From the pages of Vogue, where upscale ladies probe the issues of the day:
Is Having a Boyfriend Embarrassing Now?
Specifically,
[R]ecently, there’s been a pronounced shift in the way people showcase their relationships online: far from fully hard-launching romantic partners, straight women are opting for subtler signs – a hand on a steering wheel, clinking glasses at dinner, or the back of someone’s head.
That’s the issues of their day, of course, not necessarily yours.
So, what gives? Are people embarrassed by their boyfriends now? Or is something more complicated going on?
The author of the above, Ms Chanté Joseph, formerly of the Guardian and a stipulator of pronouns, has a theory to share.
To me, it feels like the result of women wanting to straddle two worlds: one where they can receive the social benefits of having a partner, but also not appear so boyfriend-obsessed that they come across as quite culturally loser-ish.
“Quite culturally loser-ish.” I’m guessing the intended readership may be the kinds of ladies whose days are driven by endless niche anxieties regarding in-group status. Of “social benefits” and seeming, as if that were the primary function of an intimate relationship or a lifelong pairing.
“They want the prize and celebration of partnership, but understand the norminess of it,” says Zoé Samudzi, writer and activist.
Writer and activist. Because one can’t just be a writer. Also, norminess. And dear Lord, we can’t have that.
But it’s not all about image.
If you say so, madam.
When I did a callout on Instagram, plenty of women told me that they were, in fact, superstitious. Some feared the “evil eye,” a belief that their happy relationships would spark a jealousy so strong in other people that it could end the relationship.
Ah, the innate loveliness of women. The tender, caring sex.
Others were concerned about their relationship ending, and then being stuck with the posts.
But remember, it’s totally not about image. Just the embarrassment of an Instagram feed cluttered with obsolete boyfriends. Like unfashionable shoes.
On the Delusional Diaries podcast, fronted by two New York-based influencers, Halley and Jaz, they discuss whether having a boyfriend is “lame” now. “Why does having a boyfriend feel Republican?” read a top comment.
One more time:
“Why does having a boyfriend feel Republican?”
I would guess that these are not routine anxieties for regulars of this parish.
In essence, “having a boyfriend typically takes hits on a woman’s aura,” as one commenter claimed… It is now fundamentally uncool to be a boyfriend-girl.
Behold, the social blemish of norminess. Or possibly conservative.
Sophie Milner, a content creator, also experienced people unfollowing her when she shared a romantic relationship. “This summer, a boy took me to Sicily. I posted about it on my subscribers section, and people replied saying things like, ‘please don’t get a boyfriend!’”
Again, the loveliness of women. And then there’s the implication that one might tailor one’s romantic life to the preferences of random strangers on the internet. Dating, or not dating, for likes.
From my conversations, one thing is certain: the script is shifting. Being partnered doesn’t affirm your womanhood anymore; it is no longer considered an achievement, and, if anything, it’s become more of a flex to pronounce yourself single.
Readers will, I suspect, have registered that these agonies seem to bedevil those who inhabit a world of activists, influencers, and self-styled content creators, and in which one has to be mindful of any shifts in the script. Because those other bitches are always watching.
As straight women, we’re confronting something that every other sexuality has had to contend with: a politicization of our identity.
Don’t look at me. I have no idea. Apparently, women are being “forced to re-evaluate our blind allegiance to heterosexuality.”
And as long as we’re openly rethinking and criticizing heteronormativity, “having a boyfriend” will remain a somewhat fragile, or even contentious, concept within public life.
We seem to have veered off a cliff. In a cloud of old gender-studies lecture notes.
This is also happening alongside a wave of women reclaiming and romanticizing their single life. Where being single was once a cautionary tale (you’ll end up a “spinster” with loads of cats), it is now becoming a desirable and coveted status – another nail in the coffin of a centuries-old heterosexual fairy-tale that never really benefited women to begin with.
Never. Not once, you hear.
At which point, readers may be left wondering – among other things – whether the above is an elaborate attempt to rationalise sour grapes, a matter of loudly dismissing that which isn’t easily had. Of, as they say, cope.
