I'm a millennial dating a gen-z girl, and all of her friends are like what you're describing. They're either afraid of dating altogether, or they're commitment-phobic, or they think they have to accept "ethical non-monogamy" or some nonsense. My being a normal, mentally-balanced, employed man who knows what gender he is apparently puts me in the top tier.
Genuinely heartbreaking that an entire generation of women have been gaslit into supporting "ethical non-monogamy", which is just the old Roman-era sexual mores (benefitting only elite men at the expense of all women and the majority of average men) repackaged for the social justice generation.
"Ethical non-monogamy" is the opposite of Roman sexual mores. Monogamy was enforced in law, and it made no exceptions since although the Romans were generally tolerant of foreign religious beliefs throughout the Empire—as long as those with them paid their sacrifices, which Judeo-Christians infamously refused—when it came to monogamy, they would not budge one bit for polygamists or anyone else.
What Romans did lack, at least by the time of men like Julius and Octavian—when Roman culture and civilisation had already suffered centuries of decline, which would continue—was any sense of sexual taboo; nothing was off limits. Augustus famously hated it, condemning publicly the way people had began to avoid marriage and having children, preferring instead to live carefree lives of "wantonness and licentiousness", as he put it; thus he strengthened the laws incentivising both and penalising those who do neither.
By the first century anno domini, fewer and fewer were interested in marriage and children, and those who had children did not care much for raising them and would entrust this duty to their slaves; children were no longer disciplined or taught self-control, and lacked shame and respect.
By the second century anno domini, many couples were childless, according to epitaphs, and women were less willing to have children. Pliny the Younger wrote this was an "era in which the rewards of childlessness make many regard even one child as a burden"; Tacitus wrote of a crowd to one of the games instituted by Nero: "Hence a rank growth of abominations and of all infamy. Never did a more filthy rabble add a worse licentiousness to our long corrupted morals. Even, with virtuous training, purity is not easily upheld; far less amid rivalries in vice could modesty or propriety or any trace of good manners be preserved."
All this in spite of Roman monogamy: beliefs in vice and virtue were exchanged for nihilism and hedonism while marriage, commitment, and children were avoided altogether.
Sort of true, but ... remember there was no ability to regulate conception as we take for granted in the modern world. No birth control. If women were promiscuous or licentious by the old standards... they would get pregnant with regularity... causing crises of paternity and inheritance. So while it DID go on, it was mostly the tippy-top of wealthy classes and even then, probably really not the norm.
Note that it was considered entirely acceptable to take a newborn in this era, and expose them -- leave them outdoors in the cold or where predators would eat them -- as a way to dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Post-birth abortion! and they didn't consider it any more "evil" than your average liberal considers an elective medical abortion today.
They did have a sort of primitive method of actual abortion, but it was probably more likely to kill you via sepsis than to simply eliminate the pregnancy....
Wonderful summation. Where did you get your information? Are you a classics scholar? Or is this mostly from the large tome (I keep meaning to rad) The rise and fall of Rome? Curious, because I love learning (and books) 📚 but don’t always get to read as much as I want. 🥴😁👍
While I don't agree with the current memes about "men think all day about the Roman Empire!" (as if!)... in fact, there is a butt ton of superb historical information about this era... all kinds of artifacts, writings, buildings that have survived... places like Pompeii and Herculaneum.
I've seen some very impressive "recreations" done digitally on YouTube as well...
If you mean Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, do give it a go. It's very readable and still holds up with later findings. He's not as blunt as Emma, nor as insightful about mores, but the key facts are there.
Well-said. What the Romans had was ONE-sided monogamy where men could sleep around all they wanted, but women had to remain faithful to their husbands. And women had zero civil rights, so they could not refuse. Ethical non-monogamy, on the other hand, is mutually agreed for both people to be able to see other people. The difference is like day and night, practically.
What is "ethical non-monogomy"? TikTok is digital opium destroying the youth of the West. A society and citizens that stop taking risk, especially when it comes to love and family formation, is a dying society.
Although I dislike and disagree with "ethical non-monogamy", it is basically an open relationship or marriage where BOTH PARTIES agree they will sleep around, date others but that it won't affect the primary relationship (*so they think).
But maybe there are SOME positive trends...."recently (in a certain kind of feminist journalism) I keep coming across warm-hearted acknowledgements that Masculinity and Femininity are complementary polarities in any sane conception of The Good Life. An acknowledgement that the relationship between a man and a woman has the potential to be the finest fruit that life has to offer. And that when things go wrong, they are often better understood as resulting from a kind of Faustian tango between the sexes than as a simple case of one sex always doing wrong by the other. All just timeless truths and plain common sense you might say - But they are ones that have been conspicuous by their absence in recent times." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance
Yep. And recently an article was even published in mainstream press about a researcher whose work suggests that children from two parent households do better as a general rule, than children from one parent households. I have also personally observed that the stability and commitedness of those homes plays a significant factor, not only in the divorce rates, but also in the functionality of their offspring to form deep attachment, commitment, and communication.
