledge.
Finkelstein, Vic. (1980). Attitudes and Disabled People. New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.
Foucault, Michel. (1982). The Subject and Power. In H. L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (pp208-226). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Gill, Michael. (2010). Rethinking Sexual Abuse, Questions of Consent, and Intellectual Disability. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, Vol 7, Issue 3, 201-213.
-------- (2015). Already Doing It: Intellectual Disability and Sexual Agency. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Goldman, Alan.H. (1977). Plain Sex. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6, 267–287.
Goodey, C.F. (2011). A History of Intelligence and “Intellectual Disability”- The Shaping of Psychology in Early Modern Europe. Surrey: Ashgate Press.
Goodley, Dan. (2011). Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: SAGE Publications Inc.
Gray, John. (1989). Liberalisms-Essays in Political Philosophy. New York: Routledge Press.
Greenspan, Stephen. (2002). A Sex Police for Adults with "Mental Retardation"? Comment on Spiecker and Steutel. Journal of Moral Education, 31:2, 171-179.
Gunn, Michael. (1994). Competency and Consent: The Importance of Decision-Making. Ann Craft (Ed.), Practice Issues in Sexuality and Learning Disabilities (pp113-131). New York: Routledge Press.
Harbour, C. K. and P. K. Maulik. (2010). History of Intellectual Disability. In JH. Stone and M. Blouin (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation. Available online: http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/143/
Harris, J.C. (2006). Intellectual Disability: Understanding Its Development, Causes, Classification, Evaluation, and Treatment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hughes, Bill. (2005). What Can a Foucauldian Analysis Contribute to Disability Theory?. In Shelley Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the Government of Disability (pp78-92). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.
Husak, Douglas. (2010). Paternlism and Consent. In Franklin G. Miller and Alan Wertheimer (Eds.), The Ethics of Consent– Theory and Practice (pp107-130). New York: Oxford University Press.
Izugbara, Chimaraoke O. and Chi-Chi Undie. (2008). Who Owns the Body? Indigenous African Discourses of the Body and Contemporary Sexual Rights Rhetoric. Reproductive Health Matters, 16 (31), 159–167.
Kaeser, Fred. (1992). Can People with Severe Mental Retardation Consent to Mutual Sex?. Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 10, No. 1, 33-42.
Kittay, Eva Feder. (1999). Lover’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency. New York: Routledge Press.
--------- (2001). When Caring Is Just and Justice Is Caring: Justice and Mental Retardation. Public Culture, 13.3, 557-579.
Kleinig, John. (2010). The Nature of Consent. In Franklin G. Miller and Alan Wertheimer (Eds.), The Ethics of Consent– Theory and Practice (pp3-24). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kristiansen, Kristjana., Simo Vehmas and Tom Shakespeare ( Eds.), (2009). Arguing about Disability Philosophical perspectives. New York: Routledge Press.
Kubler-Ross, Elizabeth. (1997). On Death and Dying: What the Dying Have to Teach Doctors, Nurses, Clergy and Their Own Families. New York: Simon and Schuster, /Scribner.
Kulick, Don. and, Jens Rydström. (2015). Loneliness and Its Opposite: Sex, Disability, and the Ethics of Engagement. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
Lecomte, Jocelin. and Céline Mercier. (2009). The Emergence of the Human Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities in International Law: The Cases of the Montreal Declaration on Intellectual Disabilities and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In Frances Owen and Dorothy Griffiths (Eds), Challenges to the Human Rights of People With Intellectual Disabilities (pp43-75). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Lee, P. (2002). Shooting for the Moon: Politics and Disability at the Beginning of the Twenty First Century. In C. Barnes, M. Oliver and L. Barton (Eds.), Disability Studies Today (pp158-159). Cambridge: Polity.
Löfgren-Mårtenson, Lotta. (2004). ‘’May I?’’ About Sexuality and Love in the New Generation with Intellectual Disabilities. Sexuality and Disabilit, Vol. 22, No. 3, Fall, 197-207.
--------- (2013). ‘‘Hip to be Crip?’’ About Crip Theory, Sexuality and People with Intellectual Disabilities. Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 31 Issue 4, 413-424.
MacKinnon, Catharine. and Carol Anne Douglas. (1983). MacKinnon On Feminist Theory. Off Our Backs, Vol. 13, No. 5,Women and The Law: 14th National Conference, 17-19.
MacKinnon, Catharine A. (1983). Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
MacKinnon, Catharine., Andrea Dworkin and Alice Henry. (1984). MacKinnon on defining PORNOGRAPHY. Off Our Backs, Vol. 13, No. 5, 14-15.
