The Sentinel

Is modern dating really broken? A study says not really

Photo: Nathan Dumlao/Unsplash

(SNS)- Dating has never been easy.

It is hard because it involves navigating a complex mix of emotions, expectations, and external pressures. From high standards and fear of rejection to miscommunication and cultural influences, the challenges vary from person to person and relationship to relations.

Add into the mix social isolation created by technology, pandemic lockdowns and potential partners’ unrealistic expectations from movies and TV shows that show failling in love as effortless and magical, setting unrealistic expectations for real-life relationships. Yeah, finding the love your life is hard.

Pop culture critiques tend to regard today's dating ritual as "broken".

Two studies performed a decade apart found that college students' ideas about romantic relationships have largely remained unchanged over time, according to study leader Brian Ogolsky, a professor of human development and family studies at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

couple dancing

Photo: Unsplash/Anthony Tran

"College students in our study did not share this perception of dating as a broken system, despite many massive cultural shifts during this decade," Ogolsky said, dispelling the popular myth that today's singles are unability to find a romantic partner because dating culture is 'broken'. "Their perspectives on relationships today aren’t that different from what they were 10 years ago — or even 10 years before that. Instead, young adults are taking more diverse and multifaceted pathways through romantic partnering and considering a broader range of outcomes."

The study asked 250 college students between the ages 18-29 to "describe their thoughts and experiences about the typical initiation and progression of romantic relationships." The initial research started in 2012 and it was ran again in 2021.

Based upon participants’ responses, the researchers identified four stages in relationship development: flirtationship, testing relationship potential, being in a relationship, and commitment.

Commitment or Bust, is the point where a couple agrees to a long-term commitment

Flirtationship is the initial stage where attraction begins, often through flirting and shared interests, either online or in person.

The next step is Testing Relationship Potential, where the couple spends more time together, engages in deep conversations, and determines if they want to pursue a serious relationship, with friendship playing a key role.

When a couple reaches the third stage, their romantic needs have been met and their status as a couple is made official. The "In a Relationship" level usually denotes that mutual boundaries have been defined, such as a commitment to exclusivity and supporting each other emotionally, financially, and in their individual careers. At this point, couples are introducing their partner into their social circles and family.

“Young adults clearly distinguish dating from being in a relationship,” Ogolsky told the Illinois News Bureau. “In our study, we used the term ‘relationship development’ to describe the activities we were investigating, but it became clear that participants did not view early behaviors as part of being in a relationship per se. Instead, they viewed flirting and even dating as part of a broader pattern of interpersonal interaction that may or may not eventually lead to the formation of a relationship.”

Depending on external pressure from family, friends, or their cultural background, the final stage, Commitment or Bust, is the point where a couple agrees to a long-term commitment, either living together or getting married. Or, in the worst case for one or both partners, they may choose to move on in search of their happily ever after with someone else.

Ogolsky speculated that during the ten year period, the rapid growth in social media and dating apps would greatly affect how today's students approached dating.

"When we ask people about relationship prototypes, they’re not talking about technology," he explained. "They’re thinking about relationships in broad strokes. And we found it interesting that the centerpiece of relationships was not dating apps, artificial intelligence or robots or all the other things we may have predicted 25 or 40 years ago."

Traditional relationship milestones like engagement and marriage are no longer seen as necessary next steps these days.

Today, more young adults value the freedom and flexibility of being single, enjoying the ability to make decisions without considering a spouse or partner. Many prioritize bucket lists - travel, personal development, and reaching career goals - before settling into a lifelong commitment.

Observing failed marriages among friends or family members, especially a messy one or two, is powerful deterant. According to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), the current divorce rate nationwide is around 42%. The average first marriage lasts about eight years.

Financial instability due to changing career changes, debt, inflation, and student loans payback often delay couples entering into marriage. The cost of a modest wedding for two hundred guests is eye-opening.

Traditional relationship milestones like engagement and marriage are no longer seen as necessary next steps these days. Couples are choosing alternative paths such as cohabitation or long-term partnerships without marriage. While the steps to long-term commitmment may have not deviated that much in the past decade, navigating to that point certainly has.

Commentary |
Christian congregations are standing up to cruelty. Why won’t politicians?

The Trump team has attacked bishops, Lutheran social service organizations, and other faith communities simply for following their social gospel.

by Peter Montgomery

OtherWords

Here’s a strange question: Why is Elon Musk lying about Lutherans?

The richest man on earth recently forced good people across the country to interrupt their community work to respond to his lies and threats.

Lutheran social service agencies offer crucial assistance related to adoption, foster care, domestic violence, and more. They also support immigrants and refugees, helping new Americans learn English, find homes and jobs, and settle into their new communities.

Like many nonprofits, they often get federal support to offer this help.

But in early February, as Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” was forcing its way into government, right-wing activist Michael Flynn posted on social media that federal contracts with Lutheran social services organizations amounted to “money laundering.”

Musk responded that DOGE was “rapidly shutting down these illegal payments.”

Neither Flynn nor Musk offered any evidence against these experienced and reputable social service providers. Instead, smearing Lutheran social services was seemingly just a tactic to justify massive cuts Musk wants to impose on social spending.

Already the administration’s spending freeze has disrupted these agencies’ work, causing “considerable harm to people who rely on critical services for shelter, food, and mental health services among other social supports,” according to Lutheran Services in America.

News outlets in Ohio, Nebraska, South Dakota, and elsewhere agreed, pointing out the range of good work being done by Lutheran social service agencies. But I don’t think Musk cares.

Using false claims to justify widespread harm seems to be the operating principle behind Musk’s cruel crusade. Consider the brutal dismantling of USAID carried out by Musk with President Trump’s support.

USAID has boosted U.S. influence around the world while providing desperately needed humanitarian assistance to fight disease, prevent starvation, and provide a lifeline to people displaced by political violence.

The agency enjoyed bipartisan support for this work for over 60 years. Then Musk and Trump suddenly (and illegally) shut it down, abruptly cutting off countless people from lifesaving support. Musk bragged heartlessly about “feeding USAID into the wood chipper.”

“In its simplest terms, the apparent demise of USAID is the result of the world’s richest man ending a program that helps millions of poor people,” wrote Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor at large for America magazine, a Catholic publication. “You don’t need a Ph.D. in moral theology to see why this is an evil. You can just read Jesus’s parables on the rich and the poor.”

Lutherans aren’t the only people of faith being smeared. When Catholic bishops criticized a policy change to allow immigration agents to arrest people in churches, Vice President J.D. Vance suggested the bishops weren’t concerned about the human cost of these policies but about their own budgets.

Since then, no less than Pope Francis himself has condemned mass deportations and the dehumanizing rhetoric behind them.

Sadly, it’s no longer surprising to see conservative Christian activists attack and demean the faith of other Christians who disagree with the Trump team’s actions. When Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde respectfully asked President Trump to show mercy toward immigrants, LGBTQ people, and their families, she became the target of vicious smears and threats.

Bishop Budde has stood her ground, but others have not.

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, whose state is home to the nation’s largest Lutheran congregation, refused to answer when a congressman asked if she believes Lutheran Family Services is a money laundering operation. Reynolds is smart enough to know it’s not, but she was unwilling, like many elected officials, to say anything that might invite the wrath of Trump or Musk.

The Americans who will be harmed by these lies deserve better than this senseless cruelty.