The State of Dating

How cultural and technological advances have broken dating culture and the world

Why the hell am I writing about dating culture in this usually so pseudo intellectual blog? Dating is part of my and many of my friends lives. In our debriefs certain themes keep popping up again and again. After mulling over them and connecting a few dots, it seems to me that the dating landscape is caught in a perfect storm of negative influences caused by globalisation, technology, dating apps, polarisation, identity politics, and more. All this has resulted in a collective action problem that we need to address together.

Note that this post is mainly focused on the “Western” perspective on this issue. The dynamics of Asia, LATAM and Africa are less known to yours truly.

LITTLE BIG PLANET

The late 20th century brought us unprecedented global connectivity. Supply chains became more intertwined. Air travel became democratised. Technology removed the friction in our communication. This interconnectivity has made the world seem much smaller than before. People are more likely to leave their village, a smaller and more limited dating pool, to move to big anonymous cities. At the same time cities grew so much so that most people on the planet now live in urban centres.

The constrained mind is a more decisive mind and so the bigger pool of potential partners has created a sense of “there could be someone better around the corner”. Not only in our own city but now we can also fly to New York cheaply and find them there. The world is our oyster. There are so many potential un-lived lives within our grasp. Why would we chose one if we can dream about 100s?

Contrast that with a life of people growing up in a village of thirty thousand souls with barely anyone ever leaving or joining the dating pool. There we want to lock down the eligible bachelor/ettes as soon as possible. And that is indeed what happened for the most part. Between 1970-1990 as cities grew there was a drastic decline in urban marriage rates compared to rural areas (marriage rates are highly correlated with relationship rates). This difference is still prevalent but has become less pronounced over time. One of the key contributor to this change is female empowerment.

MORE RIGHTS, LESS COERCION

Another key shift during the late 20th century has been the embarrassingly late attempt of addressing the historic wrong of giving women less rights than men. Like most quests for justice, this is never a finished project and we are no where close to the finishing line.

The consequence of the increase in female self-determination and access to job opportunities has been a decrease in overall coupling rates. The gap that existed between rural and urban areas in 1970-1990 has shrunk to 5-10% in the 2000s. Women are rightfully no longer seeing getting married to a man and popping out babies as the only thing that matters in life. They want to pursue careers and are not dependent on men to be the provider.

When only one side of the dating pool is allowed to be gainfully employed and has rights to do as they wish, it’s obvious that couplings were more prevalent. Even an “average” dude could snag a “worldie” if there is not much local competition. This changes when the “worldie” now isn’t dependent on the “average” dude anymore. She can pack up and go to an area with more choice to find a market with more competition.

To make things even more complicated, we’re now seeing a growing education and ambition gap between men and women. In most developed countries, women are outpacing men in higher education and entering more professional spaces in greater numbers. This is great news for equality, but it creates a subtle tension in the dating market. If women still tend to look for partners who are at least as successful, ambitious, or educated as they are, the math starts to get tricky. The pool of men who clear that bar is shrinking. What was once called “marrying up” now feels like searching for a unicorn, and “dating down” still carries a social and emotional tax. So even with more autonomy, mobility, and choice, many women are stuck in a paradox: their standards aren’t unrealistic - they’re just increasingly hard to meet.

I know this is a very economic and bleak view of interpersonal relations but even if you don’t believe that this matters for the majority of relationships, it obviously does for a significant percentage.

IT’S ALL ABOUT BUTTERFLIES

In the meantime American cultural exports became the envy of the world. Hollywood’s preeminence in setting the tone in most of the Western World during the late 20th century is undeniable.

During the 1920s-1950s the image of glamour, idealised romance and clear gender roles was depicted. Couples were aspirational, even if stylised. The “happily ever after” trope was born. The 1960s-1980s featured cultural revolutions and sexual liberation. Divorce and infidelity became themes for the first time and romantic ideals began to shift. In the 1990s-2000s we experienced the explosion of romantic comedies. This genre reinforces romantic longing but often centres around the pursuit more than partnership. Happy endings do mean couplings but barely anything after “I love you” is shown (which is when the actual work starts). In the 2000s media turns increasingly towards individualism, self-actualisation and complexity.

