Modern day relationships: what happened to romance?
And what is causing the anti-commitment crisis of younger generations?
The power struggle between men and women has been one of the most contentious ongoing divisions in society for centuries. Many would say that in the modern day we are the most equal we have ever been, but the political gap between men and women is at its most significant gap yet and the ability to maintain long term relationships is dwindling drastically, especially in younger generations. A recent article in the Financial Times stated that in the last six years, ideology differences between the two sexes are now so radically different that Gen Z women are 30% more liberal than men. Previously, ideological differences have always differed by background, location and personal circumstances rather than sex. Now, the divergence has opened up between the political ideologies of the two sexes, and the Financial Times claims that Gen Z is ‘two generations, not one.’ With a belief divide like this, how can the younger generations maintain healthy relationships with the opposite sex?
The lack of ability to develop or maintain long term relationships is often blamed on either the resulting attention spans of dating apps and social media, or the divorce rates of Gen Z’s parents, who broke the record of divorce rates with 52% ultimately ending up divorced. I certainly don’t know anyone in my generation whose parents are still together - and I know that as a result no one I know really believes in marriage or lifelong commitment as a realistic concept, me included. Even when we dare to believe that we might be the exception, there is this background assumption that divorce will come one day in the future. Possibly the prevalence of divorce in our parents’ generation has caused Gen Z to grow up without a stable structure of lifelong love and commitment to look up to and aspire to, leading to cynicism about love and lack of belief in lifelong commitment.
But it would also be very easy to blame it on our parents. This is certainly a factor, but I think - and I don’t predict that this will be a popular opinion - that the more influential factor in the younger generations’ lassaiz-faire attitude to love and relationships is nothing more than the heightened inbuilt laziness and entitlement of Gen Z and the Millenials. The rise of polyamory shows this, and although this is a contentious topic, its rise shows us how attitudes to love have changed, and that our definition of respect towards our own bodies and other people’s bodies has changed. The normalisation of polyamory is partly down to the rise of gender ideologies and sexual ideologies in Gen Z that are framed as sexual liberation, but usually end up still boiling down to the same misogyny as always. I am not entirely against the existence of polyamory; I just have issues with the insinuations behind its push into the mainstream. In one way it is a lifestyle choice which many people enjoy, but on the other hand it has become far too prevalent in the modern day for there not to be other factors at play other than mere preference. Of course the backlash to traditional relationship structures is just one of many routes that feminism and ‘progression’ logically have to go down to some extent, and polyamory is simply one of these unorthodox structures being explored - but Gen Z is well known for its lazy streak, as, according to the Spectator, we are the generation with the lowest employment rates even though we are of working age. We seem to be the most entitled generation to have evolved so far, and this, along with the laziness, is seen in the rise of the extreme left in young people. Polyamory is not necessarily only down to laziness and entitlement, but its push into the mainstream is partly a symptom of this culture.
Polyamory’s increase in popularity is the most obvious way in which romance and commitment are becoming overlooked in modern day relationships, and goes hand-in-hand with Gen Z’s entitled attitude to other people as disposable objects who only exist for their own pleasure. This is of course accentuated by the use of dating apps, where there always seems to be another ‘better’ option, or at least a new option, where now new is always deemed to be better than commitment. It plays into a toxic culture that pushes extreme independence and immature spur-of-the-moment dumping from minimal issues that are usually easily sorted with a conversation, some patience and self-awareness.
We all need a partner by our side as we grow older and it is unnatural to pretend this is not the case, as it is how we are biologically built. But polyamory, or ‘ethical non-monogomy’ is all the rage. It has actually become so widespread that Zendaya and Josh O’Connor are starring in a film called Challengers later this year which explores the story of a throuple. All we have to go on at the moment in terms of its storyline is its trailer, and it looks as though it is aiming to explore the complexity of this dynamic, but the casting of Zendaya - one of the biggest and most recognisable Gen Z sex symbols - and Josh O’ Connor - a rising Hollywood sex symbol - seems to show that the film is aiming to launch the throuple dynamic as something that is highly desirable, and throw something that is traditionally more taboo into the mainstream. Interestingly this fictional throuple includes two men and one woman. Zendaya is cast as the attractive ‘power woman’ who appears to be very much in charge of the dynamic from what we see in the trailer - implying that the film is intended to show polyamory as a feminist concept where women can actually get more for themselves than they can in a partnership, and where a throuple is a desirable and attractive dynamic for women where they can be in charge rather than exploited, as the taboo version of the stereotype can sometimes imply.
