The Gist of It: In a world where dating is slipperier than ever, your own behavior matters the most.
The Sociology of…Dating: The Why and the What
New month, new theme! Before those of you in coupled-up bliss try to bow out, I promise this is relevant to everyone. (Remember: The courtship never ends! Plus, this is really a two-part series, and next month I’m comin’ for everyone with the Sociology of…Relationships. So don’t get too comfy.) This is a long one, so settle in — or read it in chunks on the Substack app while you kill time waiting for your date to arrive. (Better yet: Use it as your icebreaker convo!)
Ok, so, the Sociology of…Dating. [Big sigh.] Where to begin?
Let’s start by acknowledging just how much annoying, often useless or misleading, dating-related clickbait content is out there. Every attention-hungry person who’s ever been on a date wants to tell you what to do and what not do, how to do it, why everything you’re doing is wrong, explain “how men think” and “how women think,” and issue all sorts of “nevers” and “always” absolute orders. It’s exhausting. And confusing. And can frequently work against you.
There are a few books and experts that I think rise above the noise and are worth your time. I’ll be talking to a few of them here in the coming months: my conversation with Jon Birger of Date-Onomics runs next week (not to be missed; so many insights); Harville Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt of Getting The Love You Want are joining me next month; I also love Esther Perel (though my stalking of her hasn’t worked — yet :). But with these notable exceptions, much of the “dating behavior training content” (cause really, that’s what it is) are formulas with some truth to them, that apply to some people in some contexts. They often fail to account for the multitude of nuances and diversity displayed by humans, and too often they stay stuck, unable and unwilling to admit that changing demographics radically transform behavior (which Jon and I address next week). So you’re left trying to rigidly formulate your behavior to fit the model of some hypothetical characteristics that may or may not resemble you, your desired partner, and the type of relationship you want. Not a great solution, and one that might leave you feeling defeated and second guessing your own connection-oriented instincts — which, while certainly imperfect, are likely better than these “experts” give you credit for.
But just because most of the advice is unqualified, antiquated, and over-simplified doesn’t mean that the topic is unworthy of your time.
Dating is one of the most important things you’ll ever do, and relationships are the most important ingredient of life. Period.
There’s no close second. Statistically, relationships have the most sway over every aspect of our lives, from our health to our happiness to our wealth, and there are oodles of studies to prove this. Once you accept the fact that relationships dictate most things in life, and you realize that dating is the prerequisite for establishing some of the most important relationships in your life, you can then analyze the aforementioned collection of overwhelming information with a different seriousness of purpose. It’s worth your time and effort, even if the whole process is sometimes painful and discouraging.
If you’re in a long-term, committed relationship and that relationship either a) evolved somewhat “easily” and “naturally” or b) you met before the dawn of tech-dominated and -mediated dating — bless you. While you may not fully understand the challenges of modern dating, you do, hopefully, understand why it matters.
For everyone else, you understand this is not your parents’ dating arena. And if you’ve been in the game a minute, it’s highly likely you’re feeling fatigue, cynicism, apathy, anger, or any other number of less-than-warm-and-fuzzy emotions. I get it. Trust me.
The Sociology of…Dating is a topic I not only have decades of experience living, experimenting with, and lecturing about, but it’s been the focal point of much of my recent writing and thinking in anticipation of my soon-to-be-released book, There Is No Ethan: How Three Women Uncovered America’s Biggest Catfish (pre-order now; on shelves June 4). Warning: Don’t let the title fool you; there’s more to it than you think…
Over the next few months, I’ll dive into the Sociology of…Dating, Relationships, and Technology on this Substack. My hope is it will serve not only as a guide for understanding the universality of the experience I share in the book, but also facilitate a conversation for those who have experienced many of the dating and relationship dynamics and complications I outline in it — regardless of where or how long ago you met. It’s a tale of modern human connection, and it’s a topic that affects us all.
