The Undateables...

I don't want to use the word offensive, because we'll have that whole "what offends you is your business" argument.

How about words like "the most mawkish and exploitative television ever seen"? The worst point and stare programme I can remember, masquerading as faux concern for its victims subjects. Anyone associated with the production of this should be shown the door and told to go drool over photos of road traffic accidents.

Cee-Jay-Cee

It's ugly shaming at its worst.

I just invented that term.

Omackeral

Do you actually watch it? It's the most tasteful and respectfully done show ever. There's zero exploitation in it and there's no mocking. It's a great show. Where's the point and stare factor? Non existent. I doubt you watched it. If you did, I'd love you to point out even one instance where anything is played for laughs.

drunkmonkey

Ah come on we're running out of people to make fun of.

So who's fair bait in your opinion, don't say Trump or my copy of Animal farm will hit you so fast you'll be back on the far right before you know it.

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

Do you actually watch it? It's the most tasteful and respectfully done show ever. There's zero exploitation in it and there's no mocking. It's a great show. Where's the point and stare factor? Non existent. I doubt you watched it. If you did, I'd love you to point out even one instance where anything is played for laughs.

I've watched about 2 half shows. With my mouth open at the idea that this passed a slew of checks, the person who thought of it, the director, the producers, the tv company etc. etc. And no one shouted "stop, it's just wrong". It's the extreme form of that Jerry Springer and Jeremy Kyle form of exploitation.

The Backwards Man

Is this some TV shîte?

I only watch the six o clock news on TV, like my granddaddy used to.

Granda didn't have a dodgy box though, that I know of

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ah come on we're running out of people to make fun of.

So who's fair bait in your opinion, don't say Trump or my copy of Animal farm will hit you so fast you'll be back on the far right before you know it.

You said it exactly. It is throwing up people as bait. Of course, they don't do it explicitly, after all it is faux concern...

Junkyard Tom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9al-mpqXjc

It's a lovely programme.

Widdershins

Do they end up with a date at the end of the show?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a lovely programme.

I don't think there is anything lovely about labelling people with autism as "undateable". That might actually work if it was laced with irony but the programme is devoid of irony...

Mam of 4

I just wish they'd change the name of the show . There is someone for everyone , somewhere i believe anyway , so don't say they're Undateables . Makes them sound like Undesireables or something.

RayM

I haven't seen it in a long time, but I vaguely remember the "Un" dropping off the word "Undatables" during the opening titles, thus reinforcing the message that the participants are dateable after all.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Channel 4 just has a habit of giving programmes titles as close to "WATCH THE FREAKS" as it can. The actual content of them isn't nearly as exploitative as stuff you'd find on ITV or other channels though, IMO. They're mostly commercially funded and have, I'd imagine, a remit to draw a certain amount of viewers. Naming programmes in the way they do is and always has been a highly effective strategy. Come to see what the **** a programme with that title is going to be like or to hope to get some cheap laughs at someone's expense, stay for the social conscience and edumacation.

I've seen a few episodes and don't agree with your reading of it at all.

The Backwards Man

Colton Curved Bat wrote: »

Channel 4 just has a habit of giving programmes titles as close to "WATCH THE FREAKS" as it can. The actual content of them isn't nearly as exploitative as stuff you'd find on ITV or other channels though, IMO. They're mostly commercially funded and have, I'd imagine, a remit to draw a certain amount of viewers. Naming programmes in the way they do is and always has been a highly effective strategy. Come to see what the **** a programme with that title is going to be like or to hope to get some cheap laughs at someone's expense, stay for the social conscience and edumacation.

I've seen a few episodes and don't agree with your reading of it at all.

Channel 4 used to be all Carol V and William G Stewart, we used to rush home from school to watch Countdown and 15-1, can you imagine wains going anywhere near that rubbish?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Is Countdown not cool anymore

Dr Crayfish

Maybe the name is a bit harsh but I've seen a good few episodes of it and I find they always make the people in it come across really well. If anything I think it would help people like me who has no experience with people with the disabilities who feature in the program to understand their conditions better

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

The Backwards Man

Colton Curved Bat wrote: »

Is Countdown not cool anymore

I dunno, they put it on on the middle of the day now, used to be great as a justification for Kuwaiting time, now have to wait for Pointless at 5.15

Rented Mule

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Granda didn't have a dodgy box though, that I know of

You should have seen yer Nan's.

Grayson

Widdershins wrote: »

Do they end up with a date at the end of the show?

I've never seen it before so I googled it and this was the first clip that came up.

It's both funny and sweet at the same time. I have no idea if the rest of the show is as nice.

jimbobaloobob

Maybe it just makes you feel awkward OP but i feel this programme has its roots in a good place. The UK is streets ahead when it comes to inclusion within its population. Ireland unfortunately still has trouble with the labeling of these people which in turn stigmatizes them and makes their life so restrictive. Why cant everyone have the right to enjoy dates? and if it allows us to learn how to react around them as an example of someone in their condition then great everyone can benefit. Channel 4 has a history of stepping out there and doing the shows others find edgy, i consider it good social research.

