Every couple swears they’ll be the ones who keep having great sex forever. Then a few years go by, someone’s wearing a mouthguard to bed, and sex becomes something they’ll definitely do this weekend.
Sex researchers led by Kristen Mark followed 87 couples for a month to find out why they weren’t having sex, and the most common explanations were incredibly boring. According to their study, men and women were equally likely to say things like “it just didn’t happen” when asked why they didn’t have sex. Sometimes there simply wasn’t time.
The more interesting differences came when people started explaining whose fault it was. Women were more likely to say they weren’t in the mood or were too tired, while men pointed to their partners or the kids. So women were blaming themselves, and men were blaming the person sleeping next to them. Groundbreaking stuff.
The Surprising Reasons Couples Stop Having Sex, According to Science
The finger-pointing didn’t do anyone any favors, either. Couples who blamed their partners for not having sex also reported lower sexual satisfaction, while those who saw it as a shared situation generally felt better about their relationships. And when one person wants sex more than the other, rejection can feel personal. “For the one yearning for touch and physical contact, it really is about feeling wanted and feeling loved,” therapist Michele Weiner-Davis told CNN.
Of course, we’re talking about 87 couples, most of whom were white and heterosexual. There’s only so much we can conclude about everyone’s sex life from a month of their experiences.
It’s also possible that people have unrealistic expectations about how frequently they’re supposed to be having sex. Another study found that the percentage of American adults aged 18 to 64 having sex weekly dropped from 55% in 1990 to 37% in 2024. And research led by Amy Muise at the University of Toronto Mississauga found that couples having sex more than once a week weren’t any happier than those doing it weekly. “It’s important to maintain an intimate connection with your partner without putting pressure,” Muise explained.
Then there’s the uncomfortable business of actually talking about sex. Admitting that you feel rejected or that you’re unhappy with how things are going takes some vulnerability, especially when you’re not sure how your partner will react.
“Even when you’ve been with someone for years, talking about sex can be scary because you’re exposing a really vulnerable part of yourself,” Mark told Men’s Health.
Sometimes the explanation really is as boring as two exhausted people who have to get up early for work. And one of them still has to put that damn mouthguard in.
At first, dating someone who’s completely obsessed with you can feel incredible. They remember everything you tell them and want to spend every free minute together. A few months later, you’re wondering when they last saw their friends or did anything that didn’t involve you.
Psychologist Robert Vallerand has spent years studying this sort of thing. His Dualistic Model of Passion describes two types of passion: harmonious, where someone can be crazy about you and still have their own life, and obsessive, where the relationship starts consuming their time and attention. In one study, couples were more likely to stay together three months later when harmonious passion was high and obsessive passion was low.
So how can you tell when someone’s enthusiasm is getting a little out of hand?
1. Their Whole World Shrinks Down to You
Remember when they played softball every Thursday and had friends they saw regularly? Now they’re canceling plans to spend another night with you, and you can’t remember the last time they mentioned doing something on their own. Research has linked obsessive romantic passion to neglecting other relationships and activities. It’s nice to feel wanted, but being responsible for someone’s entire social life is exhausting.
2. They Can’t Let Something Go
A harmless comment you made over dinner has turned into three days of questions about what you meant. You’ve explained yourself several times, but they’re still bringing it up and asking if everything’s okay between you. In more severe cases, persistent relationship doubts and reassurance-seeking can be symptoms of relationship OCD, although overthinking an argument doesn’t mean someone has the condition. Psychologist Guy Doron’s research suggests these symptoms can also affect the other partner over time.
3. Their Basic Upkeep Goes Out the Window
When someone’s spending most of their time thinking about a relationship, other things can start getting neglected. They’re missing workouts they used to enjoy, staying up later than usual, and forgetting to take care of themselves. Research from Vallerand’s lab has connected obsessive passion with rumination, where the same worries keep coming back no matter how much time someone spends thinking about them.
Someone who’s this consumed by a relationship could be dealing with anxiety or struggling to maintain their own life. Psychology Today recommends reconnecting with friends and old hobbies. If the constant worrying and need for reassurance continue, therapy could help, too.
It’s nice when someone wants to spend time with you. After a while, though, you start wishing they’d make plans with literally anyone else.
After decades of marriage, some couples have gotten so used to being unhappy together that they hardly notice it anymore. They go to work, come home, eat dinner and spend the evening on opposite ends of the couch.
The divorce rate among Americans over 50 doubled between 1990 and 2010, according to research from Bowling Green State University. And when researchers interviewed 52 divorced adults for a separate study, 75% cited a lack of commitment as a major reason their marriages ended. Infidelity and constant arguing were also common. Here’s how relationships can deteriorate after years together.
1. The Kids Left and the Conversation Went With Them
For years, there’s always something to discuss when you’re raising kids. Then the last one leaves home, and suddenly you’re having dinner across from someone you haven’t had an actual conversation with in ages. Sociologist Susan Brown told NPR that retirement and an empty nest can leave people wondering, “Is this the person I want to spend another 20 or 30 years with?”
2. Then Came the Eye-Rolling
After many years together, some couples have perfected the art of communicating their irritation without saying a word. The sigh when someone starts talking, the sarcastic comments, the eye-rolling. Psychologist John Gottman considers contempt one of the strongest predictors of divorce. Relationship counselor Mig Bennett told Metro that couples stuck in an argument should remember, “You can either be right, or you can be in a relationship.”
3. The Marriage Slid Down the Priority List
With work, raising children, and taking care of aging parents, it’s easy to spend years putting your marriage off until there’s more time. By the time that day comes, you might have forgotten what you used to enjoy doing together. That lack of commitment cited in the divorce study sometimes developed gradually, with couples becoming less willing to work on their relationship.
4. Someone Cheated
Nearly 60% of participants in the 2013 study cited infidelity as a major reason for divorce. Among those who identified a final straw, 24% named cheating. Some people try to repair the relationship afterward, especially when they’ve spent forever raising a family and sharing finances. For others, discovering an affair settles a decision they’ve been struggling with for years.
5. Drinking, Gambling and Other Final Straws
Substance abuse was another reason marriages ended, and the study also identified domestic violence as a common final straw. Addiction can take a serious toll on family finances and relationships, especially when someone refuses treatment. Abuse is a separate and more urgent concern, though, and personal safety comes first. The National Domestic Violence Hotline offers confidential support at 1-800-799-7233.
By the time some couples decide to divorce, they’ve spent years getting used to being unhappy together. And after 20 or 30 years of marriage, getting used to something can be a powerful reason to keep doing it.
Going home with a guy for the first time means getting to see how he lives when he hasn’t had much time to prepare for company. Sometimes you’re pleasantly surprised. Other times, there’s a samurai sword in the shower.