Possibly on account of being the kind of women whose world is one of influencers and activists, of Instagram narcissism, and whose preoccupations include denouncing heteronormativity while needlessly stipulating one’s pronouns. The kind of women who fret about whether having a husband or partner, someone to love and be loved by, looks “culturally loser-ish,” or unfashionably “Republican.”
Not the most obvious enticement for a man with other options.
This blog is kept afloat by the tip jar buttons below.
Not wondering at all.
It would seem to fit a genre of article in which unendearing women try to conjure some elaborate social or political explanation for why they’re so often found unendearing.
“The personal is political” has been a leftist battle cry for generations.
That in itself was, to those with eyes to see, sufficient grounds to treat leftists as deadly enemies, such as one would treat rabid dogs.
People who should be inactive, without influence, and unable to create “content“.
“Low maintenance” – compared to an average Kardashian or Marie Antoinette, maybe, and which probably explains her angst.
It’s one of those articles in which almost every other assumption is alien to me.
I’m still trying to imagine being the kind of person who frets about whether coupledom or singledom is the more fashionable “flex.” The kind of person who stresses about how an intimate relationship will seem – say, to strangers on the internet – and whether that relationship denotes norminess and therefore being insufficiently radical. Whether it will look too conservative, too “Republican.”
It strikes me as quite bonkers. A very weird and impractical set of priorities.
And a recipe for misery.
OnlyFans [PG-13]
Again, note the odd framing. As if the most obvious benefit of having an Other Half, someone to love and be loved by, were merely social, a matter of appearance, of seeming. As opposed to emotional, psychological, practical, economic, reproductive, or whatever.
There is an implication among some feminists that heterosexual relationships are inherently patriarchal (penis-in-vagina sex is oppression), and the only “freeing” relationship is lesbian. Therefore, having a boyfriend is conservative. Therefore MAGA. You can learn so much from a little logic.
Relationships that never benefitted women: well. The safest demographic is married women (and in the suburbs). When women have children they discover that being taken care of when very pregnant (i.e., not working) is a very good thing, and even rabid feminists with kids discover that they want to stay home with those kids for quite a few years, some never returning to work. To do this not based on poverty-level welfare requires, you know, a good provider.
When my wife was late-term pregnant and after delivery, I took care of everything: food, laundry, housework. Because husbands are actually useful.
As to social status: you can never please everyone and the endless search for clicks is just neurotic.
“Why does having a boyfriend feel Republican?”
Because being Democrat means having multi-coloured hair, obese, unfuckable and hysterical?
The future belongs to those who show up for it.
Rearranging the dick chairs on the Titanic.
I recently had to deal with interface with some teen and twentyish nieces. The biggest questions they had, of course, were, “why don’t boys ask girls out any more” for the younger ones, and “why won’t men commit” for the older.
I asked them to look at their phones, and search for the phrase “male loneliness epidemic”.
Because of the various algorithms, the searches found the influencers and channels that the girls frequented most often, of course.
There were a few serious discussions about it. The popular Youtuber Shoe On Head, despite her silly name, did a quite serious deep dive into the issue, in a very even handed approach (she criticized men and women equally). But she was the minority. At least 90%, and for many of the girls, 100% of their feeds was filled with videos of women laughing at men, saying there is no male loneliness epidemic, there was only a male loser epidemic, and it’s only guys who make under $100K are under six feet or don’t have six inch [redacted] that are whining about it, and nobody wants them anyway.
Then I asked how many of their brothers would want to ask a woman out after seeing one of those. They all looked embarrassed, which was a good sign, honestly.
Women today have been raised to believe in Schrodinger’s Feminism, where they habitually, almost instinctively disrespect, belittle, and insult men, and then scratch their heads in bewilderment, baffled at why men aren’t courting them and acting like proper gentlemen any more.
Yup, it’s a real head scratcher.
It’s reached the point where, as per the article, women who honestly do want a romantic relationship with a man actually feel compelled to justify it. Nothing says romance more than being ashamed of it and treating it as something that needs to be justified.