Surreptitious

The one thing I noticed is most of them are actually very beautiful inside and out and that they do meet partners who accept them. I think that it shows hope and is a lovely show.

Omackeral

The name of the show is all about changing perceptions. These people are 'supposedly' undateable from first perceptions or pre judging but then you see just how amazing they are and how they overcome. They're better than me in lots of ways. I love the show. It's based totally on dignity and changing perceptions and is totally at odds with the OP.

somesoldiers

Omackeral wrote: »

Do you actually watch it? It's the most tasteful and respectfully done show ever. There's zero exploitation in it and there's no mocking. It's a great show. Where's the point and stare factor? Non existent. I doubt you watched it. If you did, I'd love you to point out even one instance where anything is played for laughs.

I agree, in fact it gives you an insight into the lives of people and the extra hardships that come with their various disabilities.
I haven't watched this series yet but watched all other years and this is the view I came away with

padd b1975

I've watched it a couple of times.

There really is no reason apart from exploitation for not editing the awkward silences.

Like 99% of modern day reality television, it's just a diluted version of the Victorian freak show.

padd b1975

padd b1975 wrote: »

Like 99% of modern day reality television, it's just a diluted version of the Victorian freak show.

It is. It is akin to looking at Siamese Twins on a circus stage with some saying "...but this gives us an amazing insight into their inner beauty". As comedian Lee Ridley said, they should just be honest and rename it "would you shag a crip". The British Medical Association were right to raise objections to it.

jimbobaloobob

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Why cant everyone have the right to enjoy dates? and if it allows us to learn how to react around them as an example of someone in their condition then great everyone can benefit. Channel 4 has a history of stepping out there and doing the shows others find edgy, i consider it good social research.

Um, you do understand I was making no point whatsoever about the people on it?

Did you seriously think I was contending they have no right to date?

The point I was making is that staring at them doing so, trying to raise ratings on the back of their issues, is rubbernecking and crass.

buckwheat

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, you do understand I was making no point whatsoever about the people on it?

Did you seriously think I was contending they have no right to date?

The point I was making is that staring at them doing so, trying to raise ratings on the back of their issues, is rubbernecking and crass.

People trying to convince themselves that this show is "changing perceptions" and "providing an insight" ffs.

****ed up beyond belief.

razorblunt

I had reservations when it first came out, I then watched it and really enjoyed it. They do a great job at showing the difficulties these people face in life, not just love.
My only gripe is that they often get a lot of mismatches, there's a guy on the current series and I think he's probably one of the nicest, most positive guys I've ever seen. They paired him with a girl who has similar autistic/learning issues (I can't recall which) and massive anxiety issues. He seemed far too outgoing for her. He said he loved her on the last episode after going out for 2 years and she canned him. The poor lad is destroyed.

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

I've never seen it before so I googled it and this was the first clip that came up.

It's both funny and sweet at the same time. I have no idea if the rest of the show is as nice.

Most Youtube links are a waste of time but that was a nice one. Unfortunately, I cannot keep a straight face for long when someone has a Tourettes outburst. I have a friend who worked with someone who had Tourettes. When she was explaining what the job entailed and did an impression of a tourettes outburst, by swinging her fist and swearing, I slid off the chair onto the floor. She gave me a ''you b****'' look.

And I had to pull my car over to calm down when I listened to an interviews with a woman who couldn't stop peppering her sentences with ''F**k'' and ''Biscuit!''.

As long as there's a good outcome for the participants, I think I can ignore the lurid side of it (tv company making money out of them).

murpho999

I can imagine that some people find the show exploitative but having watched it for a few years now I feel it isn’t.

The show genuinely tries to portray what the participants are feeling and experiencing, hence periods of awkward silence. Don’t find it wrong to show how some have difficult times with dating.

Over time and revisits viewers get to know some of them quite well as their story is followed and I don’t think they are mistreated or misrepresented in any way.

The people on this show are often ones who would be ridiculed or laughed at by society and I do think this programme is a genuine attempt to change that.

I myself have learned to understand more about conditions such as Asperger’s or Tourette’s through the show so I think that is a good thing.

AlanG

I dislike most reality shows but I think this is good as it gives people who are marginalized some exposure which they would not get on main stream shows. Things like the clip above and the publicity surrounding the guy on Big brother who had tourrettes are the only real exposure I have had to the condition. As a result of these shows I feel that if I meet someone with the syndrome I will be far less shocked and will handle the situation better than if I had only read about it. I imagine many people are the same.

ibarelycare

buckwheat wrote: »

People trying to convince themselves that this show is "changing perceptions" and "providing an insight" ffs.