Many would argue that polyamory is just normalised cheating. In a world and a generation where people no longer want to take responsibility for their actions and increasingly even believe that they should not have to, polyamory feels like cheating wrapped up in a bow titled ‘sexual preference’ that somehow makes it acceptable. I do not think this is the case in all polyamorous situations, but I think its rise into the mainstream is a symptom of this laziness and lack of responsibility in Gen Z’s attitudes. But let’s be clear - polyamory is in no way a sexual preference. It is a concerted lifestyle choice that genuinely works for some people, but this is a very small group of people in reality. It is only natural to desire only one partner to be fully faithful to and to commit to - and whether this partner is of the same sex or the opposite sex, this is the biological norm and a desire we all realise at some point as we mature. A singular life partner is something that we all need: it is just a case of whether or not we realise it earlier in life, later in life or never at all. Polyamory is a lifestyle choice that is not anything to do with sexual preference or orientation; it is a decision based on lifestyle preference. It is crucial to respect all the varying lifestyle preferences people choose for themselves, but it is important not to confuse polyamory with an actual sexuality - it is simply an open decision to not be faithful and not commit to one person. This lifestyle choice does not make someone suddenly a part of a minority or a discriminated group, as many Gen Zs and Millenials try to argue. It may work for some people, but it is wrong to claim that it is mainstream choice or a natural way to live for an entire lifetime. As humans, at one point or another we all need just one partner to love and devote ourselves to. This is natural, but it is not a fashionable concept anymore. The structure of forming a loving partnership of two people building a life together is quickly being phased out and into an 'old-fashioned’ and unenlightened, over-traditional way of living, while polyamorous lifestyles are becoming regarded as enlightened and empowering, similarly to many other left wing fads which are actually just heavily masked extreme misogyny or laziness. In this case it is a symptom of a society of young people who do not want to work for anything and instead believe they are entitled to everything they want without earning it, and will do everything they can to insist that this is a civil right and that anything to the contrary is oppression. It is a symptom of a generation that has no desire to work for anything or commit to anything, both in the workplace and in their personal relationships. Not many people have any desire to give any love to anything other than themselves anymore - both in their work and in their relationships. It is a symptom of a generation interested in only themselves and short term pleasures.
That being said, it is important to not equate my criticism of polyamory to condemnation of the practice or the people who choose to live in this way. I think that its rise into the mainstream actually boils down to a lot of vulnerability, fear and insecurity that Gen Z seem to have grown up with, leading to generational emotional dysfunction. The ability to commit to just one person for life requires an incredible amount of vulnerability that many people are just not prepared to allow in themselves. Loving one person deeply enough to commit to only them requires compromise, understanding, compassion and sometimes very high levels of tolerance and self-awareness. In a generation that seems to be incredibly scared of emotional vulnerability, these traits are not something that are going to feel doable - therefore polyamory is a structure that sells itself to women as a dynamic in which they are apparently emotionally in control in a way they cannot be when devoting themselves to just one person - even though this added control comes at the cost of never experiencing the incredible love and privilege that lifelong commitment to just one person offers and adds to a life.
But polyamory is not the only symptom of a society moving away from commitment. Dating is a whole different game to what it used to be. In Gen Z it is unusual to not have sex on a first date, and in fact it comes across as a little odd to not do so. The flipside of this is the courting culture of the 50s where dating was viewed as a precursor to marriage, but here women were treated as property and were subservient citizens who once married off, were essentially owned by their husbands and could be legally sectioned or raped by their husbands without argument from anyone. In contrast to this, nowadays we claim to be in a progressive and equal society but often it feels as though men only use the name of equality to openly get away with more blatant disrespect of women and frame it as ‘equality’, almost as a punishment for daring to ask for basic respect and good treatment. Women are legally and technically equal citizens to men now in ways that they never have been, but we are still treated as objects, only in different and more open ways because now it is framed by men as ‘equality’. Now there is no respect for marriage and commitment has been thrown out of the window. Dating is a game where people sleep together until they get bored and flit from relationship to relationship, under the impression that either sleeping around is how you find ‘the one’, or that ‘the one’ is an old-fashioned and outdated idea altogether.
It seems that amid all this confusion and extremity, there is a small amount of people who still value the importance of commitment and dedication within relationships, but according to the Spectator these people are drawing up ‘relationship contracts’ as though they are a parody character of themselves in a cartoon or sitcom. According to the Spectator, people who engage in relationship contracts do so because they want to ‘make it their mission to convince people to take relationships more seriously, ideally with a view to having children’. He writes that currently ‘society strays further from tradition’, therefore a relationship contract is a non-conventional way of reorganising relationships, but I would argue that as the popularity of relationship contracts is a symptom of a society rejecting tradition at every turn, this means that it is actually an effort to enforce comforting traditional structures that are losing the prevalence and security they used to have. In this culture of disposability, there is a valid case for implementing a contract into a relationship. People could benefit from a system being implemented where they ‘choose’ one person and demonstrate their commitment by accepting and acknowledging all of their faults and loving and choosing them anyway. A relationship contract is a solid structure that draws up an unemotional plan where everything is talked about and agreements are made pre-emptively, and where the partnership is reviewed regularly. In a way it seems like an incredibly mature and practical approach to committing to a relationship. But then let’s take a step back and think that over for a second. The reality is that every healthy relationship should operate in this way already without a contract, and if a couple desires to have a legally binding contract involved with their partnership agreement, then this is a marriage. It is a system that already exists. It is just that the concept of marriage is on its way out and is unfashionable, so people are trying to think it up all over again, because it is a structure that is inevitably needed in many long term relationships.