And his apartment can tell you quite a bit about him. Psychologist Sam Gosling found that strangers could make surprisingly accurate judgments about certain personality traits just by looking around someone’s bedroom. So while you’re getting comfortable, you might want to pay attention to a few things.
1. The Sheets
A UK survey found that 45% of single men waited up to four months to wash their sheets. Four months. Another poll found dirty bedding was the biggest bedroom turnoff for 81% of women. A slightly unmade bed is one thing, but if there’s a sweat shadow, you might want to reconsider staying the night.
2. The Mattress on the Floor
A mattress on the floor in your early 20s? Sure. You’re broke, you’ve just moved out and furniture is expensive. But if he’s 35 and the rest of his apartment is fully furnished, you have to wonder why the bed frame is still missing.
3. The Bathroom
There’s one towel that’s been hanging there for an undisclosed amount of time, along with a bottle of three-in-one body wash. Fine, whatever. But having some toilet paper and a somewhat sanitary place to wash your hands seems like a fair expectation. And if there’s no shower curtain, how exactly has he been bathing?
4. The Kitchen
A fridge stocked exclusively with hot sauce and energy drinks is an interesting choice, but lots of people survive on takeout. The sink full of crusty dishes, though, is where things get questionable. Now you can’t stop thinking about how long they’ve been sitting there and when he last washed an actual plate.
5. The Wall Art
An old concert poster is harmless. A framed Wolf of Wall Street poster above the bed might inspire a few questions, especially if he’s really into Jordan Belfort. Gosling’s research has also associated inspirational posters with neuroticism. Make of that what you will when you spot a giant “Hustle Harder” print.
6. The Photo Situation
An old picture with an ex isn’t necessarily concerning, especially if it’s from a vacation or an important event. But several framed photos of the same woman around the apartment, with no explanation of who she is, would have me asking some questions before getting too comfortable.
Most of these things can be fixed with a trip to Target and an afternoon of cleaning. But women on Reddit have also described finding fist-sized holes punched through the drywall at a date’s house, and that’s a much better reason to grab your bag and leave. At least the sword in the shower makes for a funny story.
Xbox players have 50 game releases to look forward to this week, including a handful of new Game Pass additions. From Mouthwashing to The Wolf Among Us Remastered, here is the full list of games arriving from October 26 through October 30, 2026.
xbox fifty new games release This week
Screenshot: Telltale
Over fifty new Xbox games are releasing across Xbox Series X|S, Xbox One, and PC according to Xbox Wire starting October 26. However, the lineup also includes remasters, ports, and expanded editions, so some of these games may already look familiar to some players.
For your convenience, here is the full list of fifty new Xbox games organized by release date. Game Pass additions are marked in bold.
Monday, October 26
Game
Ayasa: Shadows of Silence
PAO PAO (Game Preview)
Scramble Knights Online (Game Preview) — Game Pass
Tuesday, October 27
Game
Bao Bao’s Cozy Cleaning Services
Bloom Busters
Cozy Radiation Cleaner
Dog Man: Bark in Action
Farming Simulator 25: Beans & Alpacas Edition
Remothered: Red Nun’s Legacy
Sneaky Purr
The Séance of Blake Manor — Game Pass
Treasure Tiger
Wednesday, October 28
Game
Fall Adventure
Fallen City Brawl
Gennady
House Builder 2
Karate Survivor
The Last Case
Platypus Steps
Primal Planet
SULFUR
Thursday, October 29
Game
Beyond The Evil
Candy Shop Simulator
The Cat in the Hat: Rainy Day Mayhem
Choice of Life: Floors
Choice of Life: Samosbor
Croc 2 Kingdom of the Gobbos
Curse of Resthaven
HELLBOUND INC
Hunting Simulator 3
HYPERVIOLENT
Joe & Mac Retro Collection
Love: Fall in Death
Mouthwashing
My Life: Zoo Vet
Planted!
Terrible Lizards — Game Pass
The Transference
Train Yard Builder
The Wolf Among Us Remastered
The Zibbo Show
Friday, October 30
Game
The Abjuration Stand
Cat Pipes: More Meow
Corner Shop: NightShift
Ex-Master, Zombie
Love Love Mystery Club
The Night of the Exorcism
Pinballoid Crush
Queen’s Domain
Space Rock Breaker
Which New Xbox Games Are Coming to Game Pass?
Screenshot: Raw Fury
To be clear, all 50 releases are not coming to Xbox Game Pass. Three games from the weekly lineup are listed as subscription additions: Scramble Knights Online on October 26, The Séance of Blake Manor on October 27, and Terrible Lizards on October 29.
If you want something spooky ahead of Halloween, The Séance of Blake Manor is a supernatural detective mystery, while Terrible Lizards takes players to a dinosaur attraction where the staff have disappeared. For something a little different, Scramble Knights Online features cooperative adventures and Zelda-inspired quests.
On a personal note, I can’t recommend Mouthwashing and The Wolf Among Us enough. Both are some of the best narrative games I’ve played in years and are definitely worth checking out when they release on Xbox this week.
LONDON — Liz Truss claims the U.K. would have managed successful missions to Mars within years — if only her 49-day premiership hadn’t been cut short.
The assertion comes in the former British prime minister’s new book “Bank Job,” which was published Monday and claims to explain “how the Bank of England broke the bond market and brought down the government” when her mini-budget in 2022 precipitated market turmoil.
In its closing chapter, the book paints a vivid picture of what Truss believes life in 2040 would be like if her policies had been given a chance to bed in. “Several missions to Mars have now been launched from Britain’s space port,” Truss’ book imagines.
The ex-PM also opts for some more grounded policy dreams.
She envisages a 2040 in which “there are now no European Union laws in Britain,” a “permissive regime for artificial intelligence” is in place, and tumbling energy costs and faster planning timelines have helped make the U.K. a leader in AI.
“Bitcoin received tax treatment consistent with its status as a form of money for commercial purposes,” she imagines. “No central bank digital currency was introduced.”
Since leaving office after a revolt in her own party, Truss has dismissed claims her economic decisions — which included a huge energy bills bailout and tax cuts funded by fresh borrowing — were responsible for crashing the pound.
She has instead pointed the finger at the central bank, the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility watchdog, accusing them of working against her. Her new book takes direct aim at the Bank of England, which proposed to sell £80 billion of gilts before the mini-budget, although delayed that sale amid market turmoil.
Truss lost her House of Commons seat at the 2024 general election, and has since been involved in launching the Conservative Political Action Conference in Britain.
LONDON — Andy Burnham pledged to bring back hope when he entered Downing Street. Labour MPs are feeling it — for now.
The British prime minister is approaching 100 days in No. 10 this week with his party believing things are on the up.