See also female hostility towards spousal abuse services for men:
Shelters and counseling should not exist, they think. Partly because they hate men, and partly because admitting the existence of abuse damages their ideology and thus their self-esteem which is built on malice.
This struck me: Sophie Milner, “a boy took me to Sicily”
A “boy”. Uh-huh.
Positively reeks of maturity, don’t it?
All of that.
Plus Cluster B.
“I’m an insufferable narcissist!”
She’s completely telling on herself. As a narcissist, she only values appearances, because she’s as shallow as a sidewalk puddle. Were she to snag a relationship in which “emotional, psychological, practical, economic, reproductive” benefits were available, she’d have no idea how to reap the benefits, assuming she even recognized that they existed.
I can understand not wanting to expose too much of one’s romantic life online anymore, because people are so incredibly nasty about it (especially other women). And yes, not wanting to be saddled with a lot of photos of an ex is a good reason to keep his identity under wraps. It’s like declining to tattoo the loved-one’s name on one’s glutes, lest the breakup make the tattoo untenable.
Somehow, Cluster B women like her are inevitably the writers at these mags, and they infect the rest of the populace with unhealthy ideas and unnecessary neuroses. A well-balanced woman is unlikely to have sharp enough elbows to rise into such echelons.
And thus the condition of our society.
A lot of men seem to feel threatened by this.
Actually not publicizing any open-ended “adult boyfriend” relationships a woman may have entered is a deeply conservative throwback to the century before last.
The only “honorable” relationships between men and women were family ties, casual social friendship, or ENGAGEMENT TO BE MARRIED.
So, if men want to be publicly acknowledged as having any particular importance to women, they need to talk to the Daddy and present the diamond.
If they want to keep their options open, well, at that stage, so do women.
Years ago, I had a Pebble smartwatch, and I was on a number of their tech forums. People passed around links to reviews, as well as tech tips.
I remember one reviewer a big name technical publication that compared it to the Apple Watch. He said that the Pebble had always-on display, which was missing from the Apple, it ran for over a week on a charge, unlike the Apple, it had sleep tracking features which he liked and the Apple didn’t have, etc., etc. He listed something like 8 features the Pebble had over the Apple, and only one or two that the Apple had.
Still, he recommended Apple Watch over the Pebble. Why?
He did because when some of his friends asked him about his watch, and he told them it wasn’t an Apple watch, he “felt judged“, and so he couldn’t really give the Pebble a recommendation.
If your friends are judging you by the watch you wear, they aren’t friends; they’re sycophants.
And if you care about the opinion of people who judge you based on your watch, then you’re the sycophant.
Of course, as in the article above, there’s always the possibility that everyone involved is shallow and sycophantic.
Is there even any battle-of-the-sexes point-scoring glee left for stories such as this, or is it just universally depressing?
When you’re 38 years old you don’t want to be lame. Pair-bonding is so lame. Sharing your life with someone so that they come up organically in the stories you tell about yourself, that would be culturally loser-ish.
In the old days, your father might have asked you when you were 26 what sort of life plans your new boyfriend had and what his intentions were to you given that you’re not a young girl any more. How embarrassing. Tradition and authority putting its weight behind happy lifetime pair-bonding is so Republican.
A 38 year old not wanting to be lame sounds pretty, er, lame.
All this online posting of intimate and semi-intimate personal info seems…unwise: Things spoken in person to one or two people vanish into the ether, while things written online are “forever” and “for everyone”.
I’ve argued with a number of people who showed a predilection for publicly posting endless details of their personal lives (and by extension the lives of those they interacted with.) This seems to be mostly a female thing; guys are generally different.
Now that I’m an old fart and happily married, I find videos of women telling on themselves to be confirming the worst fears expressed by “misogynist” men.
I’ve seen women who openly brag about having multiple men on a string. A woman (yes, I note the data point) who have multiple men for her legal, home repair, and sexual needs. Women who demand dinner for the 1st date and dump the guy for a booty call. Women who define as their love language “acts of service.” Single mothers looking for a man who pointedly say the kids come first.