Oh and I sincerely hope you mean you are a "tail-end millennial of 28 or 29, dating an older GenZ woman of 26 or 27".... not a 43 year old dating a 19 year old. I hope.
Yes, Gen-z relationship ethics can be pretty nuts. But it could be they’re so afraid of commitment they try to accept non-commitment from others...or it’s just the internalized misogyny of the sexual revolution taken to its conclusion.
Some perspective, folks! I just saw Freya on Triggernometry and realized how frickin' young she is! maybe 25? so her perspective as a GenZ is very short.
I'm an oldster, so I can say the "relationship ethics" and dating apps come more from millennials than GenZ... fully HALF of all GenZ are still CHILDREN in SCHOOL.
Given I know a lot of millennials, including my kids... I think I can say that their diminished expectations (of things like fidelity or commitment) come from being brutally hurt in a very harsh dating marketplace... "catching feelings" and then be brushed off as just a way station on the career path of a more ambitious partner, one who is all too willing to use others for sex but has a "timeline" that extends out to their late 30s or even 40s to marry or settle down or even COMMIT.
Faced with that, it is more comforting to one's emotions to just not get that vested, and basically "pretend you don't care either".
Given the incredibly high costs of divorce -- disruption to children, careers, savings -- dear god, just the LAWYER FEES... I don't think this happens very often.
If anything, my own divorce (34 years ago) taught me that once you tell married friends that you are divorcing... they back off like you had Ebola Virus AND Covid19 at the same time... TOXIC to their own marriage.
This is especially true towards divorced women, as the married ones fear you will "steal their husband now you are single"....
That's not surprising really. Primates tend to imitate other primates in a group, and much of our psychology, biology, even neurology supports acting this way, even down to the level of mirror neurons.
Ethical non-monogamy is normal dating. Never before recently was exclusive committment expected after only a few dates. The word dating implies seeing other people. Only when you sit down and have "the talk" was exclusivity presumed.
BINGO. "Monogamy by default" is the real problem here, which still seems to exist in theory if not in practice too. Nothing wrong with monogamy per se, but it needs to be a conscious choice, not a default state.
Same goes for that which has been rebranded as "situationships". Like so many other things that have been rebranded, there is literally NOTHING new under the sun.
While I think I agree with the sentiment here i think one major reason why it's in the realm of love that people are most cautious is that the sexual revolution has removed all the safe guards in this space. Many of the the issues described above around relationships are typical trauma responses of women of rape/sexual assault.
It's common for survivors of rape/sexual assault to either fall into promiscuity or to choose to be single perpetually. This doesn't mean this is the correct response long term but it is a natural response to arguably one of the most traumatic things someone can go through.
Similar issues can arise as you mentioned from other traumas such as divorce and also people can be traumatised secondarily by learning of a friend or loved one who has been raped/sexually assaulted.
It seems to me that unless people are able to both face reality after these events as well as find spaces where the threat of them is reduced it won't be likely that people will move beyond them. It should be noted that around 70% of rapes/sexual assaults occur for to people under the age of 17 (https://www.indianaprevention.org/child-abuse-statistics#:~:text=Nearly%2070%25%20of%20all%20reported,victims%20never%20report%20their%20abuse) which means that this is damaging women when they are still very young and often during the early years of their experience of developing romantic relationships. A time historically in which they would have been strongly protected from sexual encounters and therefore reducing their chances of long term sexual trauma and so future difficulties forming romantic relationships
I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from but they're way off. First of all, rates of rape and sexual assault are far lower now than they were 30 or 60 years ago. It's merely that the definition has changed so drastically that it appears otherwise. Most of what is now considered sexual assault was not a crime nor considered a violation 30 years ago. If you use the same definitions they used to, rates of rape are way, way down. Second, 80% of rapes are not in the age range you recited. About 55% of rapes occur between the ages of 18 and 35. So what you're arguing makes no sense when women were far more likely to be sexually assaulted 50 years ago, it just wasn't talked about or reported because of shame and because you literally couldn't be "raped" by a boyfriend or husband, and people would just say it was your fault if it was your boss or uncle or neighbor. Divorce rates are also way down since the 70s and early 80s. So these can't be explanations for risk aversion when a 50 year old today is much more likely to have watched her parents get divorced, and to have been sexually assaulted, than a 20 year old today.
Initially I read them as saying that the behaviour was LIKE that of women who'd been sexually assaulted, not that they necessarily had been. But perhaps I'm wrong.
But whatever their intent with that comment, it's possible for people to exhibit behaviours typically seen in situation X even if they haven't been in situation X. For example, you mention that many things we now consider sexual assault previously weren't considered so - now, does that mean that women previously had trauma but suppressed it, or does it mean that they are now feeling more an amplified response to milder traumas?
Of course, both are possible - but in the context of this essay, the latter would explain a lot of behaviour described.
Similarly with for example divorce. The article mentions 1/3rd of Gen Zers seeing their parents get divorced - but that means 2/3rds see them stay together, so "my parents got divorced" can't explain what the majority are doing - unless the 1/3rd are busily making the other 2/3rd neurotic, "you don't know what it's like omg so awful I'll never get married and you never should either!"
