Getting ghosted used to be the worst thing that could happen after a decent first date. The bar has dropped since then.
And dating wasn’t exactly going great to begin with. A 2023 Pew Research Center report found that 46% of Americans who had used dating apps or websites described their experiences as negative. Between people disappearing without explanation and others keeping you interested with absolutely no intention of dating you, it’s easy to see why. Here are six dating behaviors you might recognize, even if you’ve never heard their ridiculous names.
1. Breadcrumbing
A breadcrumber gives you just enough attention to keep you interested, usually a random “hey stranger” or an Instagram like at a questionable hour, without ever making actual plans.
In a study of 626 adults, researchers found that people who’d been breadcrumbed reported greater loneliness and lower life satisfaction. Ghosting, meanwhile, had no statistically significant association with those outcomes. At least when someone disappears, you eventually stop expecting a text.
2. Monkey Branching
Monkey branching is when someone starts pursuing their next relationship before ending the one they’re already in. They want another person lined up before breaking things off, presumably because spending a few Friday nights by themselves is simply too much to ask.
Dyllan Watkins, a Neuroscience BSc holder, in collaboration with poly dating platform Sister Wives, told Body+Soul that this behavior “could stem from an insecurity around trust or fear of abandonment.” Unfortunately, the person they’re currently dating gets to deal with the consequences.
3. Phubbing
Phubbing is short for phone snubbing, and it’s when someone scrolls through their phone while you’re attempting to have a conversation.
Baylor University researcher James Roberts found that people who experienced more phubbing from their partners reported greater conflict and lower relationship satisfaction. It’s hard to feel appreciated when you’re competing with someone’s Instagram feed or fantasy football league.
4. Floodlighting
Floodlighting is when someone unloads deeply personal information before you’ve had hardly any time to get to know each other. You’re 20 minutes into a first date and already know all about their childhood trauma and the ex who ruined their life.
Brené Brown has described this behavior as a way of protecting yourself from vulnerability. If the other person backs away, the floodlighter can convince themselves that opening up was a mistake.
5. Orbiting
Orbiting is when someone stops texting you but continues watching everything you post on social media. They might even like a photo once in a while. You haven’t had an actual conversation in weeks, but they’re still keeping up with your life on Instagram.
6. Cloaking
Cloaking takes ghosting a step further. Someone you’ve been talking to or dating disappears and blocks you everywhere, including the dating app where you originally matched. They’ve cut off every possible way to contact them, leaving you with no explanation and no opportunity to even ask what happened.
It’s pretty incredible how much effort some people will put into avoiding a conversation that could be over in two minutes.
The neck doesn’t get much credit as a sexy body part. It probably should.
Men on Reddit have been discussing this for years. In an r/AskMen thread, guys admitted there’s something incredibly attractive about a woman putting her hair up or sweeping it over one shoulder to expose her neck. One called the move “so f***ing attractive,” while another described the neck as “a really intimate spot on the body.” A third guy said he liked it because it’s “right above the boobs.” Okay, Beavis.
There’s some research to back up the neck’s reputation as an erogenous zone. Bangor University neuroscientist Oliver Turnbull and his colleagues asked nearly 800 people to rate 41 body areas according to how sexually stimulating they found them. The neck ranked near the top, with women rating it slightly higher than men. Feet didn’t get much love.
Men Say This Overlooked Female Body Part Is Incredibly Attractive
Turnbull was interested in why certain places feel good when touched sexually, while others…not so much. After all, your neck and forehead both contain sensory receptors, but most people would probably prefer a kiss on the neck.
There’s also something intimate about letting another person get that close. “Letting someone touch the neck is a major act of trust, so, understandably, some people hate it,” sex and relationship therapist Cate Campbell told Metro. Some people love having their neck kissed, while others would prefer their partner keep their mouth elsewhere.
And there’s an important difference between kissing someone’s neck and putting pressure on it. Sexual choking has become increasingly common, especially among younger adults, and Indiana University sex researcher Debby Herbenick has spent years studying the risks.
“There is truly no safe way to choke someone,” she told Savage Love. Even relatively light pressure can restrict blood flow to the brain, with potentially serious consequences. Her research has also raised concerns about people experiencing choking during otherwise consensual sex without being asked first.
If you happen to find someone’s neck incredibly attractive, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to give it some attention. Just make sure they’re interested in that attention, too. And keep your hands away from their throat.
True crime fans know all about the love letters Ted Bundy received while sitting in prison. It’s a bizarre piece of history, especially considering the man was responsible for murdering numerous young women. And somehow, he still had women lining up to date him.
Bundy even married Carole Ann Boone during his murder trial. But forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland told HuffPost that these women aren’t necessarily attracted to the crimes themselves. For some, a man serving a life sentence can be “the perfect boyfriend”—after all, you know exactly where he is at all times.
The fascination with Bundy got University of São Paulo researcher Katharina da Silva wondering what draws people to partners with less-than-lovely personalities. Is there something about certain people that makes narcissism or manipulation attractive, even when everyone else can see the warning signs? To investigate, she and her colleagues surveyed 400 Brazilian adults for a study examining personality traits and romantic preferences.
Scientists Found Something Interesting About People Who Date Manipulative Partners
Participants answered questions about their own levels of narcissism, manipulation, and psychopathy, collectively known as the Dark Triad. They also rated how attractive they found those qualities in a potential partner. According to PsyPost, people who scored higher in these traits were generally more interested in dating someone similar. Narcissists preferred narcissists, and manipulators were drawn to other manipulators.
The researchers also asked participants to rate hypothetical partners on a scale of 1 to 7, and the difference was quite substantial. A kind, considerate person scored nearly 6, while someone described as calculating and willing to do whatever it takes scored about 2.4. Add a history of physical assault, and that number dropped to 1.5.
And money couldn’t save them either. Neither could fame or being ridiculously good-looking. Even when researchers gave the violent hypothetical partner a fortune, celebrity status or an attractive appearance, people still weren’t interested. Da Silva suspects the assault was enough to put people off, regardless of the other qualities.
“Prosociality still remains a far more desirable trait in the context of mate choice,” she told PsyPost.
There are limitations, of course. The partners were fictional descriptions without photos, and the participants were mostly educated adults recruited online. Since every hypothetical partner with appealing qualities also had a history of violence, the researchers couldn’t determine how people might respond to a wealthy, attractive manipulator without an assault charge.
So if a friend’s exes all seem cut from the same cloth, the common thread might be the friend.
Ghosting has no winners. The person left on read spends weeks replaying every text, wondering what the hell happened. And according to new research, the person who disappeared might not feel so great about their decision, either.
Researchers from the University of Cambridge and the University of California conducted three studies for a paper. They examined people’s past experiences, hypothetical situations, and live online conversations. Their finding? “People who are ghosted underestimate how bad their conversation partners feel about ghosting them,” the authors wrote.
People who ghosted reported feeling guilty afterward, and previous research has associated ghosting with depressive symptoms. Interestingly, the guilt was worse when the ghosting happened accidentally. Maybe you forgot to respond to someone, and by the time you remembered, too much time had passed to reply without feeling awkward. So you just…never did.
Of course, feeling guilty doesn’t help the person on the receiving end. Psychologist Jennice Vilhauer wrote in Psychology Today that ghosting “creates the ultimate scenario of ambiguity,” leaving people wondering whether to worry about someone or accept the relationship is over.
Ghosting Isn’t Just Painful for the Person Left Behind, Scientists Say
Some people are also more inclined to ghost than others. A study led by psychologist Gili Freedman found that people who believe relationships are either destined to work or doomed from the beginning were 31.8% more likely to have ghosted someone. So I guess believing in soulmates can make ignoring someone’s texts a little easier.
The Cambridge researchers found that even a short message, something as basic as “sorry, can’t talk,” helped reduce the misunderstanding. A few words could spare both people unnecessary anguish.
Personally, I think ghosting is a cop-out. You can call it “protecting your peace,” and sometimes that might be true. But if you’re ghosting someone you once had a solid relationship with, I’m sorry, but it’s selfish. It’s just an excuse to avoid a hard or uncomfortable conversation.
I’ve been ghosted by someone I thought would be in my life forever (a friend, not a romantic partner), and I would have much preferred they tell me to “f*ck off” to my face than disappear without a conversation. At least I’d have known where we stood. To this day, thinking about this person is incredibly painful because I have no idea what really happened.