Keir Starmer was toppled earlier this year after disastrous local election results precipitated a loss of confidence in his administration.
Disgruntled Labour MPs warned their new leader must show up, listen to them and accept some disagreement to avoid repeating his predecessor’s mistakes.
POLITICO sets out the four reasons Labour MPs are feeling more chipper under Burnham — but they still see potential pitfalls ahead.
Some of the dozen parliamentarians interviewed by POLITICO for this piece were granted anonymity to speak candidly about the internal party matters.
1) Disagreement is tolerated
MPs reckon Burnham’s administration is more willing to recognize different views within the broad church Labour Party.
Burnham himself told a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting that disagreement is fine as long as MPs speak to him about it, according to Simon Opher — a 2024-intake MP and member of Mainstream, the soft-left faction supported by Burnham when he was Greater Manchester mayor.
“It sounds weird, but that is a remarkable difference from what they had before,” Opher said, claiming he felt a “slight climate of fear” early in his political career.
Starmer infuriated MPs when weeks after taking office he suspended the whip from those who voted to scrap a two-child benefit cap — only to U-turn earlier this year.
By contrast, Kim Johnson, a member of Labour’s left-wing Socialist Campaign Group faction, points out she wasn’t sanctioned after abstaining on the government’s Courts and Tribunals Bill earlier this month because she believes it still weakens the right to trial by jury.
“You’re not feeling you can’t do that or risk losing the whip,” she said.
Burnham’s eyes are photographed as he delivers a speech at the Labour Conference in Liverpool on Sept. 29, 2026. | Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images
Of course, Burnham’s appetite for disagreement hasn’t been fully put to the test.
He entered No. 10 at the start of the summer recess, when MPs were away from Westminster, and there was a month-long conference recess when they returned to SW1 in September.
And MPs don’t want a totally laissez-faire regime.
“I didn’t get into politics to sit in a room and just agree with each other,” said another 2024-intake Labour MP. “I don’t think you get good policy by just sitting around like nodding dogs.”
But they said they “genuinely believe in collective responsibility,” and are “quite relaxed” about the consequences of voting against the whip.
Another backbench MP warns Burnham’s lax approach can only last so long.
“Andy is riding high still, he is not in [Nigel] Farage or [Zack] Polanski territory, he can afford for people to go ‘I don’t like this.’ It’s when the shit hits the fan, and the public are saying they’re not happy, then you begin to find the political patience wears out,” that backbencher added.
Burnham may yet regret his promise that the whips office will act as an HR department, the MP said, “because you want them to come down like a clonking fist.”
2) Ministers are more visible
Burnham’s team is making itself seen, his MPs report.
Whips have been calling them to check in, and Burnham himself has attended PLP sub-group meetings. Cabinet ministers have also been available for meetings.
Though another Socialist Campaign Group MP admitted “it’s a very low bar” for improvement. “Under Starmer, there was very little in terms of consultations, any discussions about anything at all.”
Mainstream member Alex Sobel said: “I’ve had more meetings with No. 10 — I’ve been to No. 10 North — in these three months than the entire time of the previous administration.”
One MP said: “People feel warmly towards Andy, which is half the battle. I think they trust his good intentions.” | Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images
Bill Esterson, who chairs the Energy Security Committee, said he had “regular conversations with No. 10” and that Burnham’s team had “engaged very fully” with committee chairs and the PLP more broadly.
A second 2024 intake MP said: “There’s definitely more of a concerted attempt for them to be reaching out and listening to us.” The days of being viewed “as the legal necessity to get legislation through” are over.
3) Burnham’s political instincts
MPs reckon they’ve had an upgrade when it comes to raw political instincts.
“There’s a feeling that we’ve got a guy up front who we can get behind,” said Opher.
“He understands how politics works,” he added, citing the decision to delay approval for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field until after the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, where Labour faced a challenge from the Greens. “Andy’s much more savvy on what he’s doing.”
Backbenchers also claim to feel more confident they won’t get caught in the Starmer flip-flop policy trap.
The unnamed Socialist Campaign Group MP quoted above is still smarting over the “absolutely awful” two-child benefit cap vote, where rebels lost the whip only for it later to become government policy.
The first 2024-intake MP reckons Burnham is better able to communicate difficult trade-offs, like alteringthe triple lock to fund social care.
4) Voters are giving Labour another chance
It is ultimately Burnham’s popularity with the public that has fed into the positive mood.
Many Labour MPs “agreed with the punters on the doorstep” about Starmer’s inadequacies, Opher said. Data showing Labour has retaken the opinion poll lead from Reform UK has boosted their optimism. “It doesn’t feel like a party that is about to be ripped apart,” he added.
The first 2024 intake MP said: “It has given us the right to be heard,” said the first 2024-intake Labour MP quoted above. “People feel warmly towards Andy, which is half the battle. I think they trust his good intentions.”
MPs say Burnham’s administration is willing to recognize different views within the Labour Party. | Leon Neal/Getty Images
Some flashpoints ahead…
1) The budget
Burnham can only coast on the good vibes for so long, and the first test of tough political choices comes Wednesday in the budget.
MPs on the left see the economic statement as a “crunch point” that will show if the chancellor will put his money where the PM’s mouth is.
“If there’s an attempt to take money from ordinary people who’ve got nothing and no attempt to get finances from people who have got far too much, then probably there will be some sort of opposition”, said the unnamed Socialist Campaign Group MP previously quoted. They hope to see the already trailed bank tax confirmed, or a wealth tax.
They warned that any decisions on what to cut and where to spend will pose “challenges from both sides of the PLP.”
“The measure of Andy Burnham is how he deals with it,” they added.
2) Welfare
Burnham wants to avoid a repeat of the botched attempt at welfare reform which severely weakened Starmer’s authority.
A long-awaited review by former Cabinet minister Alan Milburn into young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs) will be published shortly with recommendations.
Milburn — alongside Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden — has been trying to ensure communication is better.
“Pat has done an excellent job at building a consensus, rolling the carpet, setting out the argument, setting out the moral case, but he was doing that before the change of administration,” a third 2024-intake Labour MP said.
The second 2024 Labour MP quoted above said most colleagues “feel like it’s a decent stab at it and it’s not come out of the blue.” Reasonable critics “were just getting stonewalled” last year.
Esterson, who’s served in parliament since 2010, said regular engagement means “it’s not surprising that you get the benefit of the doubt far more often than if you don’t.”
3) Europe
Burnham’s admission that a future Labour manifesto could commit to a referendum on EU membership is already opening old Brexit wounds — and not in the way Labour wants.
The Socialist Campaign Group MP previously quoted is uneasy about its potential to spark further division. “It nearly ripped the country apart and I’m not sure if it’s the right thing to do [to] reignite that horribleness in each constituency,” they said.
