We Have Laws for That: A Response to Jack Halberstam

Jack Halberstam’s evocative description of a fellow airline passenger’s service animal is both an artful performance of queer negativity, and also an outstanding example of the nested interdependencies that are the subject of my essay. However, he misrepresents my definition of care by claiming that it depends on benevolent human regard. I agree with Halberstam that desire is often taboo in our understanding of good care relationships because all too often the care of vulnerable people—children, ill, disabled, or elderly dependents, and their caregivers—is accompanied by sexual abuse. But the concern with safety may deprive dependents of self-expression and leave vital needs unmet. Our failure to address the erotics of care more openly can further disadvantage dependents and their caregivers by denying sexual desires as real as their need for life-sustaining care.