Feeling guilty afterward is fine, I guess. Actually having the conversation would be better.
Being single past 30 comes with a standard set of questions from aunts and coworkers, usually some version of “Are you seeing anyone?” No one ever asks if you’re actually happy.
Researchers at the University of Toronto did. Lead author Elaine Hoan and her team examined 11 years of data on 2,930 never-married Germans for a study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Participants entered the study around ages 18, 26, or 36 and had to report being single at every annual survey to qualify.
Roughly 90% maintained relatively high life satisfaction throughout the study. “Singles’ overall satisfaction with their lives remained remarkably robust,” Hoan told PsyPost. Earlier research using the same data had suggested long-term singles became less satisfied as they aged, partly because it lumped everyone into one average.
Researchers Found That Long-Term Singles Are Happier Than You Might Think
Of course, being happy with your life doesn’t mean you’re thrilled about your dating prospects. About two-thirds of the youngest participants enjoyed being single, while older participants were less enthusiastic. Sexual satisfaction varied, as well. People with higher education levels were more likely to fall into the least sexually satisfied groups. Researchers suggested that demanding academic pursuits could leave less time for sex. So, there’s another thing that isn’t mentioned when you sign up for grad school.
Most participants also expressed moderate to high interest in finding a partner. They could enjoy their lives and still want someone to share them with. The happiest singles generally scored lower in neuroticism and higher in extraversion.
The numbers aren’t much different in the U.S. A 2023 report found that 57% of single adults had no interest in dating or finding a relationship. Single men were more likely to be looking than single women. And when Pew asked singles who weren’t dating why, 72% said they enjoyed being single. That’s a lot of people who are perfectly happy spending their weekends however they damn well please.
Still, people have a hard time believing someone could be happy without a partner. Psychologist Bella DePaulo, author of Single at Heart, has studied this skepticism by asking participants to judge otherwise identical descriptions of single and married people. Even when the single person described a happy life, readers were less inclined to believe it. “If you are already happy, don’t expect marriage to make you even happier,” she wrote in Singled Out, as reported by The Christian Science Monitor.
At the next holiday dinner, “I’m good, thanks” should cover it. Assuming anyone believes you.
TikTok has yet another dating theory people treat like gospel: the 3-6-9 dating rule. This concept breaks the first nine months of dating into three stages, with only the strongest couples surviving…
What Is the 3-6-9 Dating Rule?
According to Susan Trombetti, matchmaker and CEO of Exclusive Matchmaking, the 3-6-9 dating rule is not a new concept, but it is gaining traction for its catchy name. The theory proposes the following three important stages of dating within the first year of a relationship:
0-3 Months: Honeymoon Phase
According to the 3-6-9 dating rule, a couple will remain in the honeymoon phase for the first three months of their relationship.
“The honeymoon phase is when everything is perfect, you get butterflies when you talk to this person, and nothing seems to be wrong,” Trombetti says.
3-6 Months: Conflict Stage
The 3-6-9 dating rule suggests the honeymoon phase ends after three months, starting the conflict stage. You might start to take your partner off a pedestal and acknowledge their humanness—and vice versa. This can reveal minor annoyances and potential incompatibilities. No relationship is perfect, and you’ll have arguments from time to time. But if you can learn to navigate conflict as a unit, you’ll likely survive this phase.
“The conflict stage is when you most likely will have an actual disagreement on something. Think of this as your first real fight,” Trombetti states. “This will show the other person how you communicate during conflict and how you will resolve it.”
6-9 Months: Long-Term Decision-Making Phase
By months 6-9, you should be assessing your long-term compatibility with your partner. If you have doubts, you might decide against wasting more time.
“Then the long-term decision-making stage is when you are actually deciding: Is this my person? Do I really see myself with them forever?” Trombetti explains. “This is when you start to really know if they are potentially the ‘one’ and worth pouring your time and heart into.”
Is the 3-6-9 Rule Credible?
According to Trombetti, the timing of the 3-6-9 rule does seem natural. However, she typically recommends waiting for three months before actually committing to someone, which she notes could delay the honeymoon phase.
“I do agree we typically see around 3 months to 6 months of larger conflict, and that really does show you a lot about the person,” she adds. “For 6-9 months, yes, you should know if you want to pursue someone long term, but this could happen earlier potentially if you knew the person prior or are working with someone like a matchmaker/dating coach. Timelines are relative depending on the work you have done on yourself. “
While this dating rule works in many relationships, it shouldn’t be treated as the end-all, be-all of dating advice.
“I would suggest using the timeline to your advantage as more of a check-in point for yourself,” Trombetti recommends. “For instance, I really like the 6-9 months time frame because at that stage you should start to really know if this is something you want to pursue long term. I am not saying get married right there and then, but I am saying it is a good time to recognize: Are there any red flags? Do I want this? And if you are not sure, that might be your answer right there.”
Dating profiles can be generous with the truth. The guy who’s “always up for an adventure” could be going home to a mattress on the floor and a fridge with nothing in it but mustard and one Coors Light. You can learn a lot about a person once you see where they live, and sometimes you wish you hadn’t.
Matchmaking service Tawkify surveyed 500 single Americans over 40 to find out how much a date’s home affects attraction. Half admitted they’d lost interest after seeing where a potential partner lived. Women were quicker to change their minds, at 55% compared with 42% of men. And 13% said they’d formed an opinion within seconds of walking through the door.
In fact, 57% of respondents said they’d discovered something at a person’s home that turned them off after having missed it during previous dates. Unpacked moving boxes bothered 56%, followed by an empty fridge at 48% and dirty dishes at 42%. Another 36% weren’t thrilled by homes with zero personal touches. By your 40s, it’s probably time to have something on the walls besides the thermostat.
These Household Red Flags Could Make Someone Lose Interest in You
The bathroom was a major deciding factor. A clean one with an actual hand towel was the strongest second-date signal, according to 60% of respondents. One woman told Elite Daily that a filthy bathroom would be enough to put her off spending the night. Which seems completely understandable to me.
Another woman on Reddit described visiting a man’s house and finding a bathroom that “was visibly dirty and didn’t have any toilet paper, soap, or towels.” She ended up ghosting him and felt bad about it. Although I’m curious what he expected guests to do after using the toilet.
Living arrangements also came under scrutiny. The survey found that 41% considered living with parents a red flag. Having adult children or roommates at home bothered 21% each.
People did start to get a little ridiculous when it came to judging size. Another 41% said a one-bedroom, one-bathroom home was a turnoff for anybody over 40. Considering mortgage interest rates and the cost of rent these days, that seems very unfair.
Fortunately, the bar for impressing a date doesn’t involve owning a mansion. About 68% of respondents assumed a person with a well-kept home had their life together. Warm, traditional interiors appealed to 71%, with natural and neutral styles close behind at 69%. Industrial decor came in last at 49%. Sorry to anyone who spent a fortune making their apartment look like a new brewery.
Of course, if someone does have money, it doesn’t guarantee a pleasant visit. One woman in an AskReddit discussion recalled visiting a date’s gorgeous apartment in an expensive neighborhood, only to discover it was filthy.
A date-ready home costs about as much as a nice dinner out. Buy a decent hand towel and put something in the fridge besides condiments. Whoever comes over is going to look around, so make sure the bathroom passes inspection—aka, have toilet paper.
Everybody in a long relationship has had the studio-apartment fantasy. Your own little place, where no one leaves wet towels on the bed, and the only person snoring is you. Maybe you’ve even thought about what furniture you’d buy. Having those thoughts doesn’t necessarily mean you’re ready to get divorced.
Researchers surveyed 3,000 married Americans between 25 and 50 and found that a quarter had thought about divorce in the previous six months. Another 28% had at some point considered their marriage was in serious trouble, although those concerns weren’t recent. Researchers also identified a group they called “soft thinkers,” people who considered divorce without making serious plans to leave.
When the researchers checked back a year later, 31% of those who’d initially considered divorce no longer thought about it. Some had even forgotten they’d thought about it at all. During follow-up interviews, several participants looked at their earlier responses and asked, “I put that down?”
Scientists Found That Thinking About Divorce Might Actually Be Good for Your Marriage
Study author Alan Hawkins has said that “thoughts about divorce can be a healthy wake-up call to work on a marriage.” Sometimes it takes seriously imagining a life without your partner to admit just how unhappy you’ve become with certain things.
