Despite the overall U.S. first-marriage rate for ages 18 to 49 being 48.9 per 1,000, for people with disabilities, it drops to just 24.4, according to sociologist Philip Cohen. A survey by dating app QuackQuack shows that 43% of disabled people aged 21-30 have always put dating on the back burner, while 57% have gone on dates—revealing the nuanced challenges of love, intimacy, and ableism.

Historically, disabled individuals, who make up 4.52% of India’s population, according to the NFHS-5 survey (2019–21), have been excluded from mainstream narratives of romance, intimacy, love, and sexual pleasure, largely due to deeply ingrained ableist assumptions that view them as less capable of forming or deserving such connections.

Navigating Relationships and Identity in an Ableist World

The experience of forming relationships for people with disabilities often becomes a complex process of navigating both internalised ableism and societal attitudes. As Erving Goffman, in his seminal work Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (1963), argues, society categorises individuals based on their “normalcy,” and people with disabilities are often seen as deviating from this norm. Stigmatization leads to the creation of “spoiled identities,” wherein people with disabilities are excluded from fully participating in intimate and romantic relationships. Relationships, by nature, are rooted in concepts of mutual choice, autonomy, and shared identity, but for people with disabilities, these are shaped and constrained by ableist views.

The portrayal of disabled people in society is often characterised by the conditioning of them being asexual or those who are sexually or emotionally immature and dependent. It not only dehumanises them but also eliminates the autonomy of disabled people to engage in romantic relations. Disabled people who identify as queer, women, trans, or persons of colour are always the sufferers of dual oppression because of their identity and the barriers aggravate. Impactful research, conducted by Mazur (2022), shows that dating apps and websites perpetuate the models of ableism and gender and sexuality.

Furthermore, disability is often presented through a medical lens, which also leads to the emphasis on fixing oneself rather than addressing barriers that are present in society. Accordingly, the thought of barriers surrounding dating, relationships or sex rise out of barriers in society is often overlooked and the blame is shifted to the individual. In, “The History of Sexuality” (1976),  Michel Foucault explains through the concept of “biopower” how society regulates and exerts control over the bodies, particularly those that are deemed as “deviant.” In the case of people with disabilities, they are frequently disciplined by medical institutions and practices that rarely value their sexual and romantic sides. This supports the dominant narrative that disabled people are inferior and are not capable of creating romantic or sexual relationships.

Attitudinal and Structural Barriers to Intimacy

The reactions that the disabled community receives from the non-disabled world are sometimes pity, condescension, and discomfort, reinforcing their exclusion and marginalisation (Kamga, 2019). Thus, the barriers are far beyond just infrastructural barriers. Disabled women and trans people feel the pressure from parents or society to hide their disability when they realise that marriage consultants or matrimonial service providers will barely accept such a marriage profile or if accepted, mostly dismiss their choices.

There are also structural constraints that stop people with disabilities from meeting and dating. Popular places such as nightclubs, pubs, restaurants, parks, other social areas, or dating spaces are most inaccessible for them to meet or possibly develop a relationship. Lupton in, “The Quantified Self” (2016) explains that social media turns one’s body into data points where one’s age, body, weight, and height are calculated. This excludes the ones who do not fit into the conventional standard of beauty.

Mainstream dating apps have exposed people with disabilities to overt discrimination or fetishization, dating apps like Inclov, and MatchAble have come up in recent years to focus on people with disability by making them accessible to their needs. Although these sites have helped to change the narrative around dating and disability, they remain very few. Perhaps, many times parents and caregivers use the app on their behalf often out of concern for their loved one’s safety, fearing exploitation, heartbreak, or the inability of others to truly understand and care for their child. Within all these, the assumption persists that the person with a disability is not capable of choosing their life partner. Ann Swidler’s concept of ‘cultural tool kit’ (1986) is applicable here where caregivers and families apply a different lens to view disability and relationships. These narratives contrastingly portray the disabled as either helpless or incompetent in matters of relationship, dating, and decision-making, thus robbing them of their agency.

Sexuality, Sexual Expression, and Support

Anthropologist Robert Murphy highlighted that societal perceptions often exaggerate the sexual issues faced by disabled individuals, portraying them as either overly sexual or, more frequently, entirely asexual, a stereotype also commonly applied to the elderly (Murphy, 1987). People with disabilities encounter unique challenges around sexuality and intimacy, particularly in accessing experiences that allow them to explore their desires, preferences, and boundaries. Tom Shakespeare, a prominent disability sociologist, challenges the idea of disabled asexuality in his work The Sexual Politics of Disability (1996). He argues that disabled individuals, like their non-disabled counterparts, have sexual needs and desires, but societal norms around desirability and autonomy often silence these expressions. Accessibility, in this context, extends beyond physical spaces; it includes emotional, social, and psychological dimensions as well.

For instance, individuals with disabilities often face barriers in accessing sexual health services, inclusive sex education, or assistive technologies that facilitate sexual expression. In many cases, discussions around their sexuality are infantilized or ignored entirely, leaving little room for genuine exploration of their sexual identity.

The role of support networks also becomes crucial. Some people with disabilities rely on caregivers for assistance with daily tasks, including sexual expression, which raises complex ethical and emotional dynamics. In some countries like Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, sex facilitation services have been introduced, where trained professionals assist disabled individuals in accessing sexual experiences (Hilberink, van der Stege, & Kelders, 2022). Although still controversial, this support highlights the need for a more open, honest dialogue about disability and sexuality.