The Dating Data
Disclaimer on the “data”: The data in these studies are often pulled from relatively small samples (i.e. 2k people, intended to represent 330 million) so take all of these as approximate estimations and not exact scientific statistics. And don’t forget that self-reported survey responses vs. actual sociological behavior are often two very different things.
But regardless, here are some compelling numbers:
Around half the adult U.S. population is unmarried and around 30 percent are single / unattached. Of those who are single, a quarter say they are not looking for a connection.
Around 80 percent of Americans believe it’s harder to find the right partner than the right job, with around half of the population saying dating is harder now than ten years ago.
Gen Z really hates online dating. (In a 2023 Harris Poll, 44 percent said, “I’d rather clean a toilet than go on another online date.” A suspiciously leading question, but…point taken.)
Most people report caring as much or more about emotional maturity and personality as they do physical looks (or so they say).
Single people feel most stressed about their love lives (shocking, eh?) — with younger daters reporting the most and boomers the least. And online daters are more likely to report feeling anxious / depressed / stressed.
Half of adults under 30 have used a dating app.
Over 75% of people who have dated in the last five years have either ghosted or been ghosted. (Honestly, I’m sure that number is even higher because a lot of ghosters won’t self-report.) And according to Forbes, Rhode Island has the worst ghosting record. WTF Rhode Island??
I could go on, but you get the idea. It’s rough out there. Time to take back a little control and reframe your approach.
The Sociological Hot Take
For this month’s exploration of dating, as well as next month’s deep-dive into relationships, I want to turn to one of my favorite sociologists, Zygmunt Bauman. Much of Bauman’s work rests on the concept of a “liquid society,” in which everything is fluid and impermanent. Basically, we’re slip-sliding all over life, hungry for more / better / different. Things — and people — are made disposable.
It isn’t hard to see how this might apply to our love lives.
On the one hand, “liquid love” (as he calls it; great term) affords us perpetual reinvention, flexibility, and the freedom to explore. But on the other, there’s no safety, no sense of unconditional belonging. Nothing lasts, for better or worse. In a liquid love society, we long to be bond-free, not in fixed relationships. And yet, we still desire togetherness and connection, which is innate to human nature. This results in a lot of internal conflict and external mixed messages: We want to relate, but we’re scared someone might relate to us SO much that they’ll want to connect for good (and long-term, exclusive bonds are threatening to our desire for freedom, the cornerstone of the liquid society).
Think about that in relation to the very word “dating”: Historically, what we’ve traditionally meant by “dating” is “courtship” — the get-to-know-you period of social interaction that precedes some sort of committed relationship. But modern “liquid” dating is made all the more confusing and complicated by the fact that not all dating is “courtship” — that is to say, we want more fluidity, the right to change our mind, to keep our options open, to pursue a never-ending catalogue of partners and discard at-will. Perhaps our desire du jour is physical connection (or what I call “a pleasant time killer”) and not an interaction that builds up to something exclusive or long term. Our romantic whims change with the wind, aided and abetted by technology.
Which means we have a social challenge:
Effective social interaction demands that the “players” understand the rules of the game. If both parties are operating on a different set of rules, each of which leads to a different social and personal outcome, then it’s impossible for the participants to collaborate successfully.
You see where I’m going with this:
How is anyone supposed to know the rules, expectations, and intentions of the strangers they are meeting in a liquid modern dating context, when we are no longer expected to all want the same thing?
I’ve long thought that the broader dating community would benefit from adopting a version of the “handkerchief code” started by the gay community (look it up). For example, perhaps a red handkerchief in the left pocket would mean you’re interested in a committed relationship and would be the pursuer / initiator, whereas in the right pocket it indicates interest in commitment as the more passive receiver. And perhaps a white handkerchief indicates another style of commitment, blue for a sexual style preference, and on and on. But, alas, no such semiotic code exists. And even if it did, when it comes to what one is “looking for” in a dating context, people often don’t know what they want until they find it, and we’re prone to contradiction (we reserve the right to perpetually change our minds in this liquid love society). So there would be a lot of false advertising.