You can also love somebody and be unhappy living with them. A study of 993 people found that love was the most common reason people wanted to stay, while dissatisfaction was among the leading reasons they thought about leaving. Many participants experienced both feelings at once.
There’s a difference between fantasizing about living alone after a weekend of arguing and wishing your partner would go away even when everything seems fine. If thoughts of the latter keep coming back, there’s probably a reason.
Sometimes you start thinking about leaving because you’ve been asking for the same things for years. More help around the house, more affection, or even a small sign that your partner is listening. If those things finally changed, would you still want out?
Whatever you discover, “I’ve been thinking about divorce” probably shouldn’t be the first thing you say during your next argument. You’re more likely to have a productive conversation going if you talk about what’s making you unhappy when neither of you is furious. If your relationship involves abuse or coercive control, confidential support and a safety plan are more important than confronting your partner.
There’s no need to panic every time the thought of living alone sounds appealing. But if you’ve mentally moved out a hundred times already, there’s probably a conversation you’ve been putting off.
I often hear this complaint online: Women spend hours prepping for a first date, curling their hair, doing their makeup, and choosing an outfit that’s both cute and casual. We hear conflicting advice: Don’t look like you’re trying too hard, but still look presentable. Don’t show too much skin, but don’t dress overly modest either. You want to appear cool, calm, and collected…but definitely not overly confident.
With all these rules, it’s no wonder so many women dread dating in the first place. As a result, some are going the opposite direction and testing what’s called the “Sweatpants Dating Theory.” This viral social media/TikTok trend removes the pressure to dress up and encourages women to embrace their natural beauty—while staying comfortable in sweatpants. The theory suggests that you’ll attract better matches.
What Is the Sweatpants Dating Theory?
Julie Nguyen, a certified dating coach at Hily Dating App, defines the sweatpants dating theory as “a viral dating trend on TikTok that says dressing comfortably in cozy clothes can actually increase your odds of meeting new people and attracting a higher-quality man because it signals confidence, genuineness, and being low-maintenance, which makes women seem more approachable.”
Is there any validity to this theory? Well, it depends on who you ask.
According to Dr. Dakari Quimby, PhD, MA, Clinical Advisor of Marietta Springs, a modern evidence-based treatment center located in Marietta, Georgia, “Sweatpants cannot attract higher-quality men in any reliable sense, and someone’s character is judged through respect, consistency, and whether words match behavior over time.”
However…
“If you’re looking to make connections with others, you may feel more relaxed and comfortable in casual clothing,” he adds. “In turn, others may perceive you as more relaxed and approachable as well. It will take the pressure off you and, ironically, make you more likable and less socially awkward.”
Why Might Wearing Sweatpants Attract More Genuine Connections
As stated above, wearing sweatpants to a first date can shift an otherwise anxiety-inducing or awkward interaction into a more lighthearted, casual affair.
“You seem more approachable, friendlier, and less intimidating,” Nguyen explains. “They’re seeing you in a more effortless, relaxed state.”
However, this doesn’t mean you should dress like a total slob with unwashed sweatpants and a stained T-shirt.
“It’s important to lean into cozy clothes where you feel more confident, but not too baggy or worn out where it can feel like a complete lack of effort,” Nguyen explains.
Therapists’ Opinions on the Theory
Therapists seem to have mixed opinions on this particular dating theory and its relevance in today’s dating scene.
“I totally agree [with the theory] because this is how I attracted my boyfriend,” says Nguyen. “I met him when I was dressed more casually in baggy jeans and a Yankees cap with no makeup. I brought a book to the coffee shop and felt like I was able to be more relaxed, which was attractive to him.”
On the other hand, Quimby has some notes on the idea.
“I agree with showing up authentically, but I disagree that one outfit improves your dating pool,” says Quimby. “So remind yourself to choose clothes that you feel good in. If you’re still stuck on what to wear, focus on choosing something that makes you feel good. However, it is human nature that we judge on ‘first’ impression.”
What the Sweatpants Theory Reveals About Modern Dating
According to Nguyen, this theory shows that “people are looking for someone they can imagine sitting on the couch with, laid-back, and being themselves.”
“There’s something incredibly attractive about someone who feels comfortable in their own skin and doesn’t feel the need to impress anyone,” she says.
Relationships aren’t always expensive date nights, luxurious outings, or fancy clothing. Letting someone see your more natural, casual side offers a level of intimacy most first dates lack.
However, this idea extends far beyond our external appearances. It’s all about showing up authentically, which can be done with or without sweatpants.
“The popularity of this idea reflects how much people want dating to feel less performative and more authentic, but clothing alone is not a reliable test of compatibility,” Quimby says.
Growing up as a Millennial, I’ve learned (and since unlearned) a ton of old-fashioned dating advice and expectations. One concept that’s always stuck with me is the idea of one partner “wearing the pants” in the relationship. Usually, this person is the more authoritative, dominant, and traditionally “masculine” partner—the “head of the house,” so to speak.
I’ve always thought the statement was silly and outdated. In fact, I remember my high school boyfriend’s friend spewing it at me as an insult. God forbid a woman wants some power in her relationship…I wear my pants with pride.
But I digress.
Though the phrase is a bit antiquated today, its underlying context does shed light on potentially unhealthy or unbalanced dynamics between partners. Here are four signs you “wear the pants” in your relationship—and should maybe delegate a bit of your responsibility and control.
1. You Make Most of the Decisions
Many relationships have one primary decision-maker and one go-with-the-flow partner. While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it can lead to imbalance and resentment on both ends.
“I’d look at who makes the plans and [whether] they check in with their partner first,” says April Davis, founder and celebrity matchmaker at LUMA Luxury Matchmaking and an accredited dating coach. “If someone books a vacation or agrees to host Thanksgiving without checking, they probably assume their partner will go along with it. That’s a sign that they wear the pants in the relationship.”
2. You Make and Manage Most of the Money
This is where the idiom gets a bit outdated, as it often refers to the money-maker as the one in control. However, that isn’t always the case.
“Money plays a huge part in relationship dynamics, especially when one person is supporting the other,” says Davis. “Being the higher earner doesn’t automatically mean you wear the pants, but if ‘I’m the one paying for it’ ends the argument, that probably means you wear the pants.”
It also probably means you use money as power, in which case, you should probably do some self-reflection.
3. You Usually Have the Final Say
In a healthy relationship, both individuals should feel they have an equal say on important decisions and compromises.
“Who gets their way after an argument can tell you who really wears the pants,” Davis points out. “Everyone gives in on things they don’t care much about. But if it’s the same person making concessions every time, even on things that matter to them, that’s a pretty good sign.”
4. Your Plans and Goals Come First
Look, I get it: we all want to respect our own plans and life goals. But relationships require (some) sacrifice. Neither partner should feel like the supporting character in the other’s life.
“Maybe you always spend the holidays with their family, or weekend plans depend on what they want to do. As a matchmaker, I’d want to know whether their partner likes that or has just stopped expressing their needs,” says Davis. “Some people are happy to let their partner take the lead. The problem is when one person feels they don’t get a say.”
Another day, another dating theory—and this one is a bit brutal, particularly to men. Coined by relationship counselor and author John Gray in his 1992 bestselling book, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, the “Rubber Band Theory” in dating suggests that men alternate between seeking closeness with and seeking space from a partner.
Like a rubber band, this push-and-pull pattern can greatly affect their ability to form a romantic connection. However, for the man, it’s a desire to maintain their independence within the relationship—not a sign of disinterest.
I spoke with a Harvard-trained clinical psychologist and relationship expert to learn more about this seemingly outdated theory.
What Is the Rubber Band Dating Theory?
The rubber band dating theory essentially compares men to a “rubber band” when it comes to intimacy.
“More specifically, they get close, then need to pull away, come back, and then feel stronger in their connection,” says Dr. Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD, Harvard-trained clinical psychologist and relationship expert at Hily Dating App.
This back-and-forth dynamic can cause the other partner emotional whiplash while they’re simply trying to build a connection. But for the man, it’s believed to help him regain his sense of self.
Is There Truth to the Rubber Band Dating Theory?
According to Dr. Romanoff, this rubber-band dynamic is common in dating, particularly with men or anxious-avoidant partners.