It feels like one of those top-down problems which requires a top-down solution, but the top-down solution feels really grim and authoritarian and we shouldn't have some higher power meddling in intimate human relationships.
I recently met two intelligent young women who have successful careers at BigTech companies, and who were committed to single life. They confirmed that most of their co-workers were similarly disinterested in relationships. They felt that sharing life with someone else carried to many risks, too many disappointments, and if they had children they would have to give up their bodies. A sad, lonely life prospect indeed…
So... they are ok with giving up their bodies and minds to BigTech, slowly losing their health to sedentary lifestyle but they are not ok with doing something, literally, for themselves - having children and loving relationships?? Sad indeed. It's sad that they think they are living for themselves when in fact they are being used up while getting nothing in return. What is the point of a BigTech career when you are not building your future?
I see a lot of women who seem to fear how much work kids could be. Makes me wonder if this comes from the fact that so much of our lives now are too easy. Parenting is a full-contact sport. But the good things in life are never easy.
Admittedly kids are a LOT of work, and even if you have a dedicated partner most families need 2 incomes these days.
But I wonder if the scariest part of having kids isn’t just the fact that it is entering a committed relationship with a dependent person you haven’t met yet.
That’s true, although I don’t think quite as many families actually need double incomes, only they *think* they need that because they aren’t willing to sacrifice certain luxuries.
“Entering a committed relationship with a dependent person you haven’t met yet.” — but why is this scary? I suppose because of the lack of commitment in marriage. Sure, there is no guarantee that your kid will love you and want to be in your life once they are adult, but the odds are in that favor. But again, perhaps this goes back to the prevalence of divorce. Several generations have lived with the idea that a soon as marriage gets hard, you can bail. They realize that you can’t bail on your kids in the same way. So that fear as you say, makes them against having children. Relationships will always hard work. Marriage and children benefit greatly from the commitment, the idea that it’s good to work through and not bail as soon as it gets hard. Plus, why people don’t realize, is that when put into situations like marriage and family where you have relational friction but you can’t bail like you can on friends, with practice, you get better at working through conflict. So it seems a little bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy for these Gen Z’ers. They are afraid of commitment, afraid of rejection, afraid of conflict, but the less they try, the less they have relationships, the harder it becomes for them to learn how to do it in meaningful ways. Very sad.
PSA: the survey mentioned here that found “almost 45% of men aged 18 to 25 have never approached a woman in person.”, was conducted from Twitter from a Twitter account that posts about dating topics usually about men. That guy has been trying to pass off his extremely biased sample surveys as trustworthy, don’t fall for it, it’s not even remotely representative.
Oh, man this makes the survey pretty close to useless, doesn't it? It's almost like standing in front of a library to gather information on what proportion of adults like to read.
Thank you so much for this!! Can you please post the source? We have so much shoddy “research” etc these days because it’s so much easier to do and spread than pre internet days (and for that matter pre tv & radio days😆)
I think a lot of the article resonates and there are lots of good points, but what's ignored is 1) an increase in Gen Z not wanting kids for climate change reasons 2) the cost of having kids, especially when it's increasingly impossible to be able to own a home and 3) not wanting to sacrifice a more comfortable and in-control lifestyle, especially when home labour and raising kids is gendered, with women often doing more of the work when they're in hetero relationships. Also important to note that, especially in our digital media age with young men increasingly being unaware of what a healthy relationship looks like, dating can be a bloody awful time for a young woman.
Most of our ancestors never owned their own homes, they still had kids. My grandparents never owned their own home, and they still had children. Do you really think children are "harmed" in some way if they grow up in an apartment? How about kids who grow up in NYC or other big cities where it is normal to live in apartments?
The "climate change" claim is just a hoax, honestly. Nobody gives up having a family for such obscure political ideals. f
Now, there IS something to the idea that people are lazy... want to control their "lifestyle"... emphasize "fun times" like eating out, trips, sports, hobbies, etc. vs. having children. But I am not sure that is healthy.
Nobody can force you to take on a majority of child raising, but most women OPT INTO THIS, because they can't or won't give up CONTROL... want to be the one the child runs to and depends on. Because otherwise, men can and will do most of the work (beyond breastfeeding!) of caring for children. Women need to DEMAND that their spouses agree to make equal sacrifices, at least after birth -- for example, to take time off their paying jobs to stay home with very young babies.
Also, I think that BOTH young men AND young women have a distorted idea of healthy relationships... grew up in broken homes... depend on social media and dating apps...devolve to stereotypes (all men are "this or that", all women are "this or that")... I am not sure it is 100% men's fault and that all young women truly know what a healthy relationship looks like.
That "intense chemistry" tweet is something else. Sorry, that's not a red flag that's millions of years of evolution screaming at you to fuck like rabbits.
I take a middle course. Lust isn't a red flag, but I don't think it's a green flag either; there's a reason that "women fall for bad boys" is such a prevalent trope in fiction, because it contains a kernel of truth.