Anyway, I digress. Here’s the bottomline:
There are more options for how we can date and connect romantically than ever before, which on the one hand is liberating and exciting, but (without some equivalent of a dating handkerchief code) almost certainly leads to social chaos and confusion: No one knows what anyone really wants, and therefore the way we choreograph our dating social interactions is ripe for miscommunication and disappointment, in a context in which the stakes are really, really high.
Not to mention the fact that, as many before me have proven, too much choice is not a good thing, and human mating is no exception. It makes us less happy and we’re more prone to not making any choice at all.
Therefore we’re left with a lot of people with the ability to “connect” (via technology) with more people than ever before, for more types of connections than ever before, while working against the confusion from misaligned social cues and petrified by the thought their liquid choices might one day congeal and stick — which leads to fewer people making any definitive choices and thereby finding themselves decidedly less happy.
So, what’s the solution?
Upgrade Your Dating Behavior: Observe + Take Action
First, the bad news: On a societal level, liquid love isn’t going anywhere soon. Sorry.
BUT, I can offer a few social and behavioral tweaks to offset some of the frustrations and empower you to reclaim some agency around your dating life. Bonus: most of these also apply to people in relationships. (I will offer a longer list of more detailed suggestions in a post for paid subscribers later this month, and you can submit questions for my audio advice column here.)
Here are 7 ways to observe + take action to become a happier, more successful dater (liquid love be damned):
Observe actions (rather than listening to words): This is true in most social contexts, but it’s especially pronounced in dating. Articulated words often represent either the individual’s ideal for themselves OR the ideal/expectation they believe would be most appealing to a dating prospect. When words and actions are misaligned, it is not always due to malicious intent. Sometimes we just fail to live up to our own ideals. So align your actions with their behavior, not their words. This will give you the most accurate and predictable understanding of who they are in this moment, not their aspirational self.
Be consistent: As I mentioned, effective social exchanges depend on predictable rules and responses. Of course humans are fickle creatures and we’re allowed to change our minds, but that requires communication (see below). Make a point of behaving in a consistent way in your dating exchanges. This gives your dating partners a better chance of success (i.e. connecting with you) because they will better understand the rules of engagement and what they can expect when they comply. Everyone wins.
Swear off games: I know this sounds like typical dating advice, but what do we mean here? Commit to transparency and honesty in how you play your role in the exchange. For instance, are you actually available when they initiate a date, but you feel like you need to say you aren’t? Don’t do that. If someone is always treating you like an afterthought, then behave accordingly and decide to spend time with someone (possibly yourself) who is prioritizing you. But making up false plans to seem more attractive only undermines any possible connection. Know this: the minute you start playing games is the minute you start losing the game. Because in relationships, when one person loses, both people lose.
Understand and respect the communication hierarchy: This is a big one! Now that the majority of dating-related (and all) communication happens via text, we must create rules for ourselves around how we will utilize the technology to our social advantage, and therefore to the advantage of the relationship. Text is the lowest possible form of communication - it’s the bottom-feeder of human interaction. I’m not saying don’t do it, but just understand its limitations and liabilities. That means abandon text immediately the minute there is any element of friction or misunderstanding. Leave a voice note, CALL the person (yes, phone calls are very, very underrated), Facetime them, or set a time to meet in person ASAP. Our interactions cannot be successful if they are misunderstood, and this hierarchy illustrates the risk-level for misrepresenting your intentions / needs / desires. Consider yourself warned and calibrate your communication accordingly.