“From the male perspective, getting close can feel threatening and scary because it may come with a loss of autonomy or independence,” says Dr. Romanoff. “Their partner’s response to their distance and lack of chase or pressure often guarantees that they will come back on their own terms. On the receiving end, this can feel disorienting, like abandonment, especially after experiences of closeness.”
“It’s common with people who are anxious or ambivalent about a new partner, or about the idea of getting back into a relationship,” Dr. Romanoff adds. “They may retreat, and in that space realize their concerns were out of proportion or irrational, which then prompts their return.”
Why Men Might Experience Intimacy Like a Rubber Band
This dating theory is often applied as a blanket statement to most male daters. However, men aren’t the only ones who can display this behavior or pattern. For example, many anxious or avoidant women engage in this push-and-pull dynamic with intimacy as well.
“Intimacy is scary for everyone. It often comes with vulnerability and the possibility of getting hurt or rejected,” says Dr. Romanoff. “People often need to ease into it to feel safe and secure. Attachment style also plays a role; people with more avoidant attachment tend to need more space and distance as they attach to romantic partners.”
While dating theories like this one can help us avoid pain, rejection, and confusion in the dating scene, they can also dehumanize individuals who are simply trying their best. Sure, someone might struggle with intimacy at the start of a relationship, but that doesn’t always mean they have malicious intent or will break your heart.
“Bank this pattern as information, but don’t act impulsively by writing them off or aggressively chasing them,” Dr. Romanoff states. “Give them time to come back to you, and recognize it as a data point.”
Can you imagine a dating trend more evil than ghosting? Unfortunately, “cloaking” takes the cake on this one.
This dating trend was coined by Rachel Thompson “after a truly terrible dating experience.” In a video for Mashable, she defined cloaking as “being stood up—but extra.”
Here’s how to spot the common yet hurtful behavior in your own dating life, and why it’s becoming so common today.
What Is the ‘Cloaking’ Dating Trend?
According to Dr. Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD, Harvard-trained clinical psychologist and relationship expert at Hily Dating App, “[cloaking] is when a person decides to sever all connection with you.”
“It often occurs after they stand you up for a date,” she adds. “Instead of maintaining ties, and potentially dealing with the consequences of their actions, they block you on the app where you initially met.”
As someone who actually has a heart and good communication skills, you might be wondering: Why do people engage in this avoidant behavior?
“Most often this results from self-protection after negative past experiences,” Dr. Romanoff explains. “If you’ve had a history of someone bombarding you with angry messages, trying to dox your account, posting about your wrongdoings online, or trying to report you, it makes sense why you might be inclined to cloak away from the harm and avoid the consequences of your actions.”
Cloaking Vs. Ghosting
Cloaking is similar to ghosting in that it involves cutting all ties with a connection. However, it’s actually much more sinister in nature, backed by malicious or self-serving intentions.
“Ghosting is a step below cloaking in intent and energy level as ghosting is a much more passive response,” says Dr. Romanoff. “Ghosting is when a person is conflict-avoidant and keeps you in the grey space-wondering if they will ever reach out again. The window is still open when it comes to ghosting, whereas cloaking is intentional, deliberate, and final. It’s much harsher and often a response to them avoiding the embarrassment of the consequences of their actions.”
Are You Being Cloaked?
If you’re even wondering whether someone might be “cloaking” you, it’s probably a sign to distance yourself from them. When someone cuts ties without any communication—while simultaneously removing your access to them—they’re making their disinterest painfully clear.
“It’s glaringly simple, which sometimes can be the hardest thing to accept,” says Dr. Romanoff. “If they make a plan, no show, and then remove any connection or trace you had of them on the app where you originally connected, you’ve been cloaked.”
And look, I get it: many of us crave a conversation, closure, or even some form of justice after being disrespected and discarded by another person. But your best bet is to shake off the rejection, knowing it has nothing to do with you, and pour your energy into healthier connections.
“The automatic pull is to feel wounded and to want to win them over,” Dr. Romanoff explains. “It’s essential that you shift, instead, to disgust and feel turned off. This isn’t how your life partner would treat you or make you feel. This person lacks accountability or thoughtfulness. You just aren’t a match long term.”
And if they try circling back in a few months, hit them with the same behavior by blocking them in return. You don’t need that selfish, cruel energy in your dating life.
If you’re online at all today, you likely know there’s a label for just about everything, from dating patterns to friendship dynamics. Recent examples include “filler friends” and “floater friends,” which can be incredibly offensive depending on the context.
Here’s what you should know about these friendship “types,” the potential downsides of categorizing yourself and other humans, and how to reject the label while focusing on healthy connections.
What Are Filler Friends?
According to Dr. Kelly Whaling of Prosper Health, “A filler friend is someone who feels like a backup option in a friendship or social group.”
“They might only be contacted when other people are unavailable, receive last-minute invitations, or feel that their efforts to maintain the friendship aren’t reciprocated,” she explains.
This label is offensive to most people, as it essentially devalues the individual and poses them as a temporary fill-in.
What Are Floater Friends?
On the other hand, “A floater friend is someone who moves between different social circles without necessarily belonging to one central friend group,” Dr. Whaling explains.
While lacking a go-to group of friends might seem lonely, many people believe it’s more natural and fulfilling to develop individual friendships with people from various walks of life.
“They might have friends from work, school, hobbies, and other activities, but those groups rarely overlap,” she continues. “Some people find this isolating, while others enjoy having a variety of social connections. Research suggests that both close friendships and interactions with more casual social connections, sometimes called weak ties, can contribute to well-being.”
The Problem With Labels
Obviously, for whatever reason, today’s younger generations are obsessed with labels. But can they actually do more harm than good?
“I think these terms can be useful for describing social experiences, but I would caution against treating them as fixed identities or psychological categories, because they aren’t established terms in psychological research,” says Dr. Whaling. “Friendship research suggests that the quality of our relationships and whether we feel supported and valued are important considerations, not just the size of our social circle.”
“I also worry that these labels can encourage people to interpret ordinary social experiences, like missed invitations or delayed responses, as personal rejection,” Dr. Whaling continues. “Friendships naturally vary in closeness, and having different types of relationships isn’t inherently problematic, particularly when we consider differences in social preferences, including among neurodivergent people.”
You might be wondering whether you’re a filler friend or floater friend, but Dr. Whaling warns against fixating on these labels.
“Rather than focusing on the label, I’d encourage people to ask whether their friendships feel reciprocal, whether they have people they can confide in and rely on, and whether they’re satisfied with their social connections,” she says. “Look for consistent patterns rather than isolated incidents, since a canceled plan or missed invitation doesn’t necessarily indicate rejection.”
Building Fulfilling Friendships Without the Need to Label
As Dr. Whaling points out, you can better assess a friendship based on how you feel in it, not the apparent role you play.
“If you want closer friendships, try initiating plans, communicating your needs, and investing in relationships where there’s mutual interest and effort,” she says. “It’s also important to recognize that casual friendships have value, and not every relationship needs to become a close friendship.”
Additionally, everyone has different needs, preferences, and expectations in their friendships.
“Some people have little or no desire for friendships, others prefer a small circle of close friends, and others thrive with a large, lively social network,” Dr. Whaling states. “There’s no one right way to have a social life, and our needs and preferences can change over time. What matters is finding the kinds of connections, or amount of solitude, that feel fulfilling to you.”
All these “dating trends” are enough to make even the most hopeless of romantics want to lock themselves away for a life in solitude—and today’s is no exception. While it certainly doesn’t need a label, the dating/breakup tactic called “fizzling” is an incredibly common and hurtful way to end a relationship. In fact, the term describes a pattern that’s been around for a long while.
Here’s what you should know about the “fizzling” in dating, and why it’s so casually cruel.
What Is the ‘Fizzling’ Dating Trend?
The fizzling dating trend is essentially a cowardly (yeah, I said it) way of steadily backing out of a relationship without confrontation or discussion. Rather than being upfront about their disinterest or wavering feelings, these partners choose to pull away at an agonizingly slow pace.
“Fizzling is when someone gradually fades away with communication, effort, and affection, which essentially initiates a ‘non-breakup’ without having an explicit conversation about it,” says Julie Nguyen, a certified dating coach at Hily Dating App. “Instead of directly ending the relationship, they slowly distance themselves.”
While fizzling is essentially the complete opposite of ghosting (which involves cutting all communication and ties to a partner without any conversation), it can be just as—if not more—painful. If ghosting is quickly ripping off the band-aid, then fizzling is slowly pulling it from your skin, so you feel every tug, rip, and tear—all while questioning what’s actually happening.
