Four in the Bedroom: Lamentations or Exploitation of Non-Speaking Individuals?
Recently, one of our readers sent the lyrics to a song called “Four People” from the “I am in Here” album by The Bleeding Hearts. The lyrics are attributed to a non-speaking or minimally verbal woman named Elizabeth Bonker who, as we know from a book she purportedly co-wrote with her mother, is being subjected to a form of Facilitated Communication (FC) called Rapid Prompting Method (RPM).
Regular readers of this blog will understand immediately the inherent problem with any song lyrics (or other written information) generated using facilitator-dependent techniques like FC: facilitator control. There is a significantly high likelihood that Elizabeth Bonker did not author the messages, but her facilitator did.
And, since the song “Four People” deals with adult themes (e.g., sleeping together after a romantic dinner), the implications of facilitator-chaperoned FC-generated sexual activities of two individuals with profound communication difficulties raises the bar for (potential) abhorrent facilitator behavior to a whole other level.
The parents of two non-verbal or minimally speaking individuals (all played by neurotypical actors) manipulate their children into an embrace in the movie “Influence.” (Influence, 2018).
To the uninitiated, "Four People” starts out innocently enough, describing a “typical” (or “neurotypical”) romantic evening between two individuals. Presumably, the couple is at a restaurant, where the waiter takes their order over a candlelit table with gentle music playing in the background. The protagonist asks, “Could this be the night?” in anticipation of how the evening might end (e.g., “Do I have a lover or a friend?”).
But, think about the words for a minute, given that we, the readers of this blog, know this is an FC-generated song about two individuals with profound communication difficulties being facilitated by two literate and, presumably, socially aware and sexually-mature adults.
Four people at the table
Four people, not two
Four people at the table
Can’t it just be me and you?
For me, at least, questions immediately arise:
Did Elizabeth Bonker, the purported lyricist, imagine this romantic evening (and its implications) or were these the words (e.g., fantasies) of her facilitator?
Are the individuals in the song dependent on the facilitators and FC to “communicate?”
How do we know any of the FC-generated words (including what the two want to order off the menu) are those of the individuals and not their facilitators?
Do the individuals understand that this dinner (presumably orchestrated by the parent/facilitators) is a date as opposed to an ordinary dinner out?
Do the individuals have the social and language comprehension skills to understand the implications of candles at the table and romantic music playing in the background?
If these lyrics do not start raising red flags for you, the next lines in the song most definitely should, especially as the protagonist mentions a four-poster bed followed by the lines:
Four people in the bedroom
Four people, not two
Four people in the bedroom
Can’t it just be me and you?
Your dad’s number three, helping you talk to me
Four is my mom who holds my words in her palm
The legal and ethical ramifications of this scenario boggle my mind.
I know I sound like a broken record when I say this, but there is no reliably controlled evidence that the FC-generated messages obtained using FC, RPM, or any of their variants is independent (e.g., without facilitator interference). In fact, the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that facilitators not just influence the messages, but control them instead. (See Controlled Studies and Systematic Reviews).
Organizations opposing FC and RPM cite lack of scientific evidence, facilitator control, prompt dependency, financial and opportunity costs, and, significant to this blog post, potential harms (including false allegations of abuse).
As facilitators become emboldened in their resolve that FC-generated messages are “real,”, there are also, now, documented instances of facilitator crimes, where facilitators purport to fall in love with their client/victims and use FC-generated messages to follow through on their impulses for inappropriate sexual relationships.
It should go without saying that it is not possible to gain consent for sexual relationships using facilitator-dependent, FC-generated messages, regardless of the age of the individuals involved. Facilitators who don’t grasp this concept are setting themselves up for criminal charges such as sexual assault of an individual with disabilities, as in the Anna Stubblefield and Martina Susanne Schweiger cases. (See Facilitator Crimes)
But, this song seems to bring facilitation into the realm of the unimaginable: that facilitators would not only orchestrate “dates” with their clients or loved ones, but follow through by entering the bedroom in what I can only describe as a highly inappropriate and creepy foursome.
As deficient as I believe facilitator training workshops are in educating participants about the potential harms of FC/S2C/RPM, my initial thought upon hearing “Four People” was that no trainer would instruct their student facilitators on how to “support” their clients or loved ones while in the act of copulating. But, then I was reminded of a 2012 article James Todd wrote on the moral obligations for facilitators to be empirical—especially when topics such as intimacy, sexual relationships, and allegations of abuse arise during facilitator-dependent activities. (Also see FC in the Context of Psychotherapy)
In the article, Todd describes a (real-life) situation where a single facilitator (via FC) negotiated a marriage engagement with two non-speaking or minimally verbal autistic individuals. This instance is documented in a book called The Politics of Occupation-Centered Practice (a subject for a future blog post) for the purpose of discussing “Disability, Sexuality and Intimacy.”
Todd includes in the article, this quote by the original authors, whose intent regarding sex between the two facilitated individuals is made clear:
“Great levels of intimacy, particularly in the sexual arena, comprise bridges that both Hope and Jacob, their families, and other members of their support teams may have to cross eventually. It will be important for others involved in their lives to do so nonjudgmentally and in full support of what Jacob and Hope, as the involved couple, want. (Block et al., 2012, p. 173)
Todd also notes that there was no suggestion by these authors that any of the FC-generated messages should be objectively authenticated (e.g., subjected to double-blind testing), raising concerns about authorship. And, yet, the facilitators are, presumably, supposed to take FC-generated requests about intimate, sexual encounters—and their role in “supporting” the activity—as “nonjudgmentally” and unquestionably as they would a (facilitated) request for a glass of water at a restaurant.
