We have a guest author today: Jamie Boyd, who is a parent, student, and Program Assistant for the Neurodiversity Navigators program at Bellevue College in Washington State. Jamie writes...
A REVIEW OF LOVE ON THE SPECTRUM:
REASONS WHY IT FALLS SHORT AS A DATING MODEL FOR AUTISTIC PEOPLE
I will start by saying that while neurodivergent, I do not identify as autistic myself, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt, as I most definitely do not consider myself any kind of expert in being a voice for the autistic community. That being said, the most problematic theme of this docu-series, was one of repeatedly pushing neurotypical dating social skills agendas. Whether via an autism relationship consultant, dating “boot camp”, or innocent family advice, the idea that autistic people should conform to neurotypical standards of dating etiquette in order to date properly and successfully, is painfully ableist at its core. To elaborate, it was suggested by Dr. Laugeson from UCLA, that “we all” follow a common set of dating rules and norms, and that it is helpful and beneficial to make these more explicit to autistic people. Really, though? Neurodiverse people prefer to interact in exactly the same way on a date as neurotypical people do? More on blowing holes in that hypothesis later.
I further found it an interesting contradiction that many of the parents, who openly embraced the uniqueness of their children, and even expressed hope of their children finding happiness by meeting like-minded people with similar interests, condoned these supports. If you recognize that sharing similarities makes the best match, why, then, would you encourage and invite into your home, a person who would teach your child it is imperative to act in a way that is inauthentic of their true nature? Many of those same parents referred to “how far their children had come”, though, so maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised.
There were several glaring examples of times when this went horribly wrong, when the natural and appropriate inclinations and interpretations of autistic individuals were steamrolled by neurotypical ideas. First, you had Maddi, who knew what she wanted, and wasn’t afraid to say so. She aimed to be upfront and honest in her conversations with potential boyfriends, answering matter-of-factly in a mock dating conversation with her parents the question about whether or not she wanted kids, with a simple “no”. Instead of leaving Maddi the space to find someone who would appreciate this about her, she was instead advised that doesn’t leave the conversation open to easily build on, fair enough. So she then modified her answer to be, “No, because they’re a waste of time and money.” This is where it goes South. Dad then begins to inform her that what you really do to leave it more open, is be less concrete in your answer, leaving it open in a way that flirts with dishonesty. Maddi immediately, and rightfully takes issue with this idea, dismissing it outright, stating she refuses to mislead a person that way. Go, Maddi! The idea that one must be borderline socially dishonest in order to interact successfully, is one of the most blatantly neurotypical ideas, that is quite often NOT shared by autistic people. It is offensive and unreasonable to suggest that one must adopt this idea in order to carry on a successful conversation with another human, unless the agenda is simply to force autistic people to behave in a way that makes neurotypical people more comfortable.
Then you have Andrew, post speed dating event, when his match messages him on the day of their scheduled date, to inform him that something personal has come up, which is preventing her from seeing him that day, and also any time soon. In his postmortem analysis with relationship coach, Jodi Rodgers, he shares that he interpreted his date’s communication as literal, and therefore, that her statement left the possibility of future dating open. Jodi then goes on to inform him that his date’s message was likely not completely literal for the sake of politeness, and that what she probably meant was that she was really no longer interested in dating Andrew at all. First of all, the fact that an urgent personal issue could come up that would temporarily prohibit an autistic person (or any person, for that matter) from dating, is completely feasible!!! Second of all, the suggestion that an autistic person would sugar coat their message in the way Jodi suggested (see Exhibit A with Maddi in the previous paragraph), was just poor advice, or more accurately, again very wrongfully neurotypical advice. In fact, a common theme throughout the show (when left to their own devices) was people having zero qualms about openly and bluntly communicating when there wasn’t a spark, or a love connection. This was about the point when I started yelling at Jodi through the tv screen.
Jodi’s unfortunate advice really blows up, though, when working with Kelvin. After drilling into him the core purpose on first dates is to find common interests, and that you do that by asking questions about your date, in comes Jessica, who unsurprisingly wanted no part in this whatsoever. She was instead content to play, and was uncompromising about, playing video games together while waiting for their food, as Kevin struggles to carry out his well-rehearsed plan. It left me wishing to see how that same date could have gone without social skills interference, were they just free to connect nonverbally through an interest, in way that likely felt so much more organic and comfortable. It left me to ponder how much of the awkwardness portrayed on these dates could have been avoided, were they not riddled with neurotypical constraints and expectations.
I do want to give credit where credit is due, though. The successful relationships that are followed on the show, do exist without social skills interference (and are wonderfully successful without it). While it was suggested to me they might be inspiration porn, a fair concern, I wholeheartedly disagree. They were most definitely inspirational, but not because they were portrayals of disabled people doing everyday things. In fact, I think they were shining examples of how relationships can be better. They were open, honest, nonjudgmental and kind, and so very understanding and supportive. And much to the discredit of Jodi Rodgers, they did not thrive because of common interests, but rather because of the embracing support of uniqueness as individuals. You are having a bad day you can’t move past because you really need some navy socks right now? Well, then let’s go get you some navy socks. Right now. Without judgement, assignment of value, or anything but selfless accommodation. As hard as I am on Jodi, she did get one thing right. We are all beautifully unique. Embracing neurodiversity benefits everyone, and this show, and it’s definition of successfully dating, certainly has a great deal to learn about that.
Recent Comments