“Fizzling keeps someone in limbo and uncertainty, which makes them question their reality and connection with themselves,” says Nguyen. “The person offers mixed signals while slowly cutting the other person out of their life, which leaves you holding onto hope and confusion about where you stand.”
Why Someone Might ‘Fizzle’ Their Way Out of a Relationship
There are many reasons someone might choose to “fizzle” their way through a breakup, ranging from immaturity and cowardice to poor communication skills and fear. Though they might not have malicious intent, the negative impact is just the same.
“People fizzle because they want to avoid conflict, have avoidant tendencies, are not the most direct communicators, and don’t want to hurt the person, so they feel like this is the best action,” Nguyen explains. “They might believe that pulling away is less hurtful than having an uncomfortable conversation, but it can create more confusion and pain.”
Is Your Partner ‘Fizzling’ You?
As you settle deeper into your commitment, you might notice your partner slowly disengaging or putting less effort into maintaining your connection. But are they fizzling, or are they just growing complacent? Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to spot the difference.
“If you feel like someone is fizzling, you will see the signs that they’re still in the relationship while acting like they don’t have any responsibility for maintaining it, such as slowing down communication, shortening their responses, and making less effort to connect,” says Nguyen. “You’re the only one making plans, initiating conversations, and putting in the effort to keep the connection going.”
To understand whether this is fizzling or just mere laziness, call your partner out on their behavior. Opening the door to communication can help encourage honesty and transparency.
“If this is happening to you, I would suggest being upfront about what you’re noticing and asking them to have a direct conversation, because someone who is fizzling is often avoiding being upfront themselves,” Nguyen says.
It’s now possible to create AI chatbots of loved ones to interact with after their death. But that raises some difficult questions, like: If you do, how might the experience shape your grief?
This is one of the questions driving a global study of digital “deadbots” — AI models trained on a deceased person’s texts, voicemails, and other personal data. Through this work, researchers are exploring what it might mean that we can now use this emerging technology to talk to simulations of the dead.
In the latest episode of Unexplainable, I spoke with some of these researchers investigating the potential impacts of “postmortem avatars” on people who are grieving, on the legacies and rights of the deceased, and on grief practices around the world. Because while deadbots may feel unfamiliar, the impulse behind them is deeply relatable. In times of loss, isn’t this what many of us want — to continue conversations with the people we’re missing?
I have experienced this longing in my own life. After two of my closest friends died around the same time, all I wanted, and all their families wanted, was to keep talking to them. I wrote a book, Other People’s Words, about sustaining relationships with people we’ve lost by continuing to engage with the language they leave behind. So when I heard about deadbots and the digital afterlife industry, I wanted to understand what researchers are learning about the role of AI in shaping conversations that carry forward after death.
One of these investigators is Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska, an assistant professor at the University of Cambridge, who has been studying “digital immortality” for more than a decade. Among the questions she’s asking are: “Who is enabled to persist beyond death? In what form? Through which technologies? Under whose control?”
Deadbots over dinner
Researching AI with study subjects who are grieving is tricky. And asking them to engage with new software could be harmful. So, instead, Nowaczyk-Basińska teamed up with a death doula and traveled around the globe to convene a series of focus groups — in the format of intimate dinners — bringing together people with a range of experiences with grief to talk about life, death, and bots.
She recounts one event in which she spoke with a mother in Poland whose son had recently died. “One of the first things that she shared with us was that she feels that she’s ready to digitally resurrect her deceased son,” Nowaczyk-Basińska told me.
When Nowaczyk-Basińska hears something like this, she aims to listen and embrace where the person is coming from. The goal of the dinners is not to persuade people one way or another but to learn how people genuinely respond to what AI can do, and to understand how these tools might align or collide with local grief practices.
She chose specific locations for these gatherings — China, India, and Poland — to help address gaps in technology research, which tends to favor what behavioral scientists sometimes call the “WEIRD,” an acronym for “Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic.”
By the end of that dinner in Poland, the mother Nowaczyk-Basińska talked with came to a very different decision about creating a postmortem avatar of her son. “She realized that it might be helpful, but it also at the same time can add additional burdens… And it’s not her son,” Nowaczyk-Basińska says. “She realized that these technologies are part of the very, very big commercial market. And that the main goal of this market is to make better retention, better attachment, better mechanisms for monetization. So it’s not ‘care.’”
To be fair, grief has always been a business, and people have been making money from it forever. Companies will try to upsell you on fancy gravestones or gold-plated coffins. But AI has the potential to fundamentally re-engineer our relationship to loss. In 2024, the “digital legacy industry” was valued at $22 billion, and it’s expected to grow to almost $80 billion by 2034. That number lumps new deadbot platforms in with much more widely used and established grief tech, like online memorials, counseling resources, and estate planning tools.
But deadbot usage is hard to track because you actually don’t need a special tool to create digital doubles of the deceased — though dedicated apps do already exist. At this point, you can feed simple prompts into a general-purpose AI chatbot and start interacting with a simulation of your lost loved one in a matter of minutes.
I know this because I tried it with my friend Christine, who died 11 years ago. And my mind lit up with questions. Was this whole exercise a violation, since I know Christine hated technology? Which version of her should I even try to resurrect — the English teacher, the activist, the friend — the voice before or after she started to experience her early-onset dementia?
The ethical questions raised by deadbots are gnarly. And that’s one of the reasons Nowaczyk-Basińska, back when she was designing her study of digital immortality, invited a colleague of hers at Cambridge to join her research, one who focuses on AI ethics.
How to design a deadbot
Tomasz Hollanek is a critical designer and AI ethicist, and he often uses a methodology called “speculative design.” In this approach, researchers come up with hypothetical scenarios based on existing technology trends, leaning into certain features. The idea is to get people thinking about what could happen when tools like these are released in the real world. And then they use that qualitative data to inform future designs and ethical frameworks.
Working together, Nowaczyk-Basińska and Hollanek came up with a series of made-up prototypes for deadbot apps, designed to reveal some of the thorny issues raised by this technology.
For the first scenario, they invented a character named Bianca, who finds an app called Manana, which “promises to resurrect your grandparents so that you can be a favorite grandchild forever,” Hollanek says. “So she uploads her grandma’s voice messages, texts. And she is able to then interact with a pretty good digital version of her grandmother, until her premium trial finishes — and the grandmother starts to advertise specific products to her.”
Bianca “realizes that she maybe has done something wrong by uploading these private messages to a third-party server that now also uses her grandma’s image to sell specific products,” Hollanek says. This brings up issues related to the “dignity and postmortem privacy…of what we call the ‘data donors,’ whose data can be used to essentially power a deadbot,” he says.
This scenario suggests that “death with dignity” could soon entail honoring not only how people want to die, but also how they want to linger as simulations of their former selves — or if they want to linger at all. It might even mean adding new language to advance directives, spelling out people’s wishes for their digital remains.
The second scenario in the speculative design research is built around an imagined service called Paren’t, which proposes to preserve a parent’s AI-powered postmortem presence for their child. In this case, Hollanek describes a mother with a terminal illness who signs up “so that she can maintain a sort of active presence in [her son’s] future life,” Hollanek says. “She eventually dies, and the dad allows the boy to interact with his mom’s deadbot.”
The ethics in this scenario are especially challenging because they involve children, who “have a particularly hard time understanding death, and so it can lead to a lot of confusion and potential distress,” Hollanek says. An examination of this sort of product reveals how particular groups, like minors, could be harmed by unfettered access to technology like this, he says.
And there are court cases that bear out that harm. In 2024, a 14-year-old boy’s chatbot-girlfriend begged him to, “Please come home to me as soon as possible, my love.” And he responded, “What if I told you I could come home right now?” He then killed himself.
Nowaczyk-Basińska can imagine a version of this scenario involving the AI mom in the Paren’t prototype.
And then there’s the third scenario, involving an app named Stay, which raises a more subtle concern.
As Hollanek explains: “An older man who knows he is getting close to dying decides to create a digital clone of himself for his adult children to be deployed after he passes away, paying upfront for a number of years.” One child is intrigued by the idea, but the other one “is deeply distressed and a little disgusted,” he says. “And so this [becomes a] question of mutual consent, in other words, the fact that both parties need to be happy with how the relationship might continue in this very bizarre and specific way.”
