Engagement Without Enchantment: How Neurodivergent Couples Are Redesigning the Proposal Ritual with Co-Regulation and Clarity

Monday, May 12, 2025.

The classic marriage proposal—public, spontaneous, dramatic—has long been presented as the pinnacle of romantic intimacy. But for many neurodivergent couples, this model is alienating, overwhelming, and at times, even dysregulating.

The surprise proposal assumes a shared cultural script: one partner plans secretly, the other reacts visibly, and both are judged by how moving the footage turns out on Instagram.

But this ritual relies heavily on emotional spontaneity, sensory tolerance, and social fluency—areas where many neurodivergent partners approach differently.

Dr. Devon Price, autistic psychologist and author of Unmasking Autism, puts it plainly:

“Surprise is a social weapon disguised as delight. It forces an immediate emotional performance before we've had time to process.”

For people with autism, ADHD, or sensory processing differences, the traditional proposal model can feel more like a trap than a testament.

It privileges drama over dialogue and optics over mutual readiness.

So, in quiet corners of the internet and therapy offices alike, neurodiverse couples are reclaiming the engagement ritual on their own terms—deliberate, mutual, sensory-safe, and grounded.

The Rise of Mutual Proposals and Collaborative Commitment

Rather than proposing to someone, many neurodivergent partners now propose with each other. These co-created rituals might involve:

• Joint ring selection over several months

• Written letters exchanged during a standing relationship check-in

• Private, quiet moments in familiar environments (a shared porch, a craft table, a favorite hiking trail)

• Rituals built from special interests (co-designing a game, assembling a model, planting a tree together)

These moments don’t seek a viral climax.

Instead, they honor how neurodivergent couples often thrive: through co-regulation, thoughtful pacing, and a deep respect for emotional processing time.

Why This Approach Works: The Science of Safe Connection

This isn’t just a lifestyle preference. It’s supported by the science of how safety, trust, and connection form in neurodivergent brains.

Co-Regulation and Polyvagal Theory

Stephen Porges’ Polyvagal Theory emphasizes that connection begins in safety—not in adrenaline. When our nervous systems feel safe, we become more socially open, emotionally available, and physiologically receptive to bonding. For many neurodivergent people, safety begins with predictability.

In this framework, a proposal is not a test of spontaneity—it’s a ritualized shift in the relational contract.

To support this shift, neurodivergent couples often co-design the proposal, ensuring that both partners remain in their window of tolerance.

Autonomy-Supportive Rituals

Research by Impett, Muise, and MacDonald (2020) shows that autonomy-supportive relationship behaviors—where both people feel empowered to make decisions collaboratively—predict greater long-term satisfaction.

Quiet, mutual proposals are inherently autonomy-supportive: they allow each partner to process, anticipate, and contribute to the moment without pressure.

Communication, Processing, and Timing

Neurodivergent couples often report different timelines for emotional decision-making. One partner may arrive at clarity quickly, while another needs days or weeks to process what engagement even means to them.

Therapists who work with neurodiverse populations often see that forcing synchronized decision-making leads to masking, confusion, or shutdowns.

As Dr. Damian Milton explains in his theory of the “double empathy problem,” neurotypical partners and neurodivergent partners often misread each other's emotional signals—not due to deficits, but due to mutual misunderstanding.

A surprise proposal, then, can trigger a relational rupture: one partner interprets silence as rejection; the other is simply buffering, overwhelmed, or trying not to cry from sensory overload.

Instead, mutual engagement rituals provide time and space for both people to arrive—not simultaneously, but authentically.

Designing Neurodiverse Engagement Rituals: What Clinicians Should Know

For therapists supporting neurodivergent couples, engagement is not a box to check, but a relational transition that deserves care. Consider the following clinical recommendations:

Normalize Ritual Design
Invite couples to co-create their engagement moment. Frame it as an intentional act, not a one-time performance. Offer a worksheet if helpful.

Support Emotional Asymmetry
Not all partners will process the moment with the same emotional expressiveness. Validate quieter responses. Engagement can look like a nod, a shared glance, or a planned conversation about insurance.

Explore Sensory Context
Work with clients to identify safe sensory environments. Engagements don’t need string quartets. Sometimes they need filtered lighting, comfortable clothes, and no witnesses.

Use Scripts, Visuals, and Shared Language
Some couples use shared calendars, visual timelines, or even spreadsheet tabs to talk about commitment. This isn’t robotic—it’s relational fluency on their own terms.

A Different Kind of Romance

Romance doesn’t have to be chaotic to be meaningful.

In neurodivergent love, understatement is often more honest than spectacle. The shared decision to formalize a commitment can be sacred precisely because it’s mutual, not dramatic.

A quiet proposal isn’t a lack of romance. It’s a form of deep respect—one that recognizes how two very different nervous systems can still choose one another, again and again, with clarity, care, and craft.

As one couple wrote in a joint announcement posted to Reddit:

“We got engaged yesterday. No flash mob. No video. Just waffles, our dog, and a conversation we both knew we were ready to have.”

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press.

Impett, E. A., Muise, A., & MacDonald, G. (2020). Giving, receiving, and resisting support in intimate relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 34, 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.001

Milton, D. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

Porges, S. W. (2017). The pocket guide to the polyvagal theory: The transformative power of feeling safe. W. W. Norton & Company.

Price, D. (2022). Unmasking autism: Discovering the new faces of neurodiversity. Harmony Books.

Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emotion, 13(5), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033839