The third 2024-intake Labour MP quoted above concurred. While people want a closer relationship with Europe, they believe rejoining is a “different kettle of fish” and jars with constituents who want “better public services and more economic growth” rather than continental renegotiations.
4) Energy
Energy policy has already become a flashpoint. The decision to approve the Jackdaw gas field was met with some dissent. A decision about the larger Rosebank oil and gas field is still looming.
Sobel told POLITICO’s London Playbook it “won’t make an impact on global prices and will give mixed messages in terms of investment in terms of both renewables and decarbonisation of home heating.”
Left-wing Labour MPs also signed a letter to Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh urging her to reject the licenses due to climate change. “Every second we continue pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere makes the crisis more severe,” the letter organized by Chris Hinchliff said.
The second 2024-intake MP quoted thought ministers are acting in good faith.
“They’ve got one go at government and they seem to be doing their absolute best to give it a good whack,” they said.
The European Union’s second-biggest economy is being dragged into a vicious cycle of fiscal and social crises.
By GIORGIO LEALI and CLEA CAULCUTT in Paris
Photo-llustration by Arnau Busquets Guàrdia/POLITICO
France has become the new sick man of Europe just in time for its next presidential election.
After two weekends that saw hundreds of thousands of protesters hit the streets demanding the government increase teacher salaries, fix run-down schools and help subsidize the rapidly rising cost of living, the European Union’s second-biggest economy is being dragged into a vicious cycle of twin fiscal and social crises that are fueling each other.
“France is on the brink of a financial crisis,” former Prime Minister Michel Barnier told POLITICO. “We need to send a signal to the markets.”
Advertisement
Authorities were able to prevent the type of rioting and looting this past weekend that marked the first round of demonstrations Oct. 17-18, but financial markets are spooked. Even before the demonstrations began, investors were dumping French debt or demanding historically high returns because of the government’s failure to significantly cut a stubbornly high budget deficit, bring down €3.5 trillion of debt, jumpstart growth and reform an unsustainable pension system.
The prospect of a presidential runoff next spring featuring far-right front-runner Marine Le Pen and her far-left rival Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who is in the mix for second place according to most polls, is further scaring investors. Both candidates want to spend billions to lower the retirement age.
The rioting, for now, is estimated to have cost tens of millions of euros, much of which will be covered by insurance. But the chaos is pouring fuel on an already explosive situation by sending worrying signals to investors, especially if the civil unrest continues. The Yellow Vest protests of 2018 to 2020, which came early in President Emmanuel Macron’s tenure, cost the French economy 0.1% of gross domestic product, with shops reporting losses of €2 billion.
Protesters climb the Column of July monument in Paris Oct. 8, 2026. | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images
“It is clear that protests have an impact on markets,” Eric Lombard, who served as economy and finance minister last year, told POLITICO.
Given that current Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s proposed budget for 2027 already includes €43 billion in savings, leaving little room for more cuts, the government is faced with an impossible choice: Borrow more money and saddle the next generation with billions of euros in interest payments, or hope the protests die out on their own.
“We have a knife to our throats, and we can feel the drops of blood on our jugular,” said a government minister who was granted anonymity to discuss the current situation.
“We need to show that we’ve heard the outrage. But we have little margin for maneuver given the market situation.”
Playing with fire
Mario Monti, who faced a similar situation as Italian prime minister and managed to avert a financial crisis in 2011 with spending cuts and a pension reform, told POLITICO that “things can go very fast.”
Back then, the spread between Italian and German 10-year bonds — an indicator that measures how risky one country’s debt is compared to historically safe Germany — shot up from around 150 basis points to more than 500 within a few months, Monti recalled. The spread between French and German debt was 169 basis points when markets closed on Friday, while the yield on France’s benchmark 10-year bond hit 5.14% the previous day, the highest level since 2002.
Advertisement
France has long been seen as the EU’s “spoiled child,” Monti said, taking advantage of its political and economic weight to bend or break the bloc’s fiscal rules. But few had thought a country that big and powerful would end up on the front line of a European debt crisis.
While the ability of the European Central Bank to buy government bonds on the secondary market under certain conditions gives it a powerful tool to avert a eurozone crisis, Monti says French voters must recognize that a sovereign debt crisis in their country is no longer the stuff of fiction.
“The major problem is that the public is not concerned enough with this risk,” Monti said. “France is not psychologically ready to view itself as the target of a crisis or even as the starting point of a crisis that could spread.”
That malaise isn’t just economic: Many indicators show France has lost confidence in itself.
A protest on Paris on Oct.24, 2026, bringing together former members of the yellow vests movement, labor unions, high school and university students. Sameer Al-Doumy/AFP via Getty Images
According to a poll last month, 9 out of 10 French people are pessimistic about the future and believe their children will be worse off than themselves. A pan-European study conducted earlier this year found that only half of French respondents feel pride in the democratic system, compared to two-thirds of Germans and close to 70 percent of Britons.
That pessimism has pushed voters toward more extreme candidates like Le Pen — whose economic platform has been panned by some economists as unrealistic and unserious — and Mélenchon, who wants to set French debt “on fire.” According to POLITICO’s Poll of Polls from earlier this month, Le Pen enjoys the support of 34% of voters while Mélenchon has 15% — meaning nearly 50% of the electorate intends to vote for an anti-establishment figure. Center-right candidate Edouard Philippe, arguably the best-placed mainstream figure to take on Le Pen, has tried to sell himself to voters as a candidate of fiscal discipline who is unafraid to address tough truths. But his campaign has struggled to find its footing.
Doom loop
The officials, lawmakers and diplomats POLITICO spoke with all agreed that France was not at risk of a Greece-like scenario forcing the government to stop paying officials and creditors. But it could very well experience a crisis similar to the one in Italy when Monti replaced Silvio Berlusconi in 2011.
“We are not yet a banana republic which risks filing for bankruptcy,” said veteran centrist lawmaker and budget expert Charles de Courson.
But during rioting earlier this month, in front of the shattered window of an already ransacked supermarket in Paris’ hipster 11th arrondissement, a man with no apparent connection to the shop was encouraging passers-by to go in and steal what they needed. A few meters away, the owner of a Chinese restaurant locked the door behind each client to make sure the rioters couldn’t get in.
Advertisement
These are scenes one would expect in a country on the verge of a sovereign debt crisis, not a member of the G7. Watching from Brussels, Washington or New York, diplomats and economists recognize that Paris will likely fail to bring its budget deficit down to 3% of GDP by 2029 as it previously promised to the EU.
De Courson said France has “lost all credibility” with its European partners when it comes to fiscal issues. Lombard, the former economy minister, said “we failed to honor our commitments,” but held out hope that things could change.