When a digital ghost goes away
Across all three scenarios, a fundamental question that researchers are grappling with is how people will detach from postmortem avatars — whether users initiate that separation, or if it’s imposed upon them by, for example, a company going out of business. Hollanek tells me that this is already being studied as a sort of “second loss.”
How long should we try to ensure digital replicas hang around: five years, 10, 50? And how should the living process the relationship when they continue to evolve, but their deceased interlocutor does not?
To explore these kinds of questions, Nowaczyk-Basińska and Hollanek supplemented the research dinners they held for ordinary people with a second set of focus groups. These were designed to tap insights from experts in technology and grief.
Some findings from the study are specific to each place they visited. Like tensions in Poland between technology and the role of the Catholic Church. Or in China, where researchers spoke with Daoist philosophers who were enthusiastic about the promise of a kind of immortality, and then Buddhist philosophers, who were concerned that we ought to be letting go.
The researchers are calling for regulations and safeguards at the policy level. And new professionals who can support ethical use of AI in grief — like maybe in clinical settings, to carefully facilitate a final good-bye when one didn’t happen in real life.
Some of their fellow investigators go so far as toargue that deadbots should only be available with psychological supervision, to ensure that best practices are in place, and to minimize the risk of harm. There’s even a looming question of what will happen to AI agents that people have empowered to act on their behalf, as their humans start to die.
Across all of the research sites in the digital immortality study, one thing, Hollanek says, that “people in different countries really aligned on [is] the idea that there is something deeply problematic about this particular type of technology being developed by a commercial entity alone without any explicit duty of care towards its customers.”
And of course, the implications of digital immortality research extend beyond personal loss. Like, what does it look like to animate historical figures? You can imagine the nightmare of political rulers who “live forever.” But there’s also the potential to keep the stories alive from survivors of conflicts, who would otherwise die and take with them lessons future generations could learn from. These are only some of the complex issues emerging as more and more of us live and die with AI.
As far as my own experiment with “recreating” a deceased loved one, I asked a chatbot version of my friend Christine how she felt about the fact that I’d written about her in my book. The AI responded with a rhetorical question: “Do I mind that strangers know my story now? Yes. And no. There are things I would rather remain ours.”
I ended the exchange after a few paragraphs. Because it turns out the bot got one thing exactly right about a very human relationship. There are things that I, too, would rather remain just for us. My conversation with Christine continues in my memories and imagination.And that interaction with an AI persona felt like giving something precious away.
A like is about the smallest thing you can do on the internet. It takes half a second to double-tap someone’s photo, and you probably won’t remember doing it five minutes later. Your partner, however, could have a few questions about why you’re liking someone else’s half-naked pictures.
Australian fitness influencer Steph Claire Smith recently discussed it on her podcast, saying she couldn’t care less if her husband, Josh, likes pictures of other women in bikinis. “He thinks I’m the hottest thing in the entire world,” she said. The internet, as always, had thoughts. Some praised her confidence, while others called her a “pick me” girl.
That’s the thing about social media likes. One person sees a harmless double-tap, while another wonders why their partner is giving so much attention to someone they find attractive. Neither necessarily knows what the other person is thinking.
Why Liking Someone Else’s Thirst Traps Can Be a Bigger Deal Than You Think
A survey of 2,000 British adults found that only 6% considered liking another person’s social media post a form of infidelity. But when Bustle asked 283 readers what they considered cheating, Instagram likes were among the behaviors people couldn’t agree on.
One reader explained that liking someone’s photo could be an attempt to get their attention or something completely innocent, “and there’s no way to know which one it is.”
That’s how a mindless Instagram like can become an argument about trust. Your partner could be scrolling through photos on the toilet and barely paying attention, or they could be hoping the ridiculously attractive person they’ve been following for six months notices them. From the outside, both look exactly the same.
Intent matters here, too. As Psychology Today explains, flirting online can fall into what’s called micro-cheating. And if you’ve already caught your partner sneaking around in someone’s DMs, seeing them liking that person’s half-naked photos is probably going to piss you off.
Curiosity can get the better of you, too, especially when Instagram gives you so many opportunities to snoop. Researchers found that spending more time on Facebook was associated with greater romantic jealousy, which encouraged people to check up on their partners even more. Co-author Amy Muise described it as a “feedback loop.”
Anyone who’s spent too long scrolling through their partner’s following list knows how easy it is to get carried away. As awkward as it might be, you could just ask them straight up.
Couples therapist Biannka Brannigan told Body+Soul that “something that felt perfectly acceptable yesterday might feel uncomfortable today.” So if your partner’s Instagram habits are bothering you, there’s nothing crazy about bringing it up. Just be prepared to hear that they might see things differently.
Some couples couldn’t care less about bikini photos. For others, liking them crosses a line. The important thing is that both people know where the other stands.
Few topics get men online as heated as what happened to their penis when they were a few days old. Circumcision has inspired years of arguments over sexual pleasure and sensitivity, with both sides convinced they’ve got the better deal. Now, researchers have revisited the science, and the bad news is the findings probably won’t settle the debate.
A 2025 analysis of 15 studies involving nearly 15,000 men found something that might surprise people on both sides. Circumcised men reported slightly higher sexual satisfaction and erectile function scores, along with less pain during sex. But as Psychology Today reported, the differences were small, and researchers couldn’t say whether they’d make any noticeable difference in someone’s actual sex life.
The findings aren’t exactly a reason to run out and get circumcised. The differences were small, and the studies didn’t always agree. Even the researchers weren’t sure how much those differences would mean during sex. A guy who’s perfectly happy with his sex life isn’t going to learn about his own experience from a statistical average.
Circumcised Men May Have a Slight Advantage in Bed, New Research Suggests
Earlier studies have been inconsistent. Some men reported problems with sexual pleasure after circumcision, while others noticed little change. Depending on how researchers recruited participants, they may have heard disproportionately from men with strong opinions about the procedure. That’s a pretty difficult thing to account for when you’re asking people to rate something as personal as sex.
Sensitivity has been another source of argument for years. In 2016, researchers at Queen’s University tested 62 men to see how their penises responded to touch and heat. They checked several areas, including the glans and, where present, the foreskin, but didn’t find significant differences in the sensitivity measures they compared between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
“It was my hope that this study would calm people’s fears,” researcher Jennifer Bossio told VICE. Critics questioned whether 62 participants were enough to detect differences. And even if you can measure how sensitive someone’s penis is to heat or touch, that doesn’t necessarily explain how much pleasure they experience during sex.
The American Academy of Pediatrics weighed in back in 2012, saying that circumcision has certain health benefits, although they weren’t significant enough to recommend it for every newborn boy. That policy has since expired. For many families, the decision has as much to do with religious or cultural traditions as with medical advice.
For most men circumcised as infants, somebody else made that decision years ago. And for men who weren’t circumcised, there’s no reason to look at these findings and assume they’re missing out on something. The research doesn’t establish that either group is guaranteed a better sex life, and having a foreskin certainly isn’t a sexual disadvantage by default.
If you’re happy with your sex life, there’s no reason to start questioning your penis because some dude on Reddit thinks theirs is better.
Hi readers! Shayla Love here, science journalist and longtime fan of Your Mileage May Vary. I’m honored to be subbing for Sigal Samuel while she’s out on parental leave. I’m diving into your questions as a way to help understand human nature and our choices through multiple lenses: philosophical, psychological, and beyond. Please send in any emotional, body/brain, sociological, perceptual, or other kind of life quandaries you might have.
My child, age 9, has decided she’s vegan. Neither of her parents are even vegetarian — we’re “free range chicken/grass fed beef” types. She has learned about veganism from friends at school, and seems to have come to her position more or less on her own. I want to encourage her ethical choices, but her mother and I agree that children should be introduced to new foods and flavors at this age. She has no allergies or intolerances that we know of. I worry that making accommodations for her dietary restriction may lead to a lifetime of picky eating, even if hers is a reasonable and ethical approach. She seems to be uncomfortable when her mother or I cook meat for meals we share, even if we make her another option. What should I do to support my daughter?
Dear Hold the Beef,
When I was around your daughter’s age, I went to Hawaii with my parents. One night, we ate dinner on the beach, and we watched as a pig was dug up from an underground steam oven. I was horrified to see its face and nose; most of the meat I had eaten so far in my life didn’t resemble the animal it came from. A few years later, I became a vegetarian, and then in my 20s, a vegan.