And then there are the women selling services such as dating coaches, women who clearly are advertising their OF pages, and women (frequently with bad tats and multi-colored hair) freaking out over men and Trump.
I understand that this is not emblematic of the entire gender, although it does make one aware of the time- and money-wasting traps out there. And there are men who are equally toxic and silly (and I was one of them).
I’m just happy I was never a part of that scene.
Instalanche.
[ Fetches clean tablecloths, finally empties ashtray. ]
A few weeks ago, while flicking through YouTube Shorts late one evening, I caught a couple of minutes of a ‘battle of the sexes’ YouTuber – Andrew Wilson, I think – and was briefly hypnotised by the mismatch of worldviews. The utter car crash of non-communication.
It occurred to me that if the show was at all representative of men and women more broadly, the species would likely be extinct within a century or so.
[ Chops lime, pours gin and tonic. ]
First, the demand that a 30 yr old man be already rich is so limiting. Most guys have to work their way up. When I married we had to scrimp and save for a decade, and my wife was realistic about that. But I kept moving up. So a woman should be assessing a young man’s potential (I know harder) rather than his current paycheck. It is also contradictory to expect him to spend lavishly on her and at the same time be a dependable provider.
Second, thinking that your girl friends (or worse, online “friends”) will be helpful in picking a spouse is nuts. I know a young lady who at 26 or so had a boyfriend who was in med school, taller than her, handsome, good with kids, very nice, her parents loved him. But she dumped him because her girlfriends did not like him–of course I think they were jealous so not being helpful to her. She later married a nice guy but not up to the standards of the first one at all.
Third: the put-downs are deadly but are encouraged by all the women’s magazines, feminist bullship, etc. A boyfriend/husband is not perfect. He will have weaknesses, foibles, inability to do certain things. But so do you. Ok, he leaves the toilet seat up, burps, can’t cook. A husband is expected to know about cars, finances, home repairs, yard stuff and take care of those things. What about you? What do you bring to the table? Cooking is so old-fashioned. Cleaning likewise. Handling the social calendar is “emotional labor”? FFS it should be a partnership!
Shades of Scenes From The Class Struggle In Beverly Hills.
Dimming the lights might help.
Make yourself useful. Hide that stain.
No, the other one.
The Holland cloth‘s in my other coat.
David, I resent that you are forcing us to state the painfully, even agonizingly, obvious, through gritted teeth.
If centuries of ancestors followed the advice to repudiate this heterosexual fairy-tale, and the children that result from that social arrangement, they would not have been ancestors at all, and we would not exist.
This is 70 IQ stuff.
It seems there are two possibilities. The first: she’s immature; the second: she’s racist. I’m guessing she’s going with the lesser of two evils.
Steve E:
So you’re saying she’s racist?
Three.
Ephebophile.
Perhaps if you were to replace the word “person” with “woman” — the science says that men never do this — it would be more imaginable, although likely no more comprehensible.
Yes. I’m a yt male so I’m going to be called racist as a matter of course anyway.
Well, there’s always that (I had to look it up), but “the boy” has frequently been used in a condescending tone in literature to either dehumanize a character (Graham Greene did this in Brighton Rock) or make a man look less serious (Louisa May Alcott in Little Women). In keeping with ephebophilia though, it’s often used in a predatory manner by women or a certain age.
Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism.
For them, it is.
As the inestimable Aaron Clarey used to say, “President Boyfriend”. Women disproportionately vote for safety, security and status.
This is my new favourite euphemism.
So women are the presumptive property of their fathers, and can be purchased by a prospective suitor? I mean, I can get behind this but I doubt that’s what you were advocating.
This struck me: Sophie Milner, “a boy took me to Sicily”
Under the vestigial code of male honor/provisioning, if she took him to Sicily, she gets to call him a boy, and if he took her to Sicily, he probably did so thinking that he had done enough to be called a man. And if we pretend for a moment that the rules are reciprocal, if he had publicly mentioned taking a girl to Sicily, would female journalists see that as disrespectful?
I think what Milner wants to express by “boy” is “a person of no significance, a toy”.
But somehow able to organize, and probably fund, a trip to Sicily.