“On behalf of the French people, we made commitments to get the finances back on track, but we didn’t keep them. I was very much in favor of honoring my commitments. But collectively, we didn’t do that,” Lombard said. “So we put ourselves in a position of weakness.”
Canada and Europe want to reshape the global order. But whose vision will prevail?
Mark Carney’s push for a middle-powers alliance meets Ursula von der Leyen’s bid for influence.
By ZI-ANN LUM, SEBASTIAN STARCEVIC and CAMILLE GIJS
Illustration by Natália Delgado/POLITICO
Mark Carney’s pursuit of a global alliance of middle powers has a Europe problem.
Canada’s prime minister wants to help build a new world order that can counterbalance the power of the United States and China. But his vision depends on a new relationship with a Europe that doesn’t see itself as a middle power at all.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has a different vision: a Brussels-centered bloc that extends the EU’s economic and geopolitical influence, starting with Canada. The idea, according to senior European lawmaker Siegfried Mureșan, is to create an opportunity for the EU to become the “global center of gravity for liberal democracies.”
The competing visions will be tested this week when Carney and von der Leyen meet in Montreal for a summit intended to chart a new course for transatlantic relations. Both want to demonstrate they can prosper in a world upended by U.S. President Donald Trump. But they have different ideas about their curious new alliance — and face political resistance that could limit how far the partnership can go.
Von der Leyen’s offer of “associate membership” in the EU surprised officials on both sides of the Atlantic. Four diplomats told POLITICO they were not consulted before she floated the idea in the State of the Union. The officials added that they don’t understand the label, which has yet to be defined. Germany has since led pushback on the plan.
“We’ve definitely put the cart before the horse,” one of the diplomats said. “We’re announcing something and then figuring out how to flesh it out.”
Trump called the membership idea “laughable,” but also threatened “very serious tariffs” should it come to be — a reminder that leaders in pursuit of Washington workarounds must avoid provoking the White House.
The leaders are under pressure to leave Montreal with more than a liberal democratic photo-op. For starters, they need to decide what “associate membership” means — and disarm resistance in the EU capitals blindsided by von der Leyen’s plan.
Canada’s Ambassador to the EU Jonathan Wilkinson told POLITICO last month that people got too hung up on a label that was revealed prematurely. Carney called the Canada-EU relationship an “alliance for the future” when he addressed European lawmakers in Strasbourg.
Wilkinson said the Canada-EU project will show other democratic nations how to deepen partnerships. “It ties into very much what [Carney] talked about at Davos — and after Davos.”
Carney, von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa have two days to chart what’s next while American foreign policy continues to stress test geopolitical relationships in midterm campaigns that will shape Trump’s last two years in office.
The economic divide
Ottawa considers the EU an obvious partner in its push to diversify trade away from the U.S. There’s already a free-trade agreement that both sides view as being underutilized.
Leaders gathering in Montreal this week will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Canadian-EU trade agreement, nicknamed CETA. But nine EU member countries have yet to ratify the deal, underscoring the challenge of turning rhetoric into reality.
“We have shared challenges and many more shared opportunities,” Canadian International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu told reporters last week in Dublin, where he was invited to participate in an informal meeting of EU trade ministers, a preview of what a more integrated Canada could look like. “Canada wants to be Europe’s most reliable partner.”
Sidhu said CETA utilization rates in EU member countries range from 60% to 80%, making a point about room for improvement and perennial challenges. “We know there’s room to grow.”
Von der Leyen’s associate membership plan “has been coldly received by member states,” a senior EU official said. “It [the summit] is more about what we do, how we can use the real potential of the CETA agreement.” CETAhas been provisionally in force since 2017.
Trade talks between Canada and the bloc read like a lengthy transatlantic grievance list.
At a meeting between Brussels and Ottawa last October, the EU complained about Canadian taxes it says disproportionately hit European carmakers, opaque cheese-import quotas, cumbersome rules on cosmetics and what it considers discriminatory provincial taxes and markups on European wines and spirits.
Canada, meanwhile, warned that the EU’s deforestation rules could burden its exporters, questioned the impact of Brussels’ carbon border tax and pressed for greater recognition of Canadian standards in areas including AI.
The senior EU official described the relationship as constrained by “irritants and unfulfilled promises” that must be resolved if the two sides are to make progress.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney shakes hands with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, next to European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, in Strasbourg, eastern France, on September 17, 2026. | Jean-Christophe Verhaegen/ AFP via Getty Images
There are hurdles ahead. Even as Canada and the EU imagine a deeper economic and security partnership, both are pursuing industrial policies that could shut the other’s companies out of lucrative public contracts — death by compounded trade barriers.
Brussels has concerns about Ottawa’s “Buy Canadian” initiatives and their compatibility with the EU-Canada free trade agreement. “Some member states didn’t like the ‘Buy Canada’ thing from Carney,” the official added.
Canada is likewise uncertain whether its companies will qualify for the EU’s proposed “Made in Europe” preferences foreseen in a major industry bill that would seek to channel public procurement spending to European companies. The EU is divided over whether to extend those preferences to trusted trading partners, a topic that is expected to come up in Montreal.
Canadian business leaders recognize the domestic appeal of “Buy Canadian” in the face of Trump’s threats, but warn there will need to be concessions.
“It’s something that will have to be resolved in order to move the relationship deeper, particularly with respect to industrial cooperation or collaboration,” Mark Camilleri, president of the Canada EU Trade and Investment Association, told POLITICO.
Camilleri likened the 10-year-old CETA deal to a garden overgrown with weeds. “It pains me to see market access being eroded through Canadian and European preferences,” he said.
Pressure is on
European and Canadian leaders are under pressure to deliver wins this week that demonstrate that “non-hegemons” — a descriptor Carney used in his Davos speech — can survive and thrive in an age of great-power rivalry.
Canadians currently support closer ties with Europe. But the EU faces political headwinds of its own, from fraught budget negotiations within the bloc to right-wing populist movements that are picking up momentum in some of its biggest economies.
One likely deliverable is a new digital trade agreement. Talks launched in March and were still underway last week. But the agreement lacks substantive text on artificial intelligence, leaving the two sides to find other places to cooperate, potentially through the EU’s proposed Cloud and AI Development Act. That proposal seeks to reduce reliance on U.S. tech giants, raising the risk of a new row with Washington.
The European Commission is also pushing for Canada to join Erasmus+, the bloc’s student exchange program, according to one EU official. Carney has already publicly expressed interest.
But Brussels has bigger ambitions for the partnership. The EU is pressing Canada to increase its funding for Ukraine, a test of Canada’s willingness to take on more of the security burden.
For von der Leyen, securing that commitment would be a win. So would leaving the summit with a pledge from Carney to explore her offer of an “associate membership” — or whatever they end up calling it.