It's more like - don't bang someone you don't fancy; but don't jump into bed with him just because you're being led by your hormones. (And yes, I'd apply the same advice to men, with the additional reminder of respecting your partner, because generally the woman has more to lose from these ill-judged encounters than the man.)
Yes, and this is the “dance” that generations of humans have gone through. Trying to learn how to pick better partners is a balancing act between various factors: Lust/sex/attraction/love/romance/values and beliefs/vulnerability/deep connection/communication/valuing and negotiating differences, etc. It’s those “guardrails” others here have mentioned. It’s the dance. 💃 🕺
I’m actually going against the grain here and say they have a point. I’ve seen many people admit they find themselves feeling intense chemistry for people who are clearly bad for them. For long term relationships you are probably better off using logic than fleeting passion.
I wonder if some of this stems from the fact that younger folks want connections but are afraid to admit it? This makes it easier to cancel plans and flex what an introvert you are.
It’s not social media is ruining us, it’s femmes understanding and rejecting basic disrespectful and abusive relationships with men as our only option. It’s us actuality communicating directly with each other, learning together, warning each other with care, so we don’t get ruined by men. Being single or divorced or not dating is not a failure when we understand that being in love with men is far from the only claim we can have for a fulfilling loving and satisfying life.
There are so many risks that can lead to much higher rewards than the one where we risk everything for a man. It’s not risk aversion. It’s us taking smarter risks.
It is TOTALLY risk aversion and you say as much. "Don't get RUINED by men"??? come on. No, being single is not a failure but never taking risks or seeking love IS A FAILURE.
I don't know what made you this bitter, but you should seek spiritual or therapeutic counseling to deal with it.
Women get hurt by men all the time. Whether through manipulation or something much, much worse. Obviously on a greater scale than the other way around. Women need to protect other women. And we are out here taking risks every day and many women are finding themselves used and misled, realizing more and more how much of a waste of time it ultimately is when they can invest that energy into other areas of their lives besides men.
Also, it’s pretty condescending and rude to tell someone they’re bitter & to “seek spiritual and therapeutic help” for having a perspective and experience slightly different from yours. Maybe try opening up your mind and having a bit more compassion for others. :)
As for "used just for sex" well yeah, because sex is valuable resource to give for women, but not for men. Meanwhile women manipulate men to get attention and/or money from them, while giving no sex at all. And I am pretty sure the latter happens much more often.
I definitely believe HUMANS can be hurt by others, hurt in romance & love... cheated on, betrayed, manipulated, etc.
What I do NOT agree with is the idea that it only goes one way... that all women are saintly and all men are dastardly cads, using us and discarding us.
Sorry, but that poster was expressing intense bitterness and rage. They say that "anger like that is like drinking poison and hoping it kills the other person".
Thank god I am not dating today and I've been in a committed relationship for 19 years. I got lucky and found someone who's in it with me thick and thin. Anyway people forget relationships promote growth between two people. Or is that way of thinking old fashioned? I am Gen-X after all
Thankfully I dated during the real sexual revolution. None of us did all the mind fucking going on now. I called guys, asked them out, picked them up, had sex without twisting my brain in a knot and it worked. I wasn't worried about someone rejecting me and yes it hurt but I moved on full force! Hey do this while you have youth on your side for pities sake. Take a chance while your cheeks glow and before menoipause sucks the color off them and you call sex "Sandpaper sex" Get out there already. At my age it's impossible to find love, lust, chemistry. Most importantly in the end find someone who makes you laugh....that's real chemistry and longevity. TAKE A CHANCE
I agree in general, but no... you are not too old to find love in your 50s. Or even beyond! and if sex is painful, there are many treatments -- please talk to your OB-GYN. It should NEVER hurt.
People can and do meet and fall in love, and get married long past their youth... I know many such couples.
How can you tell youngsters to "take a chance", when YOU reject taking any chances?
I think it's also that situationships inevitably hurt women's feelings. But they have to pretend that they don't and that they actually prefer this mode of dating and thus all the "empowering" advice about how not to catch feelings.
I am glad I didn't grow up in your generation. But, it's nice to see someone recognize being afraid of things like talking on the phone is a bit over the top:)
I'm a millennial dating a gen-z girl, and all of her friends are like what you're describing. They're either afraid of dating altogether, or they're commitment-phobic, or they think they have to accept "ethical non-monogamy" or some nonsense. My being a normal, mentally-balanced, employed man who knows what gender he is apparently puts me in the top tier.
Genuinely heartbreaking that an entire generation of women have been gaslit into supporting "ethical non-monogamy", which is just the old Roman-era sexual mores (benefitting only elite men at the expense of all women and the majority of average men) repackaged for the social justice generation.
"Ethical non-monogamy" is the opposite of Roman sexual mores. Monogamy was enforced in law, and it made no exceptions since although the Romans were generally tolerant of foreign religious beliefs throughout the Empire—as long as those with them paid their sacrifices, which Judeo-Christians infamously refused—when it came to monogamy, they would not budge one bit for polygamists or anyone else.