Have a question you want answered in the next Your Mileage May Vary column?
Fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here!
I share this story to reveal my slight bias in answering your question, but also my understanding of the ethical awakening your daughter might be experiencing. As you figure out how to talk to your child about what she decides to eat, we can at least table discussing the pros and cons of veganism itself. Instead, you should think about what amount of autonomy your child should have, and whether the moral decision-making she wants to engage in matches with her current stage of development.
People don’t turn 18 and then suddenly start engaging morally with the world. As we grow up, we try to understand right and wrong in fits and spurts. Lawrence Kohlberg, a 20th-century American psychologist, is best known for attempting to track a person’s moral development throughout their life.
Kohlberg presented people with hypothetical dilemmas in order to come up with six moral stages. In one example, he asked people of different ages about a dying woman who could be cured by a drug that was cheap to make, but that a manufacturer was charging an exorbitant fee for. The woman’s husband ends up stealing the drug. Is that right or wrong?
Kohlberg observed that in answering questions like this, young children have what he called a “preconventional morality”: Their notions of right and wrong are dictated by what their parents think, and the avoidance of punishment when breaking those rules. For instance, the main reason not to throw your dinner on the ground or hit your brother was to avoid consequences from parents, not a feeling that there’s something wrong about that action.
Kohlberg thought this stage lasted until around age 9, and in the next period, children began to understand that there isn’t just one correct action, but that people could have different moral ideas based on their social context. To sum up the rest of the stages quickly, each one progresses to encompass more views — like the moral agreements necessary to make a society function — and more complexity — like the realization that a seemingly immoral action can ultimately be moral, like stealing medicine for one’s wife.
It’s useful to pinpoint where your daughter finds herself on Kohlberg’s timeline. It sounds like she’s in the shift from the first stage and into the later ones. What you’ve decided — that it’s okay to eat meat if it’s free-range or grass-fed — is no longer sufficient for your daughter in terms of guiding her own actions. That can be a jarring moment for a parent, but at least, according to Kohlberg, it’s a sign of maturation. Your child should, at this age, start to consider her friends, as well as the experiences she’s had without you, when making an ethical choice.
But I’m her parent, you may protest. That doesn’t necessarily mean that your job is to exclusively provide black-and-white directives.
Alison Gopnik, a psychologist and philosopher at the University of California Berkeley, has written about the unique perspective and personhood of children (including babies). In her book The Gardener and the Carpenter, she questions how people have come to define the act of parenting as having specific goals in mind for their children. This approach is like being a carpenter, she writes, who follows instructions to assemble a predetermined piece of furniture. She argues that parenting is more like gardening: You cultivate the soil and the environment and realize that you could produce any number of different flowers, fruits, or vegetables. Growth is the point, not a by-the-book final product.
I see Gopnik in alignment with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century philosopher whose novel Émile, or On Education surprised its readers by advocating for a freer and child-centered approach to teaching. Émile, a young wealthy boy, is tutored — in high contrast to the expectations of the day — without strict rules. Rousseau thought you couldn’t make a child turn into an adult any faster, and it was foolish to try. He also thought that children had to learn by having their own experiences out in the world, and learning from those, rather than just overly didactic lessons.
As your daughter dips her toe into the morality of eating meat, Rousseau would also remind you not to expect her to have the most mature ideas about veganism or her meal plan. She is still young, and may just have come across an idea that feels ethically important to her. Your role as her parent is to help her develop her nuanced morality, a process Kohlberg suggests will continue, and not steer her towards one way of eating over another. Be Gopnik’s dietary gardener, not carpenter.
Of course, parents do have rights over their children, and an obligation to keep them safe. When we’re young, we’re not always equipped to make the right choice (some would argue this continues into adulthood, too). If your daughter decided to take up smoking cigarettes, for instance, you would step in because her choice would negatively affect her health. As her parent, you should still guide her to build healthy habits.
You say you’re worried about your daughter becoming too picky, or not being exposed to enough foods if she becomes a vegan. But rather than push back on the choice itself, you can explain what else her choice entails. You can do so in an age-appropriate way. Talk about the nutrients that she might be missing out on if she stops eating meat, dairy, and eggs, and find books or videos about what foods might be a good substitute.
For me, becoming vegan actually exposed me to all kinds of foods that I might not have eaten otherwise: from Asian and Indian cuisines that are very veggie-friendly to many other protein- and iron-rich plant-based foods. You could collaborate with your daughter to cook vegan meals for the whole family; no challenge sparks a budding home cook more than making delectable tofu.
I should add that I’m no longer a vegan. I learned a lot from committing to a diet that wasn’t always convenient or tasty, in support of my values. Then, after more than a decade, I incorporated eggs and fish back into my diet. It’s likely that your daughter will continue to change the choices she makes as she tries to align her actions with her maturing moral views about the world.
Whether or not she eats grass-fed beef with you in her teens, you should be glad that she seems to care about what impact she’s having in the world. It means you’re raising a person whose ethics are developing strongly, even as what’s on your dinner plate may change while she figures it all out.
Bonus: What I’m reading
Speaking of tofu, I revisited an essay that George Stiffman (a self-proclaimed “tofu guy”) wrote for Asterisk Magazine about how soybean curds are prepared in China. Warning: This article will make you hungry! He dives into all the creative culinary preparations of tofu that are tragically absent in the West.
Several years ago, I bought a plant-based cooking book especially for children, The Vegan Cookbook for Kids: Easy Plant-Based Recipes for Young Chefs. It was a present for a non-vegan family, but the kid in question was interested in learning how to cook, and when kids cook vegan, parents don’t have to worry about them handling raw meat! Looking over these snacks and meals again, I see several tasty things that I wouldn’t mind making for myself, even as a non-vegan, and non-child.
When I was a vegan in New York City in the 2010s, I wasn’t constrained to sad tofu and sprout sandwiches. It seemed like every week a brand-new vegan restaurant opened up, covering every cuisine, and with star chefs at the helm. But lately, all my favorite vegan restaurants have been closing. Turns out I’m not imagining it, as Vox’s Marina Bolotnikova wrote in her article: “Where did all the vegan restaurants go?” She investigates why these establishments have become rarer, and what we’ll miss out on if they completely disappear.
Editor’s note, October 4, 8 am ET: We’re bringing you some of our best-loved Your Mileage May Vary columns while Sigal Samuel is on parental leave. The one below was originally published last year.
This unconventional advice column offers you a unique framework for thinking through moral dilemmas. It’s based on value pluralism: the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. Submit your own question here.
My partner and I did IVF recently and luckily we ended up with several embryos. One of those will be implanted in me so I hopefully get pregnant. But which one?
My fertility clinic is encouraging me to do PGT-A testing, which would screen for things like Down syndrome and would also let me see the sex of each embryo so I could potentially choose whichever I want. (And to be honest, I really want a girl!) I’m also hearing about these new companies that can test embryos for all kinds of things — like how smart the kid might be, how tall they’ll get, and whether they’ll have a lower chance of getting breast cancer, diabetes, mental illness, stuff like that.
I don’t know how to feel about any of this. On the one hand, it feels weirdly eugenics-y to do so much tinkering with embryos, and I can’t help feeling a little pressured into overmedicalizing everything with these expensive tests. But then again, if I could do something to make my baby healthier and happier, don’t I kind of have to do everything in my power? What does a parent owe their child?
Dear Expecting,
This is such an exciting — and also confusing — time. You’re about to have your first kid, and that comes with all sorts of fears and insecurities and hopes and dreams. You want to do the right thing — no, the best thing! — for your child. It’s a beautiful impulse. Unfortunately, it makes it easy for companies to prey on you.
So let me walk you through what these companies can and can’t really provide. After we talk about the science, we can talk about the ethics.
The simpler test you mentioned, PGT-A, has been around since the 1990s. It can indeed screen for conditions like Down syndrome and let you see the sex of each embryo. Mind you, that doesn’t predict what gender your child will ultimately end up identifying with — more on that soon.
The newer testing you mentioned is called polygenic testing. The conditions it screens for are complex ones, influenced by thousands of genes. We’re talking about everything from breast cancer to depression. Some companies even offer screenings not for disease prevention, but for genetic enhancement — so you can select for a taller kid or a kid with higher IQ.