MacIntyre, Alisdair. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
McCarthy, Michelle. and David Thompson. (1994). HIV/AIDS and Safer Sex Work with People with Learning Disabilities. In Ann Craft (Ed.), Practice Issues in Sexuality and Learning Disabilities (pp183-197). New York: Routledge Press.
McColl, Mary Ann., Rebecca Bond, David W. Shannon and Charles Shortt. (2016). People with Disabilities and the Charter: Disability rights at the Supreme Court of Canada under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies. Vol 5, No 1, 183-210.
McRuer, Robert. (2006). Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability. New York: New York University Press.
Meekosha, Helen. (2008, September). Contextualing Disability: Developing Souther/ Global Theory. Keynote paper to the 4th Biennial Disability Studies conference, Lancaster Unversity, 2-4.
Montreal Canada: PAHO/WHO Conference. (2004) Montreal Declaration on Intellectual Disability. Retrieved from: http://www.opadd.on.ca/News/documents/montrealdeclarationMTL.pdf
Morris, Jenny. (1993). Independent Lives? Community Care and Disabled People. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
--------- (2005, 12-13th, April). Independent Living: The role of evidence and ideology in the development of government policy. Cash and Care Conference, Social Policy Research Unit, York: University of York, 1-43.
Murphy, Glynis H. (2003). Overview: Capacity to Consent to Sexual Relationships in Adults with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Healthcare, 29 (3), 148-149.
Nirje, Bengt. (1985). The Basis and Logic of the Normalization Principle. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 11, No. 2, 65-68.
Nussbaum, M.(2007). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Oliver, M. and G. Zarb. (1989). The Politics of Disability : A New Approach. Disability, Handicap and Society, 4, 221-239.
Oliver, Michael. (1987). Social Work with Disabled People. London: Macmillan.
--------- (1990). The Politics of Disablement. London: Macmillan.
--------- (1996). Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London: Macmillan.
--------- (1999). Capitalism, disability, and ideology: A materialist critique of the Normalization principle. In R. J. Flynn and R. A. Lemay (Eds.), A Quarter-century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and Impact (pp163-165). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Oliver, Mike. (1990). Book review: The Last Civil Rights Movement: Disabled Peoples International. Disability, Handicap and Society, 5(1), 93-94.
Owen, Frances., Dorothy Griffiths, Donato Tarulli, and Jacqueline Murphy. (2009). Historical and Theoretical Foundations of the Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities: Setting the Stage. In Frances Owen and Dorothy Griffiths (Eds.), Challenges to the Human Rights of People With Intellectual Disabilities (pp23-42). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Parchomiuk, MoniKa. (2013). Model of Disability and the Relationship of Attitudes Towards the Sexuality of Persons with an Intellectual Disability. Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 31 Issue 2, 125-139.
Parker, Richard G. (1997). Sexual Rights and Action. Health and Human Rights, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2nd International Conference on Health and Human Rights, 31-37.
Quinn, G.and T. Degener. (2002). Human Rights Are For All: A Study on the Current Use and Future Potential of the United Nations Human Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability (pp13-28). Geneva: Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Race, David. (2007). Intellectual Disability- Social Approaches. Milton Keynes, London: Open University Press.
Rapley, Mark. (2004). The Social Construction of Intellectual Disability. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Rhodes, Rita. (1996). Mental Retardtion and Sexual Expression: An Historical Perspective. In Romel W. Mackelprang and Deborah Valentine (Eds.), Sexuality and Disabilities: A Guide for Human Service Practitioners (pp123-136). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Haworth Press.
Richards, Deborah., Nancy Miodrag, and Shelley L. Watson. (2006). Sexuality and Developmental Disability: Obstacles to Healthy Sexuality throughout the Lifespan. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, No.1and2, 137-155.
Richards, Deborah., Nancy Miodrag, Shelley L. Watson, Maurice Feldman, Marjorie Aunos, Diane Cox-Lindenbaum, and Dorothy Griffiths. (2009). Sexuality and Human Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities. In Frances Owen and Dorothy Griffiths (Eds.) Challenges to the Human Rights of People With Intellectual Disabilities (pp184-218). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Rieser, Richard. (2003). Disability Discrimination, the Final Frontier: Disablement, History and Liberation. In Mike Cole (Ed.), Education, Equality and Human Rights- Issues of Gender, ‘Race’, Sexuality, Special Needs and Social Class (pp118-140). Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis.
Rispler-Chaim, Vardit. (2007). Disability In Islamic Law. NY: Springer Press.