Todd writes:
…If there were a mutual facilitated request for sex, competence must be presumed and the request fulfilled. What the facilitator or facilitators are to do during the encounter is not specified—although it seems that continued communication would be necessary. (p. 5)
Just what are the facilitators roles supposed to be? Clearly, the authors of the chapter had not thought through the legal ramifications of such an encounter.
Todd goes on to wonder:
What other than an educational malpractice claim could redress a situation in which a student intern or new professional, applying the lessons found in this textbook, instigates rape (or something) by using FC to set up a sexual encounter between two people who cannot give consent? Or, it might be an encounter between a facilitated and a speaking person, who might then be charged with rape. (Or something. These heretofore unexplored forms of sexual exploitation might not yet have names). (p. 6-7)
The same questions could be asked, in 2023, of the non-profit organization Communication 4 All, who have endorsed the song by posting it on their official YouTube channel.
“Four People” (Communication 4 All YouTube Channel, June 2022)
Returning to the song—the last stanzas seem to reflect a dream world where the two individuals once reliant on FC have somehow achieved independent communication. In these stanzas, the two share a life together without their facilitators present and where love conquers all: “Nobody thought we’d figure out how to live together on our own.”
How the two progressed from complete dependence on their facilitators (right down to the most intimate of details) to complete independence is not outlined in the song.
I’m having difficulty figuring out how the faciltiator-dependent words (and potential actions) of the couple in the song, then, led to an independent, even neurotypical-sounding, relationship.
By design, fading facilitator support (e.g. eliminating visual, physical and verbal cues) is impossible with facilitator-dependent techniques. And though proponents say fading support is a goal, there are documented cases (namely the “stars” of the FC movement) of individuals who’ve been subjected to FC for 20-30 years. None of these individuals have achieved independence in the true sense of the word (e.g., typing out messages by themselves and without facilitator interference). Their facilitators—still—sit with them, hold a letter board, touch them, provide verbal cues or hand gestures to help guide letter selection during FC sessions, despite all those years of “practice..” (See An FC Primer)
Indeed, in a recent court case involving Spelling to Communicate (S2C), a variant of RPM, an expert testified that none of their clients had achieved independence.
For me, this raises more questions:
Will proponents be coming out with a manual, soon, that describes how facilitators first “support” their FC-dependent clients in intimate, sexual relationships and then, only afterwards fade support so their clients can communicate independently? Or, is love enough for FCed individuals to learn communication skills (including social skills, communication skills, and literacy) that in real life must be learned through direct instruction?
I am not saying that individuals with profound intellectual or developmental disabilities shouldn’t experience a full range of interpersonal relationships. Of course they should. But if they are mature enough to have intimate, consensual, sexual relationships, then I don’t think it’s too much to ask that any outward expression of these desires should absolutely be free from facilitator interference.
A generous interpretation of the song is that the lyricist/protagonist is (with facilitation) lamenting the fact that intimate relationships—and all that goes with them—are not possible without facilitation.
But, the song makes me think anew about the far-reaching consequences of false allegations of abuse, and the gut-wrenching stories about individuals with profound communication difficulties who have been sexually assaulted by their facilitators. (Most likely, more than we know).
And, to make matters worse, now, this song appears to be condoning sexual encounters among non-speaking or minimally speaking individuals orchestrated by literate, socially aware, and sexually mature chaperones using facilitator-dependent techniques documented and known to be the product of facilitator control. The implications of these scenarios are, to me, staggering and raise serious questions about the professional, moral, and ethical practices of facilitators who continue to use FC/S2C/RPM despite demonstrable harms, facilitator control, and lack of scientific validity.
I know my words often go unheard and unheeded by members of the FC/S2C/RPM community. I get it. Every practicing facilitator thinks they’re the exception when it comes to facilitator cueing and control. Some facilitators may admit to cueing, but only when pointing out flaws in someone else’s technique.. So, I’m ending this blog post with a question that was asked of me when, even after the double-blind testing proved I was the author of FC-generated messages, I clung to my persistent belief in it. This question hit me like a proverbial ton of bricks. I hope practicing facilitators will give it some serious thought:
How many more people have to get hurt before you stop?
Here are some other questions the readers of this blog post might also want to consider (some bear repeating):
Do the lyrics reflect the independent words and ideas of Elizabeth Bonker (e.g., could she have written the song without interference from a facilitator)?
Is FC/S2C/RPM being used by facilitators (on behalf of their clients or loved ones) to obtain consent for intimate, sexual relationships?
Is the scenario described in the song (e.g., four in the bedroom) happening in real life?
Are FC/S2C/RPM workshop leaders teaching this topic in their workshops? Do they condone these actions by facilitators?
What are the legal and ethical ramifications for facilitators who pursue such a scenario?
What are the legal and ethical responsibilities for non-profits and other professional groups who promote FC/S2C/RPM, despite the scientific evidence stacked up against it?
Did members of The Bleeding Hearts know what they were endorsing when they agreed to record the album?
Are we seeing the emergence of a new type of abhorrent facilitator behavior? There are already documented cases of facilitators who sexually assaulted their profoundly disabled clients, and, sadly, one who killed her child based on FC-generated messages obtained while she acted as facilitator. (See Facilitator Crimes)
Note: RPM proponents refuse to participate in reliably controlled tests. Given that, RPM, “technically” is not discredited as FC is. Nonetheless, there is no reliably controlled evidence to prove RPM messages are free from facilitator control and it shares so many characteristics with FC that organizations like the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) oppose its use.
Note: The song is reminiscent of the movie “Influence,” which I reviewed in an earlier blog post.
Recommended Reading
James T. Todd (2012) The moral obligation to be empirical: Comments on Boynton's “Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator”, Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention ,6:1, 36-57, DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.704738
Blog Posts
At What Point was Anna Stubblefield Culpable for her Actions?