I would like to clarify because this same post was removed in r/romancebooks..

I am not discriminating against him based on disability, I’m literally mentally disabled myself.

I do not care that he is clearly underdeveloped in some form mentally/emotionally, or that he can’t speak, what I’m saying is that he is no where near independent or mentally okay enough for a relationship.

Personally I feel that the FMC took advantage of him in a way, even if it wasn’t her intention.

He acted like a child in many ways, and regardless of whether or not he was ready for a relationship or whether or not he was codependent, he was certainly not at all in a good space to start a sexual relationship.

I haven’t read this yet, though it’s on my TBR list because to my understanding there’s a deaf character.

If it’s the case that Archer behaves like a child, it may be a symptom of language deprivation. People who did not have full access to language as children struggle to not only express themselves, but understand themselves and others. There’s a lot of literature about this in the field of deaf studies, which (if you’re interested) you might peruse Gallaudet University Press’s books.

As for mentally disabled or underdeveloped people having sex, I would point you to Alison Kafer’s chapter, “At the Same Time, Out of Time: Ashley X,” in her book Feminist, Queer, Crip. It deals with a very similar topic, whether a disabled person should be denied physical pleasure because abled people perceive it as a loss (or exploitation) of innocence.

EDIT: Just looked it up to be sure and as it turns out, there’s no deaf character. Removing it from my list.

But since I still don’t know the circumstances behind his disability and needs, I’ll leave my previous statements. If, for example, he doesn’t speak because he was abandoned in the woods as a baby and raised by deer, it would be language deprivation. (Unlikely, but you get the point, I’m sure.)

I’ll emphasize Kafer’s essay again. Whether due to a physical, mental, or developmental disability, people still have needs and desires, even if they cannot express themselves in the same way others can, etc.

Of course, and I don’t disagree with that at all, but during the book Archer is very codependent, he’s been an ‘outsider’ for years and has minimal experience interacting. The FMC is one of very few personal relationships he actually has, and it’s very obvious that he’s dependent on her in many ways.

None of that in particular would suggest he’s not suited to a relationship, it’s more the dynamics between them when you actually read the book.

It’s been a while since I read it (a few months maybe), so it’s not super fresh in my mind, but I’m not saying he could never have a romantic/sexual relationship, but I definitely believe he wasn’t ready for one at that point.

He relied on her for everything, literally.

As I said in my other comment (or at least I think I did), I’m autistic and considered mentally disabled by my government, I know plenty of other people with mental disabilities with varying support needs due to support groups and such, and I have no doubt that most of them, if not all, are very capable of making their own decisions in relationships.

I don’t think I’m articulating this very well, but to summarise, he was far too dependent on her and the power dynamics in the relationship are very one-sided, it’s very obvious that she has all the power in the relationship and I don’t think their relationship was very healthy at all, especially since they entered a long term commitment after a few weeks, and seeing as she’s (from what i recall) the only person to have shown him that kind of love and affection.

Thank you clarifying a bit. I was mostly reacting to your following statement:

>If he can’t hold a conversation (ability to speak not relevant) then generally speaking he shouldn’t be having sex.

This reads, to me, that someone who cannot articulate or express themselves in some way (speech, sign, writing) during an extended back-and-forth interaction should be excluded from sexual pleasure.

Having minimal experience interacting with people could result in language deprivation, and an inability to form meaningful and healthy connections with others. This I imagine is the explanation for his codependency (many deaf individuals are codependent, usually as a result of language deprivation and longterm isolation—though I know now that Archer is hearing, I can see many parallels from what I’m gathering here).

So I do get a sense of realism here, insofar as language and psychology. (But again, I have not read this book.)

Unequal power dynamics are more understandable as issues, especially in romances. From your description, I’m getting a sort of Jane Eyre and Rochester vibe (the ending, specifically).

Yeah, he’s not deaf, but he is mute. He speaks sign and she either knows it or learns it during the book, I can’t recall which.

I probably didn’t use the best example with that statement, what I meant was… I was attempting to show that if he’s entirely dependent on her and can’t do anything for himself then the relationship would any healthy, I definitely didn’t say that very well.

I went back to look at my review for this book because I also did not like the way Bree was with Archer.

1. She called him her "silent boy" or something like that throughout the book and it just sounded gross to me, especially since she never actually calls him that to his face(iirc) but only in her thoughts.
2. When he leaves without her and she says "how is he communicating in the world" like she literally had a deaf father she knows people who can't speak are able to function in the world. This definitely helps your point that she saw him as almost childlike.

Yes! This is the biggest part- Bree herself saw and treated him like an invalid. She acted like he was a toddler and was incapable of living without her.

Even disregarding whether or not he’s mentally ready for a relationship, the fact that she saw him in that way alone makes the entire relationship unhealthy.

I disliked this book for infantilising Archer so much, and casting Bree as his saviour. I went back to look at my review and it was a pretty uncomfortable read for me when she kept calling him 'lost puppy' and 'little boy'. It's not a book I'd recommend for well written disability.

I do think calling it paedophilia gives the impression that anyone with mental or physical disabilities is a child, and incapable of having romantic or sexual relationships - which I don't think you were going for, but that's yet another stigma disabled people have to counter constantly, so I can see it raising some hackles. Archer's level of disability could have been written in an affirming way that gave him agency and self respect in relationships, I didn't see that here myself. I try to find authors who write this well without making disabled characters seem like charity cases or inspiration porn, but tbh I haven't found all that many. Any books you've enjoyed?

Honestly the only good books with disabled characters I’ve read are Helen Hoang’s books, her main characters are autistic with various support needs and traits, she’s autistic herself so they’re done very well.

The part I loved was that all of her MC’s are independent and treated as adults- but they also have support needs that are shown and met by those around them.

And when I say it felt like pedophilia, I mean by the way she views him- as you said, she infantilises him a disturbed by amount and the way his disability is shown is horriblely written.

Ahh I've read 2 of her books and did not enjoy them at all. There's actually a good discussion of them going on here, if you're interested! There is so much ableism in her books, I find them very upsetting, though I know other people enjoy them. Thank you anyway!