Robertson, Gerald B. (1993). Sterilization, Mental Disability, and Re Eve: Affirmative Discrimination?. W.S. Tarnopolsky et al (Eds.), Discrimination in the Law and the Administration of Justice (pp447-456). Montréal, Québec: Les Éditions Thémis, Inc.
Scheerenberger, R. C. (1983). A History of Mental Retardation. Baltimore, Massachusetts: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Schwartz, Karen., Zana Marie Lutfiyya and Nancy Hansen. (2013). Dopey’s Legacy: Stereotypical Portrayals of Intellectual Disability in the Classic Animated Films. In Johnson Cheu (Ed.), Diversity in Disney Films-Critical Essays on Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexuality and Disability (pp179-194). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc.
Shakespeare, Tom., Kath Gillespie-Sells, and Dominic Davies. (1996). The Sexual Politics of Disability: Untold Desires. New York: Cassell.
Shakespeare, Tom. (1997). Researching Disabled Sexuality. Colin Barnes and, Geof Mercer (Eds.), Doing Disability Research (pp177-189). Leeds: The Disability Press.
-------- (2000). Disabled Sexuality: Toward Rights and Recognition. Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 18, No. 3, 159-166.
-------- (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. New York: Routledge Press.
Siebelink, Elien M., Menno D. de Jong, Erik T. Taal and Leo Roelvink. (2006). Sexuality and People With Intellectual Disabilities: Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes, Experiences, and Needs. Mental Retardation, Vol 44, number 4, 283-294.
Silvers, Anita. (1998). Formal Justice. Anita Silvers, D. Wasserman and M. B. Mahowald (Eds.), Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy (pp56-59). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Soble, Alan. (1996). Sexual Investigations. New York: New York University Press.
Sobsey, Dick. (1994). Sexual Abuse of Individuals with Intellectual Disability. In Ann Craft (Ed.), Practice Issues in Sexuality and Learning Disabilities (pp91-112). New York: Routledge Press.
Spiecker, Ben and Jan Steutel. (2002). Sex Between People with "Mental Retardation": An Ethical Evaluation. Journal of Moral Education, 31:2, 155-169.
Stiker, Henri-Jacques. (1999). A History of Disability. William Sayers (Trans.), Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Swain, J. (1981). Adopting a Life-Style. Milton Keynes, London: Open University Press.
Talbot, J.(2010). People with Intellectual Disabilities in the Criminal Justice System. In V. Prasher (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Intellectual Disabilities (pp131-136). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Tarling, Clare. and Jimmy Dean. (2008). Love, Sex and you. Copyright by Dorset People First. Retrieved from: http://www.easyhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/Love%20sex%20and%20you.pdf
Tarnai, B. (2006). Review of Effective Interventions for Socially Inappropriate Masturbation in Persons with Cognitive Disabilities. Sexuality and Disability, 24, 151-168.
Tepper, Mitchell S. (2000). Sexuality and Disability: The Missing Discourse of Pleasure. Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2000, 283-290.
--------- (2001). Becoming sexuality able: Education to Help Youth with Disabilities. SIECUS Report, Vol 29, No. 3, 5-13.
Tylenda, Barbara., Jacqueline Beckett, and Rowland P. Barrett. (2007). Assessing Mental Retardation Using Standardized Intelligence Tests. In Johnny L. Matson (Ed.), Handbook of Assessment in Persons with Intellectual Disability (pp28-32). A Volume 34 in International Review of Research In Mental Retardation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc. Press.
UPIAS. (1976). Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation. Retrieved from: http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/UPIAS-fundamental-principles.pdf
Vehmas et al. (2009). Introduction: The unavoidable alliance of disability studies and philosophy. In Kristjana Kristiansen. Simo Vehmas and Tom Shakespeare (Eds.), Arguing about Disability: Philosophical Perspectives (pp1-12).New York: Routledge Press.
Wendell, Susan. (2006). Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability. In Lennard J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader- Second Edition (pp243-256). Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis Group.
Wertheimer, Alan. (2010). Consent to Sexual Relations. In Franklin G. Miller and Alan Wertheimer (Eds.), The Ethics of Consent– Theory and Practice (pp195-219). New York: Oxford University Press.
Whitman, Barbara Y. and Pasquale J. Accardo. (1996). The Parent with Mental Retardation: Rights, Responsibilities and Issues. Romel W. Mackelprang and, Deborah Valentine (Eds.), Sexuality and Disabilities: A Guide for Human Service Practitioners (pp123-136). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Haworth Press.