Sex in the City embodies this undermining of traditional coupling quite well. I know I’m going to invite the ire of die hard fans but so be it. The show is a master class in the constant search for the one without any resolution. Characters pair off but it’s always complicated, never clean or permanent. The idea that we should always keep looking is normalised. It is also a masterclass in urban individualism. All of the characters are living for their own goals, career, apartment, identity - this includes the men. Relationships are viewed through the lens of self-fulfilment not sacrifice and stability. And then the “Mr. Big” problem! Carrie’s on-again, off-again relationship with Mr. Big is glamorised and becomes emblematic of the modern romantic dilemma: emotionally unavailable, commitment-phobic, and exciting enough to keep chasing.

Of course, media is a mirror of society but if you create more chickens there will be more eggs. In other words, media can normalise fringe or extreme behaviour found on the edges of society. Note that there are shows like Entourage, Californication and even How I met Your Mother that are more targeted at men, which have had the same effect.

The cultural norms exported from Hollywood before the Internet largely disintermediated its stranglehold, helped globalise a set of expectations - high standards, soulmate myths, perpetual sexual possibility, relationships as liberation not limitation. So we expect epic love stories and get mundane realities leading to dissatisfaction in the first inning. Comparing my lame dating life to Justin Timberlake and Mila Cunis’ on screen romance leaves a lot to be desired. So we couple less and keep searching for someone that gives us the impossible.

THE WORLD IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND

The march of technology progresses until we hit June 29th 2007. It is not hyperbole to suggest that a lot of the awesomeness and issues of the ensuing years can be traced to the creation of the iPhone and the App Store. Of course, someone else would have created the mobile computing paradigm if it weren’t for Steve Job’s Apple but they saw the future and forced it upon the world.

You know the fallout of all this, so I’ll keep it short. Mobile computing has provided the platform for everyone to completely disrupt our attention as they see fit. We have also created more 24/7 inboxes and feeds than any of us can ever stay on top of. The present mediated by mobile computing is overabundant and provides a permanent exhausting chase that has lead to many mental health issues. New platforms allow for culture to travel and splinter in more ways and higher velocities than previously possible. Nobody has given us an instruction manual with the tech that explains how to use it sustainably. Everyone is just messing about to figure this out. Most consume indiscriminately and have become automatons. I have a blogpost on how to fight back.

How does this relate to dating? In more ways than one. If urbanisation provided us with choice, digitisation provides it to us without ever having to leave our homes. Not only did the dating pool become several orders of magnitude bigger but now we can “date” 24/7 from our couch. Some apps like Raya even show us eligible bachelor/ettes from all over the world just so we can keep expanding the “never settle” fantasy.

Moreover, the general trends towards more individualism paired with technologically mediated overabundance of the present have created a generation of people who are alone and exhausted. This impacts how people interact. Furthermore, digital platforms disable empathy loops, which more reliably kick in while interacting in the physical world. This enables us all to be more mean online. While the debate will continue to rage about how much of this meanness has seeped back into the physical world of human interaction, my experience would suggest that it is undeniable. Individualism, exhaustion, and lowered barriers to being mean have made compromising in the real world harder.

Note: A lot of what I ascribe to mobile computing can be said about the internet prior. However, mobile computing hooked everyone up to the internet, not only the people who could afford laptops. It therefore really set off The Great Wave Of Kanagawa.

DEHUMANISING AS A BUSINESS MODEL

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room - dating apps! Humans are superficial. Even in a bar, we scan for potential mates with our eyes. So a bit of superficiality is built into the universe of primates. Dating apps take this to the next level. I don’t think we change what matters to us on dating apps but we do have a gazillion potential matches to assess. This means we have to adopt a process with even more superficiality to “get through” the task.

The abundance comes with the usual issues of choice. Why should we spend time with the matches we currently have if the illusion of the more perfect specimen is just a few swipes away. This means matches are merely to provide a bit of cheap validation and a romantic daydream of a life un-lived before we move on to chase the next match we won’t respond to.