Zi-Ann Lum reported from Toronto, Sebastian Starcevic from Brussels and Camille Gijs from Dublin.
Meghan Markle told her estranged father he would never meet her children after learning of allegations of sexual abuse involving minors as Philippine authorities investigate claims that child sexual abuse material was found at his former home.
The Duchess of Sussex reportedly sent Thomas Markle Sr., 82, a final letter in December 2025, while he was hospitalized following a leg amputation. Sources close to Meghan told the BBC that she confronted her father about the allegations, told him authorities were aware of them and said she would never contact him again.
The revelation comes as Philippine Interior Minister Jonvic Remulla warned that evidence gathered so far raised the possibility of serious criminal wrongdoing. “Right now all signs point to a possible sex offender of the grossest kind,” Remulla told The Guardian, emphasizing that forensic examinations must be completed before investigators reach definitive conclusions.
Philippine police are examining materials reportedly discovered by Meghan’s half-brother, Thomas Markle Jr., while clearing out their father’s former home in Cebu. The materials allegedly included hundreds or thousands of images depicting child sexual abuse, along with electronic devices. Remulla said investigators expect forensic results within approximately a week.
Thomas Markle Sr. has emphatically denied the allegations, calling them “sick lies.” He told the Daily Mail that he had nothing to hide and welcomed forensic examination of the devices.
Meghan’s half-sister, Samantha Markle, has also defended their father, accusing their brother Thomas Jr. of fabricating the allegations for financial gain and claiming the computers had been outside their father’s possession for two years.
The investigation has also raised questions about British authorities’ handling of earlier warnings.
London’s Metropolitan Police confirmed Saturday that it received a letter in January 2019 containing allegations of offending outside the United Kingdom. Officers shared the letter with Meghan and Prince Harry’s office but did not forward the allegations to other law enforcement agencies. The department is reviewing its response and considering whether to refer itself to Britain’s police watchdog.
Meghan, who has been estranged from her father since before her 2018 wedding, said Friday that she had kept him away from Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet to protect them. “I am deeply distressed,” she said, expressing concern for any children who may have been harmed.
The FBI has confirmed awareness of the allegations and offered assistance to Philippine authorities. No charges have been announced, and investigators have not publicly established that Markle Sr. possessed the alleged material.
Are you in a relationship with someone who continuously downplays your emotions and experiences? You might be facing microdismissals, or the acts of subtly brushing off a partner’s feelings, boundaries, or needs. When done in excess, this habit can be incredibly invalidating and lead to disconnect within a relationship.
What Is Microdissmal?
According to Dr. Alexandra Foglia, DMFT, the Director of Family Program at All in Solutions, a network of treatment centers located in Florida, New Jersey, and California, “Microdismissal describes subtle, often repeated ways of dismissing someone’s feelings rather than merely one distracted response.”
“For example, a possible sign that someone doesn’t respect your boundaries is repeatedly interrupting or changing the conversation when you’re sharing something important to you,” Foglia states. “Bottom line, then, a pattern is behavior that we return to time after time, that we do without necessarily thinking about.”
Microdismissal can show up in a variety of ways, from talking over someone to laughing off their feelings. Sometimes, these habits appear to be in good fun. But over time, they can eat away at the other person’s confidence, sense of security, and emotional safety within the relationship.
“Another sign is selective engagement,” says Foglia. “For example, eye rolling is often used to express impatience. When eye rolling is used with sarcasm, it often reduces trust. Sometimes, humor can be used to dismiss someone’s feelings. No one deserves to have their feelings invalidated by being told that they are being dramatic.”
Impacts of Microdismissal
As state above, microdismissal can leave someone feeling insecure and disconnected within their own relationship.
“The impact depends on frequency, context, and repair,” says Foglia. “Experiencing accidental or intentional social rejection can easily contribute to feelings of invisibility.”
As these emotions build, you might begin to resent your partner and how they treat you, which only widens the gap between you two.
“Resentment can build if you have difficulty expressing your true feelings about issues within your relationship,” Foglia says. “Ultimately, a relationship with a high level of conflict can lead to resentment and anger, causing one or both partners to feel estranged from one another.”
Why Might Someone Microdismiss Others?
In my own experience, I’ve endured microdismissal from individuals who consistently dismiss their own traumas, feelings, and needs. This might stem from shame, chronic invalidation, or conflict avoidance in their past. Sometimes, acknowledging someone else’s experience means acknowledging our own. If we’re not ready to do that, it might present as microdismissal toward our partners.
“Some people engage in microdismissal because conflict feels threatening, but these reasons do not erase the behavior’s impact,” Foglia says. “They may withhold their own emotions from others, never letting them see when they are afraid, sad, or angry.”
This behavior isn’t always intentional, either. In fact, many people simply don’t know how to process their own emotions or sit with their own discomfort. Instead of engaging in further conversation, they laugh or brush it off.
“There are times, of course, when laughter is used to cover up anxiety or to escape from the experience of facing threatening material. But the gap can be bridged by open and honest communication,” says Foglia. “By approaching your partner thoughtfully, you can create a space for honest conversation and shared growth.”
Are you guilty of over-apologizing for anything and everything? Trust me, you’re not the only one. “I’m sorry” is basically my catchphrase, even when I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong.
Someone walks into me? “Sorry!” Someone cuts me in line. “Sorry!!” Someone feels bad for making me feel bad? “Sorry!!!”
It’s instinctual, at this point, but there’s nothing cute about it. Constantly assuming the blame for issues you didn’t cause, or even for innocent mistakes that aren’t actually hurting anyone, does not win you an award. While it might seem endearing, this habit keeps you small and powerless.
Why We Over-Apologize
There are many reasons one might over-apologize, from social conditioning to pure awkwardness.
“Apologizing is empathetic and, when done correctly, can be done through the lens of accountability and respect,” says Maggie Pajak, MSW, therapist with The Witch’s Therapist, a holistic, LGBTQ2S+-affirming therapy collective based in London, Ontario. “But when we overapologize, it can have deeper psychological roots.”
According to Pajak, this can include low self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, anxiety, people-pleasing tendencies, and conflict avoidance.
Who Is Prone to Over-Apologizing?
While anyone might engage in this habit, over-apologizing might be more common among certain groups of people.
“It’s absolutely more common in neurodiverse populations,” says Pajak. “That’s especially true for rejection-sensitive dysphoria.”
“People with anxiety, or who dealt with extreme criticism or shame during childhood, may preemptively apologize to avoid feeling that shame,” Pajak adds. “It’s almost like they’re getting in front of the shame before it happens.”
And, of course, let’s not forget women, who have been conditioned to be more accommodating, polite, and attentive, Pajak says.