Williams, Val. (2011). Disability and Discourse: Analysing Inclusive Conversation with People with Intellectual Disabilities. Hoboken, New Jersey: A John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Wolffensberger, Wolf. (1972). The Prinsciple of Nomalization in Human Services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation (The Roeher Institute), Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unmc.edu/wolf_books/1/
--------- (2000). A Brief Overview of Social Role Valorization. Mental Retardation, Vol. 38, No. 2, 105-123.
World Health Organization, Switzerland: WHO/Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse (Ed.). (2007). Atlas: Global Resources for Persons with Intellectual Disability. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/atlas_id_2007.pdf
Yau,Kwai-sang. Matthew., Sze-man Ng Glenda, Tau-kwai Lau. Demeter, Ka Sing Chan, and, Siu-kwan Chan Joan. (2009). Exploring Sexuality and Sexual Concerns of Adult Persons with Intellectual Disability In A Cultural Context. The British Journal of Developmental Disabilities, Vol, 55. Part 2, July, No. 109, 97-108.
Young, Iris Marion. (1989). Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship. Ethics, 99(2), 250–274.
Copleston, Frederick. 莊雅棠翻譯(1988)《西洋哲學史-中世紀哲學-從奧古斯丁到斯考特》,第2卷。台北:黎明文化。
王國羽、呂朝賢,(2004),〈世界衛生組織身心障礙人口定義概念之演進:兼論我國身心障礙人口定義系統問題與未來修正方向〉。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,第8卷,第2期,頁193-235。
王國羽、林昭吟、張恆豪主編(2013),《障礙研究:理論與應用》。高雄:巨流。
何春蕤(2011),〈情感嬌貴化:變化中的台灣性佈局〉。收錄於黃盈盈、潘綏銘主編,《中國性研究》,第六輯。高雄:萬有,頁262-276。
林純真(2010),〈智能障礙者性議題之百年進展〉。《特殊教育季刊》,第117期,頁16-25。
--------- (2011),〈PLISSIT模式應用在心智障礙者性議題之啟示〉。《台灣性學學刊》, 第17卷第2期,頁53-68。
--------- (2016),智能障礙者之性別教育。收錄於孫淑柔、吳雅萍、陳明聰、莊妙芬、盧台華、林純真、陳麗圓、詹孟琦、吳佩芬、何素華,《智能障礙》。台北:華騰文化。頁6.2-6.37
林萬億、劉燦宏等著(2014),《台灣身心障礙者權益與福利》。台北:五南。
邱大昕(2011),〈誰是身心障礙者-從身心障礙鑑定的演變看「國際健康功能與身心障礙分類系統」(ICF)的實施〉。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,第15卷,第2期,頁187-213。
--------- (2012),〈為什麼需要女性主義身心障礙研究?〉。《婦研縱橫》,第96期,頁16-25。
吳秀瑾(2005),〈依靠與平等:論Kittay愛的勞動〉。《女學學誌》,第19期,157-183。
--------- (2012),〈女性主義有害於身心障礙研究嗎?〉。《婦研縱橫》,第96期,頁8-15。
孫小玉(2014),《失能研究與生命書寫:失能女性之性/別、身體/政治、與詩/美學》。高雄:國立中山大學。
張恆豪、蘇峰山(2009),〈Book Review: Disability Rights and Wrongs〉,《台灣社會福利學刊》,第7卷,第2期,頁191-205。
張恆豪(2011),〈障礙者權利運動的策略與組織變遷〉,收錄於何明修、林秀幸主編,《社會運動的年代-晚近二十年來的台灣行動主義》。台北:群學,頁129-169。
郭莉娟(2011),《古代希臘醫生-以《希波克拉底斯全集》所做之歷史重建》。國立成功大學歷史學系,台南,(未出版博士論文)。
甯應斌(2000),〈性倫理及其他〉。《哲學雜誌季刊》,第33期,頁62-75。
--------- (2012a),〈台灣性侵幼兒修法爭議的哲學省思〉。趙文宗編。《中華性/別-年齡機器》香港:圓桌文化,頁242-258。
--------- (2012b),〈評女性主義在性侵修法爭議中的觀點〉。《月旦法學雜誌》,第205期,頁263-273。
--------- (2013),〈現代進步觀及其自滿〉。收錄於甯應斌編,《兩岸三地性/別尋思:新道德主義》。桃園:國立中央大學性/別研究室,頁1-12。
劉人鵬、宋玉雯、鄭聖勳、蔡孟哲編(2012),《酷兒‧情感‧政治-海澀愛文選》。台北:蜃樓。
指導教授 甯應斌(Yin Bin Ning) 審核日期 2017-7-25
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明