What Romans did lack, at least by the time of men like Julius and Octavian—when Roman culture and civilisation had already suffered centuries of decline, which would continue—was any sense of sexual taboo; nothing was off limits. Augustus famously hated it, condemning publicly the way people had began to avoid marriage and having children, preferring instead to live carefree lives of "wantonness and licentiousness", as he put it; thus he strengthened the laws incentivising both and penalising those who do neither.
By the first century anno domini, fewer and fewer were interested in marriage and children, and those who had children did not care much for raising them and would entrust this duty to their slaves; children were no longer disciplined or taught self-control, and lacked shame and respect.
By the second century anno domini, many couples were childless, according to epitaphs, and women were less willing to have children. Pliny the Younger wrote this was an "era in which the rewards of childlessness make many regard even one child as a burden"; Tacitus wrote of a crowd to one of the games instituted by Nero: "Hence a rank growth of abominations and of all infamy. Never did a more filthy rabble add a worse licentiousness to our long corrupted morals. Even, with virtuous training, purity is not easily upheld; far less amid rivalries in vice could modesty or propriety or any trace of good manners be preserved."
All this in spite of Roman monogamy: beliefs in vice and virtue were exchanged for nihilism and hedonism while marriage, commitment, and children were avoided altogether.
Sort of true, but ... remember there was no ability to regulate conception as we take for granted in the modern world. No birth control. If women were promiscuous or licentious by the old standards... they would get pregnant with regularity... causing crises of paternity and inheritance. So while it DID go on, it was mostly the tippy-top of wealthy classes and even then, probably really not the norm.
Note that it was considered entirely acceptable to take a newborn in this era, and expose them -- leave them outdoors in the cold or where predators would eat them -- as a way to dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Post-birth abortion! and they didn't consider it any more "evil" than your average liberal considers an elective medical abortion today.
They did have a sort of primitive method of actual abortion, but it was probably more likely to kill you via sepsis than to simply eliminate the pregnancy....
Wonderful summation. Where did you get your information? Are you a classics scholar? Or is this mostly from the large tome (I keep meaning to rad) The rise and fall of Rome? Curious, because I love learning (and books) 📚 but don’t always get to read as much as I want. 🥴😁👍
While I don't agree with the current memes about "men think all day about the Roman Empire!" (as if!)... in fact, there is a butt ton of superb historical information about this era... all kinds of artifacts, writings, buildings that have survived... places like Pompeii and Herculaneum.
I've seen some very impressive "recreations" done digitally on YouTube as well...
Read. Not rad. 🙄
If you mean Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, do give it a go. It's very readable and still holds up with later findings. He's not as blunt as Emma, nor as insightful about mores, but the key facts are there.
So the collapse of empires begins with family. No wonder the european world order is in disarray, it just reflects the chaos within societies.
Well-said. What the Romans had was ONE-sided monogamy where men could sleep around all they wanted, but women had to remain faithful to their husbands. And women had zero civil rights, so they could not refuse. Ethical non-monogamy, on the other hand, is mutually agreed for both people to be able to see other people. The difference is like day and night, practically.
What is "ethical non-monogomy"? TikTok is digital opium destroying the youth of the West. A society and citizens that stop taking risk, especially when it comes to love and family formation, is a dying society.
Do Zoomer women even know what a woman is, why men destroying their sports and private spaces is problematic? https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-save-womens-sports-riley-gaines
China wins without ever stepping foot on US soil or firing a shot.
Although I dislike and disagree with "ethical non-monogamy", it is basically an open relationship or marriage where BOTH PARTIES agree they will sleep around, date others but that it won't affect the primary relationship (*so they think).
But maybe there are SOME positive trends...."recently (in a certain kind of feminist journalism) I keep coming across warm-hearted acknowledgements that Masculinity and Femininity are complementary polarities in any sane conception of The Good Life. An acknowledgement that the relationship between a man and a woman has the potential to be the finest fruit that life has to offer. And that when things go wrong, they are often better understood as resulting from a kind of Faustian tango between the sexes than as a simple case of one sex always doing wrong by the other. All just timeless truths and plain common sense you might say - But they are ones that have been conspicuous by their absence in recent times." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance
Yep. And recently an article was even published in mainstream press about a researcher whose work suggests that children from two parent households do better as a general rule, than children from one parent households. I have also personally observed that the stability and commitedness of those homes plays a significant factor, not only in the divorce rates, but also in the functionality of their offspring to form deep attachment, commitment, and communication.
That makes sense
Oh and I sincerely hope you mean you are a "tail-end millennial of 28 or 29, dating an older GenZ woman of 26 or 27".... not a 43 year old dating a 19 year old. I hope.
We have an eight-year age gap
Yes, Gen-z relationship ethics can be pretty nuts. But it could be they’re so afraid of commitment they try to accept non-commitment from others...or it’s just the internalized misogyny of the sexual revolution taken to its conclusion.
Some perspective, folks! I just saw Freya on Triggernometry and realized how frickin' young she is! maybe 25? so her perspective as a GenZ is very short.