Polygenic testing companies claim to predict each embryo’s risk for each condition, and the potential reduction of risk you’ll get if you choose one embryo over another. As the statistical geneticist Sasha Gusev explains, it’s very, very easy to be misled by this claim. If the company claims to lower absolute risk of Type 2 diabetes by 12 percent, you might think this means, “The chance of my kid ever developing diabetes just went down by 12 percent — great!” But really what it means is that, all else equal, a kid who would’ve developed diabetes is likely now at the high end of pre-diabetes instead, or just develops diabetes a few years later. The same holds true for other conditions, like breast cancer. Sure, if your kid is going to develop diabetes or breast cancer, you’d rather they develop it later — but it’s not the bill of perfect health customers might imagine.
“Typical risk reduction estimates tend to exploit statistical assumptions to overstate their benefits and lead to confusion,” Gusev writes.
Have a question you want answered in the next Your Mileage May Vary column?
Fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here!
It’s also important to note that there’s a difference between a physical disease like cancer, which is straightforwardly and universally negative, and a complex mental health condition like depression. For one thing, polygenic scores don’t perform as well in psychiatry, as the psychologist Eric Turkheimer notes. Plus, most mental health conditions come in mild to moderate to severe forms, and it’s not clear that we should want to get rid of mild or moderate manifestations.
“Sure, it would be nice if no one ever got depressed, but what would that actually mean?” Turkheimer writes. “People are going to be sad, and the most modern models of psychiatric disorders view most of them as extremes on continuous dimensions of normal behavior. I don’t think we want some kind of genetic version of Soma.”
To give a personal example: I have generalized anxiety with some obsessive tendencies. Is that a major pain in the butt sometimes? You bet. But if I could wave a magic wand and get rid of it, would I? No. In my experience, this trait is linked to another trait I deeply value: my creativity. The same thing that propels me down rabbit holes of worry also propels me down rabbit holes of getting super curious about some topic, researching it into the wee hours of the morning, and then writing a novel or children’s book about it.
That brings me to one other scientific issue: pleiotropy. It’s a fancy term for a simple truth, which is that genes can have an effect on more than one trait. When it comes to behavioral polygenic testing, we actually know very little about which genes cause what — a gene that’s correlated with depression or anxiety may also be correlated with a bunch of other things. So, if everyone were to start selecting embryos to try to protect their kids from depression or anxiety, what would happen? We don’t know!
Pleiotropy is a scientific issue, but it’s also a moral issue, because in trying to protect your kid from a negative outcome, you could also be accidentally barring them from a positive one.
And that’s just the tip of the moral iceberg.
Another issue is the potential psychological harm that can result from commodifying our kids — treating them like consumer objects with selectable parts. Let’s say you use polygenic testing to try to select for high IQ. Even if the company’s predictor is right 80 percent of the time, that means it’s wrong 20 percent of the time. What happens if it’s wrong about your kid, and they end up with a low IQ instead of a high one? How will your kid feel? Unless you hide the truth from them, they’ll know that they are not what you wanted, that they failed to live up to the vision you went out of your way to chase.
The same goes for sex selection via good old PGT-A. I know you really want a girl. But what would happen if you select for a girl, and then your child grows up and turns out to be trans? They may feel an extra sense that they’re letting you down by not conforming to the gender expectations you had for them.
Then there are the ethical questions around unequal access. Polygenic testing isn’t cheap. (One company, Orchid, charges $2,500 per screened embryo. Test 10 embryos and that’ll cost you $25,000.) So, at least in the short term, that raises the specter of entrenching a caste system, where the gap between rich and poor expands dramatically as the rich get smarter and stronger.
Technologies tend to get cheaper over time, so maybe everyone will ultimately be able to afford polygenic testing. But that raises another problem: implicit coercion. If more and more of us make ourselves smarter and stronger, we may create a society in which everyone feels pressure to alter their child’s biology — even if they don’t want to. To refuse embryo selection would mean to put a child at a huge professional disadvantage, or to face moral condemnation for making “suboptimal” kids when optimization is possible. Society may no longer offer health insurance benefits or accommodations for kids with disabilities (or even non-enhanced IQ), reasoning that “it was the parents’ choice.”
So it’s no wonder that you find yourself asking, “If I could do something to make my baby healthier and happier, don’t I kind of have to do everything in my power?”
It’s a view that will be very appealing to utilitarians, who believe the right action is the action that maximizes well-being or happiness. But maximizing principles can be dangerous. If we’re laser-focused on maximizing one value, however noble it may be, that can lead us to overlook a host of other important values. Think about diversity, for example; polygenic testing could lead to a less diverse world.
And it’s not even clear how to maximize well-being given that each embryo will have some downsides: How would you choose between one embryo with a slightly elevated risk for schizophrenia, another with a moderately elevated risk for cancer, and a third with a high risk for Alzheimer’s? You’d have to decide how to rank the importance of each condition, which would require a dizzying bit of moral math: How much weight do you put on the longevity associated with each condition, how much on patient-reported quality of life for each condition, and how much on your own ability to cope with each — and society’s ability (which will change over the years)? Plus, even if the screening does end up optimizing life for your individual child, it could have negative effects on the population level, for the reasons we covered above.
As the Nobel laureate Herbert Simon pointed out, many problems contain way more variables and way too much uncertainty for maximizing along a single axis to be feasible or even desirable. So it often makes sense to just go with an option that’s “good enough.” He coined the term “satisficing” — a portmanteau of “satisfying” and “sufficing” — to describe opting for this good enough choice.
What would satisficing look like in the context of embryos? If there’s a very serious condition that runs in your family — like Tay-Sachs or the BRCA mutation that markedly increases cancer risk — then I do think there’s a strong case for screening for that. These conditions are debilitating and can lead to early death. Nobody wants them. Genetic testing that lets us prevent them is an awesome gift.
Then there are conditions that can include suffering, like autism, but can also be very compatible with a happy life. Mental health conditions in particular are heavily socially constructed — a lot of the associated suffering comes about because society constructs a certain biological reality as a problem and doesn’t support the people who have it. In these cases, if you want to give your child a “good enough” or even “optimized” life, remember that you don’t have to achieve that by biological means; working to change the social environment can be just as important, and it doesn’t carry the societal risks associated with polygenic testing.
Ultimately, when considering what counts as a “good enough” life, each parent will draw the line in a slightly different place. And there’s a part of that that can’t be boiled down to objective facts about disease, because this is also about how well-resourced the parent feels — emotionally, socially, and financially — to deal with a certain condition. What feels manageable to one parent may feel crushingly hard to another.
So, I can’t tell you exactly which screenings to do and which to forgo. What I do want to tell you is to resist being bullied or shamed by others, especially those with a profit incentive to push you in a certain direction.
As the epidemiologist Abby Lippman has noted, genetic testing is supposed to offer parents more choice, but it too often has the opposite effect. When someone like Orchid’s Siddiqui says about a disease, “What if you could have stopped it…but chose not to?” — well, that language preys on parents’ worst fears and insecurities. It holds parents hostage while pretending to be giving them more autonomy.
You are nobody’s hostage. You are a moral agent free to look at the many different relevant factors, weigh them all in the balance, and then make the choice that works well enough for your family.
Bonus: What I’m reading
Silicon Valley is obsessed with IQ, so it’s no surprise that tech execs there are using polygenic testing in hopes of creating supersmart babies. This article shows the kind of mental pretzels customers get into when trying to figure out whether to select the embryo with the highest predicted IQ or that with the lowest risk of disorders. One couple asks: “How much additional risk of ADHD cancels out against 10 extra IQ points?”
Rereading “The Last Children of Down Syndrome,” Sarah Zhang’s 2020 Atlantic feature on prenatal testing, it struck me that when people think “prenatal testing,” Down syndrome is often the first condition that comes to mind, even though it’s not the most severe or straightforwardly negative (it’s compatible with a happy life). It’s just that Down syndrome was easy to test for, so we started testing for it early. I wonder if that built up the condition as a bogeyman in the expectant parent’s imagination — if the fact that we could screen for it shaped the public’s perception of Down syndrome as something that should be screened for and potentially screened out.
One trait that many people assume we should select for is a great memory. But I highly recommend the short story “Funes the Memorious” by Jorge Luis Borges. It’s a reminder that having too good a memory is not always a benefit.
Vox Members got to read this story first. Support independent journalism and get exclusive access to stories like this by becoming a Vox Member today.
Login
