Love on The Spectrum: Ethical or Exploitative?
By Anthony Heron
Since releasing the newest season of “Love on the Spectrum U.S”, Netflix have recieved a lot of criticism despite the shows critical success.
Since reality television was first conceived and popularised, it has been polarising. Since the emergence of programmes like “Big Brother”, critics have said the very concept of filming and profiting off someone’s private life is inherently exploitative, regardless of the subject’s consent.
This debate gained an extra dimension in 2012, with the release of “The Undateables”, a show centred around disabled people looking for love, with the majority of them having learning difficulties. The programme was seen as both exploitative and offensive, even beyond its title. Many thought the show infantilised and took advantage of its participants.
Nevertheless, it was a success, running for six seasons and spawning its own subgenre of reality television, with shows like “Down for Love” which followed a similar concept but instead followed a group of people with Down Syndrome, and Netflix’s latest effort “Love on The Spectrum”.
The show began in Australia but has now created an American counterpart. With Love on The Spectrum (U.S.) season two" releasing earlier this year, it has gained more attention than any previous iteration through its popularity on social media. Although not all of this social media attention has been positive.
Like its predecessors, Love on The Spectrum has been accused of infantilising its subjects. Much of this comes from the editing and the soundtrack. When the viewer is first introduced to one of the participants blind dates, the narrator will introduce the blind date through their autistic traits.
For example, in the first season of the Australian iteration, one blind date’s introduction went: “Lotus loves drag queens and the sound of parrots eating. She hates people talking all at once and loud machinery” This along with the upbeat soundtrack, made many viewers find it insulting.
One reddit user wrote: “Everything from the music to the narration to how interviews are cut and shot is designed to Infantalise (and mock) the participants”.
Another big criticism the show has faced has been its lack of representation. Of all the participants in the first two seasons of “Love on The Spectrum (U.S.)” only two of them have been people of colour,and only one participant has any interest in dating someone of the same gender. The majority of the participants have also been on the far end of the autism spectrum, having great difficulty with conversation and picking up social cues.
One participant Kaelynn, who took part in the first series, was what people in the autistic community would refer to as “passing”, meaning she passes off as neurotypical and has an easier time socialising than other neurodivergent people. Unlike the majority of the cast, she was not invited back for the second season.
Kaelynn said on her TikTok: “Here’s what I think. My preferences for dating a neurotypical man were not in alignment with the matches they were trying to create with everyone. In other words, my preferences made finding potential matches more difficult for them and less exciting for viewers. Also, since I’m so language abled I don’t struggle with communication. People don’t look at me and immediately recognise that I’m autistic. I think all of those things were a factor in their decision.”
This led people to believe that the show actively looks for participants who’d struggle dating, to create more awkward and comedic situations.
In short, shows like Love on The Spectrum won’t educate viewers on autism, nor will they give autistic people a platform to speak on their issues. Regardless of how well-intentioned the people behind these programmes are, more often than not they manage to create something that’s both offensive and inaccurate.