I'm an oldster, so I can say the "relationship ethics" and dating apps come more from millennials than GenZ... fully HALF of all GenZ are still CHILDREN in SCHOOL.
Given I know a lot of millennials, including my kids... I think I can say that their diminished expectations (of things like fidelity or commitment) come from being brutally hurt in a very harsh dating marketplace... "catching feelings" and then be brushed off as just a way station on the career path of a more ambitious partner, one who is all too willing to use others for sex but has a "timeline" that extends out to their late 30s or even 40s to marry or settle down or even COMMIT.
Faced with that, it is more comforting to one's emotions to just not get that vested, and basically "pretend you don't care either".
I think it's a combination of both. Could you explain why people get Divorced just because their friends are doing it? that's nuts
Given the incredibly high costs of divorce -- disruption to children, careers, savings -- dear god, just the LAWYER FEES... I don't think this happens very often.
If anything, my own divorce (34 years ago) taught me that once you tell married friends that you are divorcing... they back off like you had Ebola Virus AND Covid19 at the same time... TOXIC to their own marriage.
This is especially true towards divorced women, as the married ones fear you will "steal their husband now you are single"....
I believe it
That's not surprising really. Primates tend to imitate other primates in a group, and much of our psychology, biology, even neurology supports acting this way, even down to the level of mirror neurons.
Ethical non-monogamy is normal dating. Never before recently was exclusive committment expected after only a few dates. The word dating implies seeing other people. Only when you sit down and have "the talk" was exclusivity presumed.
BINGO. "Monogamy by default" is the real problem here, which still seems to exist in theory if not in practice too. Nothing wrong with monogamy per se, but it needs to be a conscious choice, not a default state.
Same goes for that which has been rebranded as "situationships". Like so many other things that have been rebranded, there is literally NOTHING new under the sun.
With a 21 year old daughter myself, I second this.
While I think I agree with the sentiment here i think one major reason why it's in the realm of love that people are most cautious is that the sexual revolution has removed all the safe guards in this space. Many of the the issues described above around relationships are typical trauma responses of women of rape/sexual assault.
It's common for survivors of rape/sexual assault to either fall into promiscuity or to choose to be single perpetually. This doesn't mean this is the correct response long term but it is a natural response to arguably one of the most traumatic things someone can go through.
Similar issues can arise as you mentioned from other traumas such as divorce and also people can be traumatised secondarily by learning of a friend or loved one who has been raped/sexually assaulted.
It seems to me that unless people are able to both face reality after these events as well as find spaces where the threat of them is reduced it won't be likely that people will move beyond them. It should be noted that around 70% of rapes/sexual assaults occur for to people under the age of 17 (https://www.indianaprevention.org/child-abuse-statistics#:~:text=Nearly%2070%25%20of%20all%20reported,victims%20never%20report%20their%20abuse) which means that this is damaging women when they are still very young and often during the early years of their experience of developing romantic relationships. A time historically in which they would have been strongly protected from sexual encounters and therefore reducing their chances of long term sexual trauma and so future difficulties forming romantic relationships
I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from but they're way off. First of all, rates of rape and sexual assault are far lower now than they were 30 or 60 years ago. It's merely that the definition has changed so drastically that it appears otherwise. Most of what is now considered sexual assault was not a crime nor considered a violation 30 years ago. If you use the same definitions they used to, rates of rape are way, way down. Second, 80% of rapes are not in the age range you recited. About 55% of rapes occur between the ages of 18 and 35. So what you're arguing makes no sense when women were far more likely to be sexually assaulted 50 years ago, it just wasn't talked about or reported because of shame and because you literally couldn't be "raped" by a boyfriend or husband, and people would just say it was your fault if it was your boss or uncle or neighbor. Divorce rates are also way down since the 70s and early 80s. So these can't be explanations for risk aversion when a 50 year old today is much more likely to have watched her parents get divorced, and to have been sexually assaulted, than a 20 year old today.
Initially I read them as saying that the behaviour was LIKE that of women who'd been sexually assaulted, not that they necessarily had been. But perhaps I'm wrong.
But whatever their intent with that comment, it's possible for people to exhibit behaviours typically seen in situation X even if they haven't been in situation X. For example, you mention that many things we now consider sexual assault previously weren't considered so - now, does that mean that women previously had trauma but suppressed it, or does it mean that they are now feeling more an amplified response to milder traumas?
Of course, both are possible - but in the context of this essay, the latter would explain a lot of behaviour described.
Similarly with for example divorce. The article mentions 1/3rd of Gen Zers seeing their parents get divorced - but that means 2/3rds see them stay together, so "my parents got divorced" can't explain what the majority are doing - unless the 1/3rd are busily making the other 2/3rd neurotic, "you don't know what it's like omg so awful I'll never get married and you never should either!"
It feels like one of those top-down problems which requires a top-down solution, but the top-down solution feels really grim and authoritarian and we shouldn't have some higher power meddling in intimate human relationships.