“Also, women are more likely to be the victims of violence in domestic situations, and as a result they may find it necessary to overapologize to placate a partner’s violent tendencies,” she adds.
4 Ways to Stop Over-Apologizing
There’s a time and place for apologizing, but only when you feel you’ve genuinely done something wrong and want to express your guilt. Otherwise, let’s break this bad habit in the four following ways.
1. Acknowledge Instead of Apologizing
One of my favorite ways to fight the urge to apologize is by replacing an apology with gratitude.
“This helps us pause and reframe the situation,” says Pajak. “It shifts the focus from your guilt or shame to your gratitude toward the other person. For example, instead of saying ‘sorry it took me so long to reply,’ you might say, ‘I appreciate your patience.’”
2. Challenge Your Negative Thoughts
We often apologize from a place of shame: shame for being “inconvenient,” shame for taking up space, shame for having needs. But have you really done something worth apologizing for, or are you just holding yourself to impossible standards and denying your own humanness?
“This is important because we can still feel negative emotions in scenarios where we’ve done the right thing,” Pajak explains. “So, feeling guilt, shame, or like you’ve disappointed someone isn’t necessarily a sign you need to apologize for anything.”
3. Acknowledge Your Needs
Every person on this planet has their own set of needs. What makes yours any less valid?
“In some cases, people who overapologize do so because they grew up in an environment where their needs were neglected or ignored,” Pajak states. “When that’s in our past, it’s easy to feel guilty or ashamed for making those needs known. Learning to acknowledge and express your needs with people who feel safe can help you avoid overapologizing.”
4. Sit With the Discomfort
One of the best ways to drop this self-conscious habit is by sitting with your own discomfort.
“Attached to the previous example, it’s important to sit with the feelings that come up the first time you assert your needs,” says Pajak. “Where do you feel it in your body? What emotions is it attached to? Perhaps you feel shame, or perhaps you were previously made to feel unsafe. Can you just hold that discomfort? Can you sit with it? This can help you build a tolerance to that feeling, as uncomfortable as it may be.”
Dating has always involved some guessing. Lately, though, the guessing feels like the whole thing.
In Body+Soul’s 2026 Sex Census, mixed signals topped Australians’ list of modern dating frustrations at 55%, ahead of ghosting at 37% and unclear intentions at 35%. And anyone who’s dated recently probably knows the routine. You have a great first date, get a sweet text afterward, and then hear absolutely nothing for days. Meanwhile, this person somehow finds time to watch every single one of your Instagram Stories.
Psychiatrist Amir Levine, co-author of Attached, thinks we should stop calling these situations mixed signals. “Instead of calling it mixed signals, really, what it is, is uncertainty,” he told Body+Soul. And the longer you’re left wondering where you stand, the more time you can end up spending thinking about someone you barely know.
There’s actually research behind that. In a study published in Psychological Science, researchers showed 47 college women Facebook profiles of men who supposedly had rated their attractiveness. Some were told the men liked them a lot, while others weren’t sure how interested the men were. The women who didn’t know where they stood reported the most attraction and spent the most time thinking about the men. Granted, that’s a small study, but anyone who’s checked their phone 40 times waiting for a text can relate.
Why You Can’t Stop Thinking About Someone Who Sends Mixed Signals
Levine’s advice is to ask for what you want early on and pay attention to the response. If you’ve had a good date, tell the person you’d like to see them again and suggest making plans. You can even say you prefer knowing when you’re going to see someone instead of spending the week guessing.
And then see what they do. Someone who wants to see you can make plans or suggest a better night. If you keep getting vague answers and excuses, consider what you want before you waste another weekend waiting for a text.
You should think about your own habits, too. Levine recommends mentioning consistency in your dating profile if that’s important to you. And if you’ve lost interest in someone, politely tell them. No one enjoys sending a rejection text, but the person on the receiving end deserves to know.
If someone can’t give you a straight answer about getting dinner next week, imagine trying to make actual life plans with them.
A red flag used to mean something serious, like a guy who screamed at servers or a woman who keyed her ex’s car. These days, someone can get written off for wearing socks to bed or saying “lol” too much.
Dating apps probably haven’t helped. Researchers at Tilburg University found that people became pickier the more profiles they saw, with their likelihood of accepting a match dropping 27%. A 2025 study also linked getting “the ick” to perfectionism and other personality traits. So before you write someone off, here are six things that might not be as bad as they first seem.
1. They Agree With Everything You Say
Your favorite band is their favorite band. They share all your opinions and never seem to care where you go for dinner. It’s possible that you’ve found someone insanely compatible, or maybe they’re still nervous about disagreeing with you. Some people just need time to get comfortable speaking up. Writing in Psychology Today, therapist Duygu Balan asks, “Who are they when they’re not trying to make you happy?”
2. Their Ex Is Still Their Best Friend
Some people make better friends than romantic partners, and there’s no reason they can’t stay close after breaking up. They might have known each other for years before dating. As long as that friendship has reasonable boundaries and you’re not constantly coming second, it doesn’t have to be an issue.
3. They’re Moving at Warp Speed
By the third date, there’s a toothbrush in your bathroom and an invitation to Christmas dinner with their parents. Sure, it’s a little much, but some people have a hard time containing their excitement when they meet someone they like. If they’re happy to slow down when you ask, there’s probably no reason to panic.
4. Every Ex Was a Nightmare
It’s entirely possible that someone really did date several awful people. And if they’ve been hurt, they’re probably not going to have glowing things to say about those relationships. What you want to pay attention to is how they talk about their experiences once you’ve gotten to know them better.
5. Their Family Is Complicated
A complicated family history isn’t necessarily cause for concern. Some people have parents they haven’t spoken to in years, while others talk to their mothers every single day. You probably have a relative or two who drives you insane, so give someone a chance to explain their situation.
6. They Joke About Being Terrible at Texting
You can be interested in someone and still forget to answer their texts. It happens, especially when work gets busy, or you set your phone down and don’t look at it for hours. Pay more attention to how they treat you in person than how quickly those three little dots appear.
Everyone has a few habits that could irritate someone they’re dating. Give people a chance before deciding every little thing is a reason to walk away. Chances are, you’re doing something that drives them crazy, too.
If you feel exhausted in your relationship, you might be unknowingly carrying the invisible load for both you and your partner. This common, one-sided dynamic in relationships can lead to resentment, disconnection, and burnout.
“The invisible load in relationships is all the physical and emotional effort that goes into maintaining the relationship, the family (if you have children), and the household needs,” says Debra Feinberg, LCSW, Founder and Couples Therapist at Maplewood Counseling. “Imagine keeping track of and up with everything that needs to be done, and feeling your partner is clueless about all of the things you do.”