Once conversations get going the dating app inbox competes with all the other inboxes we have to tend to. Good luck with that! If we don’t stand out with ever more interesting banter the novelty of the match wears off…crickets. While matches provide small hits of dopamine, this sort of “ghosting” is the flip side and can be interpreted as micro-aggression or rejection by those who take all these things to heart.

It doesn’t help that the Match Group, which owns most dating apps, and Bumble are for profit organisations that make more money by keeping you on the platform. Charlie Munger used to say “show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome”. Don’t get me wrong there are many people who have found and continue to find the love of their life through dating apps but by and large the dynamics they create are not in the interest of their users. If that were the case, they would do a better job allowing us to search based on criteria that matters, rather than gamifying our need for partnership.

I could go further into the lopsided nature of the stats but we’ve covered this at length in our “On Dating with Tugce Bulut” Where Shall We Meet podcast episode. It is clear that users are not happy with the state of affairs:

A CULTURE OF FRAGILITY

This section is going to get me in trouble but is important. We're living in a time when hyper-individualism has merged with a trauma-aware, label-heavy culture, which is meant to protect - but often ends up limiting - interpersonal connection. Dating, by nature, requires friction, and compromise. But we’ve created a world where even mild discomfort is seen as a red flag, and compromise is seen as self-betrayal.

People now come into dating with a list of non-negotiables and dealbreakers: “if you don’t have a therapist, you’re not for me”, “if you’ve got the covid vaccine, don’t match”, “if you can’t tell me about your trauma, swipe left”. Inherently the focus is primarily on “what do you bring to me?” instead of “what can we build together?”

The modern mandate seems to be “protect your peace at all costs” but if both parties are protecting their peace, who's left to build the bridge? Relationships are inherently destabilising at times. That’s how they deepen. But now, any instability can feel like a threat to one's identity or “healing journey”.

We've become hyper-attuned to micro-aggressions, triggers, and red flags. Words like “toxic,” “trauma,” “gaslighting,” “boundaries,” and “narcissist” are everywhere. This can protect people - but it can also turn intimacy into a minefield. People bounce at the first sign of discomfort.

Compounding this fragility is a growing instinct to interpret others’ actions in the worst possible light. Someone's late text becomes a sign of emotional unavailability. A moment of awkwardness is seen as possible disrespect. A poorly worded opinion? Must have been a deliberate assault. Rather than giving each other the benefit of the doubt, we apply forensic scrutiny, always alert to evidence of harm. It’s not just that we’re sensitive - it’s that we’re primed to pathologise each other. And in that climate, it’s almost impossible for two imperfect humans to grow anything together. Compassion requires slack. But dating now feels like a zero-tolerance zone. Dating has become a courtroom instead of a dance floor.

The result? We’re all waiting for someone who won’t ever make us uncomfortable - but growth, intimacy, and love all require exactly that.

THE COVID THAT BROKE THE CAMEL’S BACK

What a scene to thrust upon a global pandemic onto. While there is a lot to say about life and dating during lockdowns, I’ll stick to the aftermath.

If dating was already fragile due to our aversion to discomfort and compromise, the pandemic polarised society into opposing camps with entirely different realities. Suddenly, what you believed about masks, vaccines, and media trust wasn't just a health choice - it became a litmus test for your values, intelligence, even your moral worth. One side saw public health rules as common sense, and viewed anyone skeptical as a conspiracy-addled liability. The other side saw those same rules as performative nonsense, enforced by captured institutions and consumed only by the compliant.

With every flip-flop in official messaging, the cracks in institutional legitimacy deepened - and the idea of trusting a partner who thought differently became harder to swallow. Dating, once about chemistry and curiosity, began to feel more like picking a winning team. And when two teams compete in sports there is no room for nuance or compromise - one side has to win. So now you’re not looking for a partner - you’re looking for a teammate who already agrees with you on everything.

And not only that, every cultural disagreement since has morphed into a zero-sum game. There’s no longer space for “I see where you’re coming from” or “we can agree to disagree.” Every issue - masks, genders, race, immigration, climate, the Middle East, AI, you name it - gets filtered through a lens of tribal identity where one side must win and the other must be defeated. This isn't just political polarisation - it's a full-spectrum social fragmentation. And in the context of dating, it’s devastating.