I recently met two intelligent young women who have successful careers at BigTech companies, and who were committed to single life. They confirmed that most of their co-workers were similarly disinterested in relationships. They felt that sharing life with someone else carried to many risks, too many disappointments, and if they had children they would have to give up their bodies. A sad, lonely life prospect indeed…
So... they are ok with giving up their bodies and minds to BigTech, slowly losing their health to sedentary lifestyle but they are not ok with doing something, literally, for themselves - having children and loving relationships?? Sad indeed. It's sad that they think they are living for themselves when in fact they are being used up while getting nothing in return. What is the point of a BigTech career when you are not building your future?
I see a lot of women who seem to fear how much work kids could be. Makes me wonder if this comes from the fact that so much of our lives now are too easy. Parenting is a full-contact sport. But the good things in life are never easy.
Admittedly kids are a LOT of work, and even if you have a dedicated partner most families need 2 incomes these days.
But I wonder if the scariest part of having kids isn’t just the fact that it is entering a committed relationship with a dependent person you haven’t met yet.
That’s true, although I don’t think quite as many families actually need double incomes, only they *think* they need that because they aren’t willing to sacrifice certain luxuries.
“Entering a committed relationship with a dependent person you haven’t met yet.” — but why is this scary? I suppose because of the lack of commitment in marriage. Sure, there is no guarantee that your kid will love you and want to be in your life once they are adult, but the odds are in that favor. But again, perhaps this goes back to the prevalence of divorce. Several generations have lived with the idea that a soon as marriage gets hard, you can bail. They realize that you can’t bail on your kids in the same way. So that fear as you say, makes them against having children. Relationships will always hard work. Marriage and children benefit greatly from the commitment, the idea that it’s good to work through and not bail as soon as it gets hard. Plus, why people don’t realize, is that when put into situations like marriage and family where you have relational friction but you can’t bail like you can on friends, with practice, you get better at working through conflict. So it seems a little bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy for these Gen Z’ers. They are afraid of commitment, afraid of rejection, afraid of conflict, but the less they try, the less they have relationships, the harder it becomes for them to learn how to do it in meaningful ways. Very sad.
PSA: the survey mentioned here that found “almost 45% of men aged 18 to 25 have never approached a woman in person.”, was conducted from Twitter from a Twitter account that posts about dating topics usually about men. That guy has been trying to pass off his extremely biased sample surveys as trustworthy, don’t fall for it, it’s not even remotely representative.
Oh, man this makes the survey pretty close to useless, doesn't it? It's almost like standing in front of a library to gather information on what proportion of adults like to read.
Oh good to know. Yeah I thought it was super dodgy that he didn’t mention his research subject source origin in the original post.
Thank you so much for this!! Can you please post the source? We have so much shoddy “research” etc these days because it’s so much easier to do and spread than pre internet days (and for that matter pre tv & radio days😆)
In the blog he published he just said the sample was from “social media” but it was a survey he shared on his Twitter.
https://datepsychology.com/risk-aversion-and-dating/
I think a lot of the article resonates and there are lots of good points, but what's ignored is 1) an increase in Gen Z not wanting kids for climate change reasons 2) the cost of having kids, especially when it's increasingly impossible to be able to own a home and 3) not wanting to sacrifice a more comfortable and in-control lifestyle, especially when home labour and raising kids is gendered, with women often doing more of the work when they're in hetero relationships. Also important to note that, especially in our digital media age with young men increasingly being unaware of what a healthy relationship looks like, dating can be a bloody awful time for a young woman.
Most of our ancestors never owned their own homes, they still had kids. My grandparents never owned their own home, and they still had children. Do you really think children are "harmed" in some way if they grow up in an apartment? How about kids who grow up in NYC or other big cities where it is normal to live in apartments?
The "climate change" claim is just a hoax, honestly. Nobody gives up having a family for such obscure political ideals. f
Now, there IS something to the idea that people are lazy... want to control their "lifestyle"... emphasize "fun times" like eating out, trips, sports, hobbies, etc. vs. having children. But I am not sure that is healthy.
Nobody can force you to take on a majority of child raising, but most women OPT INTO THIS, because they can't or won't give up CONTROL... want to be the one the child runs to and depends on. Because otherwise, men can and will do most of the work (beyond breastfeeding!) of caring for children. Women need to DEMAND that their spouses agree to make equal sacrifices, at least after birth -- for example, to take time off their paying jobs to stay home with very young babies.
Also, I think that BOTH young men AND young women have a distorted idea of healthy relationships... grew up in broken homes... depend on social media and dating apps...devolve to stereotypes (all men are "this or that", all women are "this or that")... I am not sure it is 100% men's fault and that all young women truly know what a healthy relationship looks like.
That "intense chemistry" tweet is something else. Sorry, that's not a red flag that's millions of years of evolution screaming at you to fuck like rabbits.
Great piece!
I take a middle course. Lust isn't a red flag, but I don't think it's a green flag either; there's a reason that "women fall for bad boys" is such a prevalent trope in fiction, because it contains a kernel of truth.