Vow to never ghost + always call-out ghosters: There’s not much to say here: if someone ghosts, you should almost certainly eliminate them from your life without exception. It’s cowardly, disrespectful, immature, and just incredibly pathetic. You don’t want or need that in your life. But what if something crazy happened? Ok, then you’ll know if what they claim is real based on their actions for repair. (Did they apologize, making it clear their failure to communicate was due to truly extraordinary circumstances and not laziness/disrespect, and also make a firm plan to meet again? Then maybe you reconsider.) The quality of our social engagement as a society only improves if we hold each other accountable. So I encourage you to be brave enough to succinctly call out your ghosts: perhaps you wait a day, but sending a one-line text acknowledging their behavior in a very sober, unemotional way that simply lets them know you see and don’t appreciate their behavior can leave a lasting impression. Long-winded rants don’t pack the same punch. Less is more, but when it comes to ghosting, silence is not golden.
Be bold: This applies to both men and women. In an age where most people hide behind screens, daring to ask someone out or to express your interest verbally feels courageous. You can compensate for a lot that you may lack physically with this type of modern courage. And the boldness should continue after you connect. Did you mess up? Maybe you flaked or said something that drove a wedge, but you’re still interested. Let them know. Did they seem dismissive at first? Can you blame them? Keep trying. I’m NOT telling you to harass someone — sometimes there truly is no coming back. But persistent, respectful, genuine effort, accompanied by accountability, will often warm someone to you. Remember: effort is attractive and its looks never fade.
Have fun: I know, this one might seem either obvious or silly, but do you know how many people approach dating and romance from either a perfunctory stance or a place of downright disdain? Dating is not a job interview and it shouldn’t be torture. Even when it’s bad, it can also often be fun(ny). Regardless of whether you think you’ll never see the person again or might ride off into the sunset together, vow to have the most fun possible on every date you go on. Activities — going for a run, seeing a band, singing karaoke, looking at art, admiring nature — are going to be far more likely to create an atmosphere of fun than simply having drinks or (my least favorite) “getting a coffee.” (Sparks do NOT fly in Starbucks, I’m sorry.) And when in doubt or on a budget, go full-meta Sociology of…Everything and sit somewhere with heavy foot traffic and suggest that you watch people together. (Just tell them I told you to do it and talk about how weird I am….) Make this your new mantra: The date is a win if I have fun, not just if I marry them.
Does this bring up some questions for you? I want to hear them! I’ll answer them in my audio advice column in two weeks.
Sociology of…Dating resources and inspiration
Suggested reading:
Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Love: I’ll be analyzing more from this text next month when we discuss relationships, so your efforts will not be wasted!
Carolina Bandinelli and Alessandro Gandini, “Dating apps: The Uncertainty of Marketized Love”: a look at how you brand and market yourself on dating apps — a perfect manifestation of the liquid love concept and one Jon and I discuss.
Jon Birger, Dateonomics: This is one of the best explanations of current dating dynamics and behavior, all of which is affected by very real shifts in culture and demographics. Jon explains how and what you can do about it. BONUS: I’ll be in conversation with Jon next week!
What to watch: Of course I would be remiss not to put When Harry Met Sally on this list, and there are too many incredible romantic comedies and courtship movies to name. But the best romance movie of all time will never not be Dirty Dancing, and I’ll fight you to the death on that. (It also has the best final scene of all time and the best soundtrack.) Now, Men, before you roll your eyes, remember: Gosling gets it. (And are you better than Gosling??) So, if all else fails, just invite a woman to watch Dirty Dancing. The lift is optional.
For your listening pleasure: I’ve got a whole playlist of dating anthems (happy, sad, and everything in between) coming at you later this month (please submit your anthems for inclusion now!)
What are your behavioral best practices for dating? What works? What hasn’t? Do you agree with Bauman and his concept of liquid love? What social dating dynamics have you observed? Where do you find dating inspiration? How do you still “date” your partner? What’s your dating anthem? Tell me in the comments! And don’t forget to submit your questions on dating AND Ask Me Anything.
Do you know someone who’s been in the dating trenches and could benefit from upping their Sociology of…Dating game? Are you looking to spark an interesting conversation with someone? Share this post.