So in all this cultural mess of extreme political ideologies, where on earth is the balance in the middle? As a society we have gone through both ends of the extremes, so if I was being optimistic I would predict some form of ideological balancing out soon, but realistically I do not see this happening next. In a society that is increasingly more secular and people need ideologies and beliefs to turn to, I fear all that is coming next is more extremes. As usually seems to be the case, I fear all that is coming is more misogyny, only wrapped up in another version of the same bow labelled ‘progression’.
Sources and Further Reading:
Would You Sign a Relationship Contract? - The Spectator
Zendaya, Josh O'Connor and Mike Faist get steamy in new trailer - Glamour
Is polyamory the future? - Washington Post
A new global gender divide is emerging - Financial Times
Consider upgrading to a paid subscription to help me fund this publication! If not, consider sharing with your friends below:
Don't beat yourself up too much Mabel, if you can't be harsh, blunt and somewhat angry when you're young then when can you be? I certainly was. With age comes mellowness although I'm not sure that's always a good thing. And you write with maturity, even though you may feel you haven't much experience of life and love. Don't forget experience is valuable at any age and it's sadly something that can't be taught. Us older in years can advise, guide and caution but we can't 'be' those that are younger. The problem with some of us oldies is we try to tell those younger what they should do or even worse what they should think. And if I may paraphrase good old Oscar my depth of experience simply means I've made more mistakes. Life and love are complicated topics but you write of them with coherence and integrity. And you are more than correct when you write of the three wonderful women with whom I've shared much of my life. Once lovers and now dear friends. And though it's now all a long time ago I began my learning from my girlfriends before I left my northeast home. They've cropped up in my writings now and again. The innocence of my first relationship at just fourteen with Diane, my longest girlfriend relationship, at a year, with Susan and then the first girl I believe I felt love for, Barbara - who sadly chucked me for my best friend at school and is still married to him fifty years later. As the Tennyson line goes
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I look forward to your next piece and continuing the conversation... my next piece includes a favourite film of mine. I suspect it will not be a surprise when you discover what it is.
This is a thought-through and thought-provoking piece, Mabel. As one of the 'baby-boomer' generation, I'm probably not too qualified to comment on today's relationships. Especially given that I've been thrice married, I guess I fall into the category of those who see marriage as somewhat disposable.
But I don't. Married at age 19, 28 and 48, I was in love on each occasion and believed that love would last a lifetime. The relationships ended not because of third parties or reasons other than each of my wives, Kym, Veronica and Sarah, and I realised that while we enjoyed our time together, our lives were now following separate paths. In times past, yes, we might have stayed together. Yet, I've seen how that erodes the soul of a relationship, and ultimately, a couple ends up with little care or respect for each other. So, we chose separation and divorce and have succeeded in keeping friendly, respectful and indeed loving relationships. I accept that I, Kym, Veronica and Sarah may be the exception to the rule.
Despite my relationship history, I still see (probably naively) myself as a 'Romantic'. Born in the mid-fifties and long before dating Apps, I, of course, 'courted' girls. As a youngster, I found there were few more nerve-wracking experiences than asking a girl out on a date. I have never seen myself as having a huge male ego, but what I had as a young teenager was somewhat fragile.
I suppose I could blame my mother for seeing that divorce is not a dirty word in that she was a divorced woman. Something that in the late 1940s brought with it a 'reputation'. But she divorced to escape an abusive relationship, so in my book, her reputation was that of a woman who knew her own mind. With a mother like that and a father who still 'courted' her after a couple of decades of marriage, I am fortunate that the two of them spent time to ensure I do not see women as objects. As a male role model, I like to think I've flowed down to my daughters (and granddaughters) not to see themselves as 'objects' and sons (and grandsons) who don't look to objectify in some attempt to massage their egos. If, as you hope, things are to change in society, then it will only come through that approach.
The one thing that worried me is your statement that "we all need a partner our side as we grow older, and it is unnatural to pretend this is not the case". My worry comes from the fact that for the past year or so and now until the end of my life, I will have no partner by my side. It doesn't feel unnatural, but maybe I'm fooling myself. It could be because while Sarah and I are no longer physically or emotionally together, we are as close as always. We message each other every day, speak often and visit each other. We are off to Paris together for a few days in June, not to rekindle something of the past but because we enjoy each other's company as loving friends. Because of that, I feel I have an emotional partner for life, and maybe one needs it as one ages rather than a physical presence.
Anyway, forgive the ramblings of an old man. As I said at the start, you've written a thought-provoking piece that I much enjoyed reading and reflecting upon.