It's more like - don't bang someone you don't fancy; but don't jump into bed with him just because you're being led by your hormones. (And yes, I'd apply the same advice to men, with the additional reminder of respecting your partner, because generally the woman has more to lose from these ill-judged encounters than the man.)
Yes, and this is the “dance” that generations of humans have gone through. Trying to learn how to pick better partners is a balancing act between various factors: Lust/sex/attraction/love/romance/values and beliefs/vulnerability/deep connection/communication/valuing and negotiating differences, etc. It’s those “guardrails” others here have mentioned. It’s the dance. 💃 🕺
The lack of intense chemistry on the other hand is probably a rather big sad colorless flag.
Intensity may be a red flag, but no chemistry is also a flag. More likely, it’s balancing act.
I’m actually going against the grain here and say they have a point. I’ve seen many people admit they find themselves feeling intense chemistry for people who are clearly bad for them. For long term relationships you are probably better off using logic than fleeting passion.
How about balance by using some of both and extremes of neither? 🥴😂
I wonder if some of this stems from the fact that younger folks want connections but are afraid to admit it? This makes it easier to cancel plans and flex what an introvert you are.
the article: 🙌
the comments: 🤢
FOR REAL 😂
I blame porn.
It’s not social media is ruining us, it’s femmes understanding and rejecting basic disrespectful and abusive relationships with men as our only option. It’s us actuality communicating directly with each other, learning together, warning each other with care, so we don’t get ruined by men. Being single or divorced or not dating is not a failure when we understand that being in love with men is far from the only claim we can have for a fulfilling loving and satisfying life.
There are so many risks that can lead to much higher rewards than the one where we risk everything for a man. It’s not risk aversion. It’s us taking smarter risks.
It is TOTALLY risk aversion and you say as much. "Don't get RUINED by men"??? come on. No, being single is not a failure but never taking risks or seeking love IS A FAILURE.
I don't know what made you this bitter, but you should seek spiritual or therapeutic counseling to deal with it.
Women get hurt by men all the time. Whether through manipulation or something much, much worse. Obviously on a greater scale than the other way around. Women need to protect other women. And we are out here taking risks every day and many women are finding themselves used and misled, realizing more and more how much of a waste of time it ultimately is when they can invest that energy into other areas of their lives besides men.
Also, it’s pretty condescending and rude to tell someone they’re bitter & to “seek spiritual and therapeutic help” for having a perspective and experience slightly different from yours. Maybe try opening up your mind and having a bit more compassion for others. :)
>Obviously on a greater scale than the other way around.
Well, "obviously" only for physical harm. But manipulation and all other forms of mental abuse? Women naturally excel at this.
I mean long-term relationships.
As for "used just for sex" well yeah, because sex is valuable resource to give for women, but not for men. Meanwhile women manipulate men to get attention and/or money from them, while giving no sex at all. And I am pretty sure the latter happens much more often.
I definitely believe HUMANS can be hurt by others, hurt in romance & love... cheated on, betrayed, manipulated, etc.
What I do NOT agree with is the idea that it only goes one way... that all women are saintly and all men are dastardly cads, using us and discarding us.
Sorry, but that poster was expressing intense bitterness and rage. They say that "anger like that is like drinking poison and hoping it kills the other person".
What about normal, positive and happy relationships with men? Or you're one of those "kill all men' types?
Thank god I am not dating today and I've been in a committed relationship for 19 years. I got lucky and found someone who's in it with me thick and thin. Anyway people forget relationships promote growth between two people. Or is that way of thinking old fashioned? I am Gen-X after all
Thankfully I dated during the real sexual revolution. None of us did all the mind fucking going on now. I called guys, asked them out, picked them up, had sex without twisting my brain in a knot and it worked. I wasn't worried about someone rejecting me and yes it hurt but I moved on full force! Hey do this while you have youth on your side for pities sake. Take a chance while your cheeks glow and before menoipause sucks the color off them and you call sex "Sandpaper sex" Get out there already. At my age it's impossible to find love, lust, chemistry. Most importantly in the end find someone who makes you laugh....that's real chemistry and longevity. TAKE A CHANCE
I agree in general, but no... you are not too old to find love in your 50s. Or even beyond! and if sex is painful, there are many treatments -- please talk to your OB-GYN. It should NEVER hurt.
People can and do meet and fall in love, and get married long past their youth... I know many such couples.
How can you tell youngsters to "take a chance", when YOU reject taking any chances?
I take lots of chances ;it's just hard to find a partner at this point. I am definitely looking! And I have talked to my ob-gyn about sex..
I think it's also that situationships inevitably hurt women's feelings. But they have to pretend that they don't and that they actually prefer this mode of dating and thus all the "empowering" advice about how not to catch feelings.
We need to bring back the Victorian saying, "Faint heart never won fair lady.
Thank you for writing this! Risk is part of live, of being alive as you say. And uncertainty can be so thrilling! Its not always negative
I am glad I didn't grow up in your generation. But, it's nice to see someone recognize being afraid of things like talking on the phone is a bit over the top:)