It actually does, whether you want to believe it or not. I've watched every season over the years and it's given me a massive insight into the disabilities in question, as well as the people behind the disabilities.

The show is tasteful and doesn't take itself too seriously. It is lighthearted and doesn't portray any of the people on it in a "poor me" way. Nearly every single person who has been on the show has a sense of humour about their disability and doesn't just focus on their struggles. It gives a "human" side to disabilities which previously (to me anyway) were just a word which I understood little about.

One of the "stars" of the Undateables and his mother appeared on TV yesterday to speak about their experience of it. The mother said that she was approached (without her son's knowledge) about appearing on it, and she said no without even consulting him. This is before she'd ever watched it and presumed it would be exploitative. It was two years later that her son actually asked her could he apply that she decided to give it a watch and thought it was "really lovely" and they went ahead and applied.

The show has produced relationships, engagements, marriages and babies. It has given people confidence that they never had before. It has also brought about an increase in people with disabilities actually looking for love, believing that there is someone out there for them. Both those featured in the show, and their family members, have spoken about what a positive experience it has been for them. How can any of that be a bad thing?

murpho999

ibarelycare wrote: »

It actually does, whether you want to believe it or not. I've watched every season over the years and it's given me a massive insight into the disabilities in question, as well as the people behind the disabilities.

The show is tasteful and doesn't take itself too seriously. It is lighthearted and doesn't portray any of the people on it in a "poor me" way. Nearly every single person who has been on the show has a sense of humour about their disability and doesn't just focus on their struggles. It gives a "human" side to disabilities which previously (to me anyway) were just a word which I understood little about.

One of the "stars" of the Undateables and his mother appeared on TV yesterday to speak about their experience of it. The mother said that she was approached (without her son's knowledge) about appearing on it, and she said no without even consulting him. This is before she'd ever watched it and presumed it would be exploitative. It was two years later that her son actually asked her could he apply that she decided to give it a watch and thought it was "really lovely" and they went ahead and applied.

The show has produced relationships, engagements, marriages and babies. It has given people confidence that they never had before. It has also brought about an increase in people with disabilities actually looking for love, believing that there is someone out there for them. Both those featured in the show, and their family members, have spoken about what a positive experience it has been for them. How can any of that be a bad thing?

Just on this, I don't think this is correct. The participants are dating anyway and the events are recorded.

They use various private agencies. I don't think they are dating because of the show or the show is acting as a dating agency.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

How about words like "the most mawkish and exploitative television ever seen"? The worst point and stare programme I can remember, masquerading as faux concern for its victims subjects. Anyone associated with the production of this should be shown the door and told to go drool over photos of road traffic accidents.

To be fair there's more to it than that. I live with do done who worked in a therapeutic role with people with learning disabilities. It's really difficult to explain the dos don'ts of romantic relationships to people with LD. Let alone set up situations where they can meet.

Most people want relationships. Having LD doesn't change that. I used to think that show was exploitative but since then I've seen some of the other dating shows and i think they're all cringey.

Now I see it as the undatables as normalising relationships between people with LD - any of those reality shows have an exploitative side buying this case I think the pros far outweigh the cons.

ibarelycare

murpho999 wrote: »

Just on this, I don't think this is correct. The participants are dating anyway and the events are recorded.

They use various private agencies. I don't think they are dating because of the show or the show is acting as a dating agency.

I could be wrong, but I reckon that a lot of the people featured decide to join these dating agencies BECAUSE of the show. A lot of them are only starting to look for love for the first time, and I believe that the show is a big part of the reason for this.

silvervixen84

I love The Undateables. I find it light-hearted, respectful and charming.

The daters on it are always so open about their disabilities and feelings, and are determined to find love. I really enjoy seeing their home lives and hobbies, and their 'pre-date' rituals. It's refreshing to watch the dates as there are no mind games.

El_Duderino 09

RayM wrote:

I haven't seen it in a long time, but I vaguely remember the "Un" dropping off the word "Undatables" during the opening titles, thus reinforcing the message that the participants are dateable after all.

Yeah I thought that was the point that of the show - they're unusual but not undatable. There are dating agencies for people with LD and there are agencies that specialise in all kinds of unusual circumstances. It's the 21st century and arranged dating services are common.

Is it that beyond the pale that the people in the show should have a dating agency catering to their needs too?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

It is. It is akin to looking at Siamese Twins on a circus stage with some saying "...but this gives us an amazing insight into their inner beauty". As comedian Lee Ridley said, they should just be honest and rename it "would you shag a crip". The British Medical Association were right to raise objections to it.

Nobodys asking you to shag a crip. They're matching crips with people who want to shag crips. And that upsets you or makes you uncomfortable. Why?

