The importance of romantic love to people with learning disabilities

Abstract

Accessible summary• Much research has taken place to understand love and what it means.• People with learning disabilities can have difficulties finding love for many reasons.• People with learning disabilities were interviewed, and they said that having a partner who loved them and who provided company and support was very important to them.• People enjoyed a physical relationship; this could be kissing, cuddling or having sex.• People who had been abused in some way said it felt good to have a partner who loves and supports them.• Good support from staff was important to help people to find love. A drawing was made to explain to staff how they can support people with relationships. AbstractBackground: Love is important aspect of life, including to people with learning disabilities both historically and more recently. Participants value the companionship, support and social status associated with a partner. Relationships are considered mechanisms to meet certain needs including feeling loved, company, intimacy and enabling individuals to marry and have children. This article examines the importance of romantic love to people with learning disabilities.Methods: A hermeneutic phenomenological study, guided by the theory of Van Manen was conducted using interviews with eleven people with learning disabilities examining the importance of romantic love.Results: The analysis revealed that love was important to them, specifically the companionship and support a loving partner provided. The physical expression of love by a partner was valued highly, especially kissing and cuddling. Most participants had experienced some form of abuse, but it appeared that the love of a partner was reparative and they were able to form satisfying relationships. Conclusion: Participants' narratives highlighted the role staff play in supporting them to fulfill their romantic needs. The romantic relationship needs of people with learning disabilities were examined in relation to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy was revised to reflect the value of having a lovingThe Official Journal of the British Institute of Learning Disabilities relationship to people with learning disabilities and to identify the support they required to facilitate and maintain this.

Supporting people with learning disabilities who identify as LGBT to express their sexual and gender identities

“…Adults with learning disabilities present with the full range of gender identities and sexual identities which occur in the general population (Parkes et al, 2009;Bates, 2018). Regarding adults with learning disabilities who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), there is both historic and recent evidence of negative attitudes and stigma surrounding them (Abbott & Howarth, 2006;Cambridge, 2013;Bates et al, 2016;Bates, 2018;Maguire et al, 2019), with services responding inappropriately to their needs and many services considering sexual choice and sexuality to be a taboo topic (Wilkinson et al, 2014;Bates, 2018). In 2018 the Government Equalities Office (GEO) released its LGBT Action Plan; this follows a national survey of LGBT people, open to anyone who identified as having a minority sexual orientation, gender identity or those with variations in sex characteristics (GEO, 2018).…”

“…Belonging to a community can improve health, happiness and self-esteem Bates, 2018). Additionally, it is widely known that sexuality encompasses a range of experiences which contribute to a person's self-identity (Abbott & Howarth, 2006;Bates et al, 2016;, Bates, 2018Maguire et al, 2019). It is felt that further work exploring communities and this sense of belonging could be beneficial in the future.…”

“…The National Development Team for Inclusion (2016) systematic review identified that support workers and family carers struggle to find the balance between protecting their individuals from potential abuse and empowering them to realise their sexual expression, with the Department of Health (2009, ) finding that services was more likely to restrict the opportunities for sexual relationships rather than support. It is clear that there is still a reluctance from support workers to support adults with learning disabilities to express their sexuality through sex and relationships (Cambridge, 2013;Bates et al, 2016;Bates, 2018;Maguire et al, 2019). Tindall (2015) highlights evidence of relationships being restricted by staff; this could be due to staff following strict safeguarding practices.…”

“…For staff and services to provide appropriate support for people with learning disabilities regarding their sexuality they must have the right; policies, guidance, knowledge and training in place (Maguire et al, 2019). Services must design policies to facilitate the provision of supporting surrounding sex and relationships for their individuals with learning disabilities (Abbott & Howarth, 2006;Bates et al, 2016). According to Cambridge (2013) policies & education must be informed by the experiences of those involved, as they have the right to safe, consenting and consensual sexual expression (Abbott & Howarth, 2006;Cambridge, 2013;Bates et al, 2016;Bates, 2019), encouraging positive risk taking, which is essential for love and relationships to flourish (DCA, 2006;Bates et al, 2016;, Bates, 2018.…”

“…Services must design policies to facilitate the provision of supporting surrounding sex and relationships for their individuals with learning disabilities (Abbott & Howarth, 2006;Bates et al, 2016). According to Cambridge (2013) policies & education must be informed by the experiences of those involved, as they have the right to safe, consenting and consensual sexual expression (Abbott & Howarth, 2006;Cambridge, 2013;Bates et al, 2016;Bates, 2019), encouraging positive risk taking, which is essential for love and relationships to flourish (DCA, 2006;Bates et al, 2016;, Bates, 2018. Additionally, will ensure the provision for access and engagement in social activities is also at the forefront (Abbott & Howarth, 2006;Cambridge, 2013;Bates et al, 2016;Bates, 2018).…”