Just as society questions the sexual agency of disabled individuals, it also assumes they are unfit to be parents. According to Appleby (1993), disabled women face unique pressures regarding heterosexual practices that differ from those experienced by able-bodied women. They are often more vulnerable to sexual abuse and rape, while simultaneously being perceived as lacking sexual desires or functions such as motherhood, which leads to them being viewed as less feminine. The idea that disabled people cannot handle the responsibilities of parenthood is a pervasive stereotype rooted in the traditional assumptions about caregiving, competence, and physical or intellectual capacity. Parenting or motherhood as a social construct, then is presented as something that requires physical strength, intelligence, and emotional steadiness that the ableist discourse insists people with disabilities do not have. This stereotype negates the fact that parenting is not just a physically demanding process and that there are several other aspects that one needs to consider. Disabled women often face that reproduction rights are stripped of them and are subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny when it comes to their reproductive capabilities.

Intersectionality and Hierarchies in Dating

Dating as a disabled person is never a straightforward experience. When it comes to how people interact with love, relationships, and intimacy, intersectionality is vital. For instance, disabled women frequently have different dating experiences than disabled men. Depending on patriarchal structures, women are viewed as more submissive which would further stop them from voicing their needs and rights. Similar to this, queer people with disabilities encounter ableism and transphobia or homophobia when dating, with many possible partners refusing to interact fully with them.

In dating, hierarchies may also emerge when a person with disabilities chooses to date those without. Relationships are shaped by power dynamics, which might stem from physical strength, socioeconomic standing, etc. Even people without a disability might have a certain sort of unintentional perception of their family when they interact with their disabled partners creating unequal dynamics. In a world that chooses how a man should be by how he looks, his body, physical strength, and his ability to dominate; men with disabilities are often neglected. It can further be deduced that the strict codes of masculinity do not allow for those whose bodies do not fit societal standards. These notions and perceptions also affect men with disabilities in the process of dating and relationships. In much, Abhishek Anicca’s work brought into light the issues that males with disability confront as they go through life. Men with disabilities have to learn how to manoeuvre themselves within a man’s body in a world that is non-disabled. He explains how men go through a form of emasculation, where their disability is a sign of the community failing to meet patriarchal definition of acceptable manliness (Anicca, 2024). Thus, men with disabilities are left with no choice but to overcompensate for this via the features that are still within their access such as classifying certain behaviours as masculine or non-masculine, performing the roles that include traits normally associated with traditional masculinity as well as denying or distancing themselves from all things that can be considered as not masculine.

Altogether we must pay attention to the fact that intimacy, love, and pleasure are essential needs of people’s existence, which are integral parts of human life, and should be seen as a right for people with disabilities too. To address this exclusion, society needs to embrace technology that is inclusive to all. Facilities that would meet the needs of everyone when they are in the process of building relationships or starting a family. Reproductive practices should be inclusive as well. By questioning such attitudes and fighting for disability-inclusive spaces whether in healthcare, therapy or in other areas, a more equitable society can be created where dating, sex, and relationships are for all.

References:

Addlakha, R. (2013). Disability Studies in India: Global Discourses, Local Realities. Routledge.

Anicca, A. (2024, July 2). How To Become A Man!. Outlook. https://www.outlookindia.com/culture-society/how-to-become-a-man

Foucault, M. (2019). The History of Sexuality. Penguin.

Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Simon and Schuster.

Hilberink, S. R., van der Stege, H. A., & Kelders, Y. (2022). Educational Needs, Motives and Experiences of Sex Care Workers for People With Disabilities in The Netherlands. Sexuality and Disability. 40(4): 819-836.

Kamga, G. E. K. (2019, May 6). Gender and Disability: A Matter of Dignity. Gender Justice. https://www.justgender.org/gender-and-disability-a-matter-of-dignity/

Lu, W. (2016, December 8). Dating With a Disability. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/well/family/dating-with-a-disability.html

Lupton, D. (2016). The Quantified Self: A Sociology of Self-Tracking Cultures. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Mazur, E. (2022). Online Dating Experiences of LGBTQ+ Emerging Adults with Disabilities. Sexuality and Disability. 40(2): 213-231.

Mehrotra, N. (Ed.). (2020). Disability Studies In India: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Springer.

Mingus, M. (2012, May 8). Feeling The Weight: Some Beginning Notes on Disability, Access, And Love. Leaving Evidence. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/feeling-the-weight-some-beginning-notes-on-disability-access-and-love/

Pattnaik, S., Murmu, J., Agrawal, R., Rehman, T., Kanungo, S., & Pati, S. (2023). Prevalence, Pattern and Determinants of Disabilities in India: Insights From NFHS-5 (2019–21). Frontiers in Public Health.11: 1036499.

Shakespeare, T., Gillespie-Sells, K., & Davies, D. (1996). Identity and Imagery. T. Shakespeare, K. Gillespie-Sells and D. Davies. The Sexual Politics of Disability: Untold Desires.

QuackQuack Survey. (2022, May 16). Many Disabled People Say They Use Dating App to Find Right Match: Survey. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/many-disabled-people-say-they-use-dating-app-to-find-right-match-survey/amp_articleshow/91594254.cms

Weber, K. (2005). A Toolkit for Analysing Corporate Cultural Toolkits. Poetics. 33(3-4): 227-252.

***

Kavya Mukhija is a disability rights advocate, researcher, and writer. Aparajita Chatterjee has completed her Master’s in Sociology from Jadavpur University, Kolkata, West Bengal.