Does this sound like you? Here are seven signs you’re carrying the invisible load in your relationship.
1. You Do All the Planning
Some people enjoy planning the trips, vacations, and date nights in their relationships. But if you’re the only one investing time and energy into these events, you might be carrying the invisible load.
“One person feels they do all the work (even planning trips and date nights) to make sure someone is keeping up with the day-to-day,” says Feinberg.
2. You Struggle to Relax
It’s impossible to relax when you’re too busy thinking about all the to-do items on your plate—especially when you know you’ll be tackling them alone.
“While this may not be exclusively about your relationship, if you are someone who is always keeping track of all there is to do in your life, there’s a good chance that this way of thinking extends to your relationship as well,” says Victoria Murray, LCSW, PMH-C, psychotherapist at Root to Rise Therapy.
3. Most Responsibilities Fall on You
In your relationship, do you feel like most of the day-to-day responsibilities fall on your shoulders? For example, you’re the one who notices you’re running low on toilet paper. You’re the one who defrosts the chicken for dinner. You’re the one who buys birthday cards and Mother’s Day gifts and Christmas presents. You’re the one who bakes a tray of cookies for your partner’s family gathering. You’re the fixer, the stable force, the organizer, the chef, the maid…
“If your partner tends to frequently ask you questions like ‘where’s the (random household item that they could just as easily locate themselves),’ ‘how do I (complete a task that they don’t know how to do because you’ve always taken care of it),’ ‘should we (do something that they could do themselves but want you to do),’ these could be signs that you’re the one carrying the invisible load in the relationship,” says Murray.
4. You Feel Resentful
Resentment is a clear sign you’re carrying too much in your relationship.
“Feelings of resentment can creep in when you start to feel like the amount you’re carrying in the relationship is too much for you, out of balance, or unfair,” says Murray.
5. You Feel Underappreciated
It’s already exhausting to be the responsible one in your relationship, but it’s even more frustrating when your efforts go unnoticed. It’s called the invisible load for a reason.
“I’ve heard from many couples that it’s not until one partner experiences the absence of the one carrying the invisible load that they finally see everything that goes into it,” says Feinberg.
6. You Have to ‘Figure Out’ Your Partner’s Feelings and Needs
Many people feel responsible for “figuring out” their partner, especially if that partner struggles to communicate their feelings and needs.
“This can be one of the most exhausting aspects of carrying the invisible load: feeling like it is always your job to ask the questions, think about your partner’s needs, or guess how they might be feeling,” says Murray. “Eventually, this can lead to relationship burnout and resentment.”
7. You’ve Lost Interest in Intimacy
If you carry the invisible load in your relationship, you likely feel exhausted, depleted, resentful, or even angry. When your partner fails to acknowledge your burnout, sex can start to feel like yet another chore.
“If the other partner wants to be intimate and doesn’t get the reason you don’t have interest, it reinforces feeling invisible and not seen,” says Feinberg. “Appreciation and consideration are so incredibly important in a relationship.”
We all have different communication styles and preferences, with some of us seeking conversations and others waiting to be included. This is especially noticeable in dating. For example, you may have been on a date with someone who offered information unprompted and dominated the conversation for most of the night. Or maybe your date only shared personal details when you asked, making you feel like an interviewer. These communication styles are known as “volunteer” and “invite-only.”
Regardless of which end of the spectrum you lean toward, there’s no right or wrong way of communicating—so long as you’re respectful, of course. Wondering about the difference between the “volunteer” and “invite-only” communication styles? Let’s dive in.
‘Volunteer’ vs. Invite-Only Communication Style
According to Sophia Spencer, a specialist in social psychology, mental health therapist, and founder of Social Mind Clinic, “The volunteer communication style is when a person voluntarily communicates personal information without needing to be asked,” says Spencer.
On the other hand, “The invite-only communication style is when a person communicates information when they are directly asked a question or prompted by someone else,” Spencer says. “Essentially, they speak when invited to do so.”
These opposing communication styles differ in the following ways:
How They Offer Information
Perhaps the most obvious difference between the volunteer and invite-only communication styles is how (and when) they feel comfortable speaking in a conversation.
“One waits to be invited; the other speaks without invite,” says Spencer.
How They Understand Others
Spencer also points out that individuals with these communication styles differ in how they understand others.
“Invite-only communicators also invite others to speak. In this way, they return the favor,” says Spencer. “They show care by asking, respond when asked, and can assume others will do the same, which may not be true.”
“The volunteer communicator, on the other hand, is volunteering information, and similarly, they understand others to feel the same as they do,” she adds. “They may trust that if the other person wants to share something, they will voluntarily speak, just as the volunteer is doing.”
How They Define Safety in Social Settings
Like most social behaviors and habits, these two communication styles boil down to safety in social situations.
“Invite-only communicators feel safer when having been invited to speak,” says Spencer. “Volunteer communicators feel safe being vulnerable, sharing personal thoughts and opinions, without [an invitation]. Their understanding of social safety operates differently.”
When the Communication Styles Clash
When two people have conflicting communication styles, they’re likely to misunderstand each other and struggle to find their footing in social settings. This doesn’t mean either is right or wrong. Rather, they’re operating from entirely different belief systems and social approaches.
“The styles clash due to their fundamentally differing beliefs about how humans communicate,” says Spencer. “An invite-only communicator may assume others are the same, so when they meet a volunteer communicator they may interpret them as brash, egotistical, or self-centered. Indeed, a volunteer communicator may find an invite-only communicator as timid, shy, or even rude.
Both are misinterpreting the other’s understanding of safe social communication as possibly a problem. Both styles are with good intent, but they misinterpret each other due to their differing understandings of what is safely vulnerable in social situations.”
In fact, Spender notes that this is a common issue with cross-cultural communication.
“For example, some Eastern cultures see invite-only communication as a sign of respect. It would be rude to volunteer your story in the middle of another person’s, even if it was with good intentions,” she explains. “Western cultures, on the other hand, can value everyone jumping in and volunteering in a conversation. They may view people not engaging as a form of rudeness, even if it was intended to be respectful.”
Bridging the Gap Between Volunteer and Invite-Only Communicators
Just because someone has an opposite approach to communication doesn’t mean you can’t find common ground. Now that you understand the contrast between both styles, you can learn to bridge the gap and appeal to different types of communicators.
“The key element in appealing to both is to not assume the reasoning behind someone’s behavior,” says Spencer. “It can be helpful to ask yourself, rather than assuming this person’s motives, perhaps am I witnessing someone with a different communication style to my own? If so, how can I meet that style in a way that works for me?”
A new study found Grok's AI overwhelmingly recommends Republican candidates while OpenAI's GPT favors Democrats, with the two AI models disagreeing in more than 90% of nearly 500 election races.
Login