Widdershins

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobodys asking you to shag a crip. They're matching crips with people who want to shag crips. And that upsets you or makes you uncomfortable. Why?

Matching them with people who don't care if they're crips. Sorry to interrupt!

murpho999

ibarelycare wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I reckon that a lot of the people featured decide to join these dating agencies BECAUSE of the show. A lot of them are only starting to look for love for the first time, and I believe that the show is a big part of the reason for this.

You could be right in some cases but there are many who have been looking for dates for a long time and been using existing agencies.

Just wanted to make the distinction so that people don't think it's like Blind Dat e or First Dates.

El_Duderino 09

ibarelycare wrote:

I could be wrong, but I reckon that a lot of the people featured decide to join these dating agencies BECAUSE of the show. A lot of them are only starting to look for love for the first time, and I believe that the show is a big part of the reason for this.

That's my understanding. The person who worked with people with LD had to bring it to thr leadership team that her clients wanted to use a dating agency after seeing the show. The board initially said it was out of the question and then they had to think again.

They since have set up criteria to understand the risks and decide which clients are suitable. Some clients wouldn't be suitable but lots of them would be. The show has been very positive for them - the actual category of people involved in the show.

skankkuvhima

Don't we have a television forum for discussing tv shows?

El_Duderino 09

Widdershins wrote:

Matching them with people who don't care if they're crips. Sorry to interrupt!

Sure. Whatever their reasons for getting together and making each other happy. None of our business but if they want to share it with you and me, and other people in situations similar to theirs, then let them at it.

I can't help thinking the OP might see the undatables as being worse than other dating shows because it shows a class of people who shouldn't be shown on TV. Some shows (shows about people on benefits for example) try to show the protagonists failing and being miserable. This show focuses on people doing their best to find happiness. It's the best of those type of shows in my opinion.

Widdershins

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. Whatever their reasons for getting together and making each other happy. None of our business but if they want to share it with you and me, and other people in situations similar to theirs, then let them at it.

I can't help thinking the OP might see the undatables as being worse than other dating shows because it shows a class of people who shouldn't be shown on TV. Some shows (shows about people on benefits for example) try to show the protagonists failing and being miserable. This show focuses on people doing their best to find happiness. It's the best of those type of shows in my opinion.

I just think it's more innocent than people with a fetish for disabled people which is what ''people who want to shag crips'' sounded like, to me.

If I was disabled or had learning difficulties, I'm sure I would find it profoundly depressing to think I'm only ever going to be attractive as someone's weird fetish.
And I think the OP doesn't realise that people can see beyond a disability, or he wouldn't have said what's he has said.

skankkuvhima

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Don't we have a television forum for discussing tv shows?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057588439&page=172

murpho999

Deleted User wrote: »

It is. It is akin to looking at Siamese Twins on a circus stage with some saying "...but this gives us an amazing insight into their inner beauty". As comedian Lee Ridley said, they should just be honest and rename it "would you shag a crip". The British Medical Association were right to raise objections to it.

This is totally wrong.

Firstly how can you criticise the show for exploiting the subjects whilst you call them 'crips' (I realise you are quoting'.

As for the Siamese Twins (conjoined twins nowadays), they were treated badly and people just gawked at them and they were often not their volumtarily or it was their only chance to make a living.

This show is very different as it shows the people's characters, who are all voluntarily on the show and the audience really gets to know them and there experiences. It's very good TV and done with care.

Akrasia

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobodys asking you to shag a crip. They're matching crips with people who want to shag crips. And that upsets you or makes you uncomfortable. Why?

I hope no bloods apply to shag the crips, Their clothes would clash, and it might escalate into a Romeo and Juliet with guns scenario.

El_Duderino 09

Widdershins wrote:

I just think it's more innocent than people with a fetish for disabled people which is what ''people who want to shag crips'' sounded like, to me.

Ah I get you. I was responding to this by conor 74. Rather than object to the use of 'crip'. I just used their language.

Deleted User wrote:

It is. It is akin to looking at Siamese Twins on a circus stage with some saying "...but this gives us an amazing insight into their inner beauty". As comedian Lee Ridley said, they should just be honest and rename it "would you shag a crip".

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Nobodys asking you to shag a crip. They're matching crips with people who want to shag crips. And that upsets you or makes you uncomfortable. Why?

Widdershins wrote:

If I was disabled or had learning difficulties, I'm sure I would find it profoundly depressing to think I'm only ever going to be attractive as someone's weird fetish. And I think the OP doesn't realise that people can see beyond a disability, or he wouldn't have said what's he has said.

That's pretty much my opinion. Let people find love wherever it suits them. The show is normalising relationships between people which is good.

Omackeral

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Don't we have a television forum for discussing tv shows?

Nobody is forcing you to post in here or read this.






Unless they are.... In that case blink twice if you need help.