We used to be able to fall in love across differences. Now, we can't even tolerate them. If someone doesn’t check all the right ideological boxes, they’re not just “not for me” - they’re part of the problem. In this environment, the emotional bandwidth for compromise, patience, or slow connection has all but vanished.

Friend groups, communities, and dating pools are less ideologically diverse than before because people are now on the lookout for tribal markers for who’s safe to even talk to. The result: dating, once messy and human, now feels like a high-stakes audition for ideological purity - with no callbacks for anyone who flinches.

ANOTHER COLLECTIVE ACTION PROBLEM

I know this essay is rather polemic and that reality is not quite as bad as I make it out to be. Such is the world now, pockets of complete insanity co-exist with sort of normality. But here's the thing: we can address coordination challenges like this, they just require collective action. We do manage to adhere to silence in libraries and movie theatres, so we haven’t completely lost the plot yet. Compromise is needed, so let’s lay out some dating etiquette:

1. Acknowledging our ego - Actions of others for the most part are reflections of what is going on in their life, they are not always immediately a reflection of what they think about us. If someone does act out of line, remember they are probably dealing with some sort of crap in their own life that they projected onto this interaction. It is best to not take everything personal. This is not easy but should be the goal of adult development.

2. Acknowledging our crazy expectations - The reality is that most dates we go on won’t be with the love of our life but this doesn’t mean the people we meet on the way are not worthy of becoming part of our life’s journey. Every date is a possible new friend, collaborator in a project, sidekick we can go to gigs with, etc. Let’s not go into these interactions with pre-set expectations of what has to happen. Most importantly let’s not go into them to seek validation.

3. Remembering the cold start problem - We are all dealing with overflowing inboxes and very little time. So if someone does match with us, let’s send them a message if we feel like the other side could be an interesting human. On the recipients side, we should cut the initiator some slack. They may have lacked creativity in the moment but they are saying between the lines that they are intrigued by us. This should at least warrant a recognition.

4. Adopting radical candour and cognitive safety - If we don’t take everything to heart, then communication could be a lot more honest. If we’ve gone on a date and thought “s/he was nice but I didn’t detect romantic chemistry”, let’s just say that. We can do this by suggesting that it was probably a mutual feeling to ensure it doesn’t feel like we are rejecting them. If we have too much going on to go on another date, let’s say that. We should make sure to consider the dimensions of the human on the other side of the message.

5. Using higher fidelity communication - If possible, we should immediately switch to voice notes. It is far easier to come across as human when we voice our thoughts rather than just type them. Communication is hard enough between friends on text, let alone between strangers. Voice allows for nuance and intonation, which helps avoid misunderstandings.

6. Gathering more in person - Let’s become people who organise in person gatherings. This does not require a big flat or a lot of money. Going on a walk in the park with 10 friends who are single - is free. Let’s be the instigators that get people together. We are much more empathetic and willing to compromise in person, even more so if we have close links to another person.

7. Setting our friends up - Let’s be proactive in setting our friends up, even if we’re bad at matching them. We should normalise friends setting up friends. That’s how it worked for centuries but we somehow now abdicated this responsibility to apps. We can do better than that. Everyone has friends of the opposing sex, who are single, let’s just connect them.

None of the above is easy, nor have I mastered any of the steps myself but it feels like a good direction to take steps in.

CONCLUSION

The forces that have shaped modern dating - tech platforms, media narratives, cultural shifts, economic structures - are bigger than any one person’s choices. This is a classic collective action problem: individually, we optimise for ourselves - protect our peace, chase the ideal, filter out friction - but the net result is mutual disconnection.

The only way out is together. It means choosing to give people a little more slack. It means tolerating ambiguity, accepting imperfection, and being brave enough to sit in discomfort without bolting. It means remembering that no algorithm can substitute for patience, presence, and a little bit of grace. We didn’t get here overnight, and we won’t fix it overnight - but if we start to act differently, the feedback loop can shift. Maybe we can make dating human again.

If nothing else, let’s agree that dating shouldn’t require a thesis-length blog post to make sense - but here we are.