It began as a murmur online, a quiet confession disguised as irony. Memes about “boyfriend embarrassment,” and threads where women half-joked, half-meant it when they said that being in love felt a little embarrassing now. Then came the Vogue article that gave shape to the sentiment, naming what many had felt but hadn’t articulated: being in a relationship had begun to feel oddly uncool. Not because love had lost its significance, but because dependence had become uncomfortable in a culture of autonomy (Tartakovsky, 2025).
It wasn’t cynicism that made the essay viral, but recognition. Beneath the humour ran something heavier, a recognition of how deeply the language of empowerment had rewritten our emotional lives (Tnn, 2023). To post a partner felt performative; to admit longing felt naïve (Métellus et al., 2025). Love, once the ultimate symbol of fulfilment, had begun to feel like a step backwards, a return to dependence in a culture that finally taught women to stand alone (Bala, 2025).
The Gender Reversal
Relationships today reflect a notable inversion of gender. More and more women are exhibiting traits once coded as masculine financial independence, career ambition, emotional self-containment, and a willingness to step away from linear timelines of love and marriage (Apostolou & Lajunen, 2025). This new space of unfettered agency can feel liberating; however, it also creates new contradictions, both personally and within relationships.
1. The Provider Reimagined
For centuries, economic provision defined masculine worth, while women were valued for emotional labour and domesticity. Today, across both global and Indian contexts, women increasingly identify as providers, with many citing financial independence as the reason for delaying or rejecting marriage (Bala, 2025). Autonomy ensures that dependence, whether emotional or financial, becomes a deliberate choice rather than an expectation.
2. Autonomy as Emotional Freedom
The traditional relationship was a vessel steered by one captain. The contemporary woman now insists on co-navigation. Instead of accepting the linear timelines of education, marriage, and motherhood, she refuses the scripts for worth defined through attachment (Tartakovsky, 2025). Psychological research reveals a consistent connection between perceived control, well-being, and life satisfaction (Cheng et al., 2013). For many women, autonomy is not simply rebellion but both a moral and emotional imperative, ultimately a form of self-definition. In this paradigm, freedom is not avoidance but authorship: the ability to write one’s own story without waiting for relational validation.
3. Rewriting the Life Script
Marriage and motherhood once signified completion, while singlehood signified incompleteness. That hierarchy is now dissolving. Across cultures, women increasingly seek partners, if at all, who respect fluid timelines and emotional parity (Apostolou & Lajunen, 2025). The normalisation of singlehood reflects this ideological shift, marking a transition from waiting to choosing (Métellus et al., 2025).
This cultural realignment also reshapes what people expect from love. Women now place greater value on self-determination and emotional responsiveness qualities that many men were not traditionally socialised to provide (Emery et al., 2014). At the same time, men are experiencing a decline in traditional markers of masculine worth and a rise in emotional expectations that historically fell under “women’s work” (Tnn, 2023). Love, then, is no longer a normative path but an autonomous one: a choice to enter a relationship between two self-directed individuals, as the relationship itself moves within a structure that attempts to balance equality with the remnants of tradition.
Singlehood as the New Selfhood
Singlehood, once seen as a transitional or deficient state, is now a stable, even aspirational, identity rooted in autonomy and self-definition rather than romantic attachment (Apostolou & Lajunen, 2025).
1. Choice, not a Pause
Across cultures, adults are spending longer portions of life single, delaying or rejecting marriage altogether (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016). Scholars describe this as the rise of a “singling society,” where independence is no longer an interlude before coupling but a legitimate life structure (Bala, 2025). Young people, single women in particular, report that they feel more satisfied with being single than at any time in the past, describing singlehood as “emotionally efficient”: fewer compromises, more control, and a rhythm aligned with their own needs (Métellus et al., 2025). Whereas adulthood was once synonymous with marriage, it is increasingly defined by self-sufficiency and self-awareness.
2. Existential Control
In India, almost half of urban women cite economic independence and career advancement as reasons for not following earlier expectations of when to marry or have children (Tnn, 2023). This self-directed life grants a form of authorship once denied to women. Autonomy here is not merely economic but existential: the fear is less of loneliness than of self-erasure of dissolving into another’s narrative. Singleness, therefore, becomes an act of self-preservation, a stance against compromising identity for connection.
3. Happiness Without Relationships
Psychological research increasingly challenges the assumption that love is an essential component of happiness. People who believe their well-being can be self-generated report higher singlehood satisfaction than those who do not hold this belief (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016). Philosophies like “lying flatism” and minimalist living echo this sentiment, rejecting social compulsion in favour of peace and balance. Singlehood, then, is not avoidance but optimisation, a streamlined emotional life with less volatility and greater psychological control (Bala, 2025).
4. The Subtle Stigma of Solitude
Despite its normalisation, singlehood still battles “singlism,” a quiet prejudice against the unmarried or childfree (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). Perceptions hinge on motive: those “choosingly single” for growth or freedom are admired, while the “unwantedly single” are pitied. Autonomy, it seems, is celebrated only when it appears aspirational. Society applauds independence but mistrusts solitude. Freedom must look intentional to be respected.
5. The Paradox of Self-Sufficiency
The rebranding of singlehood marks a cultural victory, yet its emotional costs remain. The same boundaries that protect selfhood can also isolate it. A life optimised for control may limit vulnerability, spontaneity, and relational warmth. Modern adults may be more self-possessed than ever, yet lonelier not from a lack of love, but from a loss of interdependence.
If singlehood is the new selfhood, independence is its emotional currency, a symbol of competence, dignity, and control. Even so, such independence has its own hidden burdens. Today, single or coupled, we live with two expectations: we are to be independent yet emotionally open, and to be autonomous yet endlessly affirming. It is here, in this uneasy contradiction of self in love, that the emotional politics of contemporary intimacy reside.
6. Between Structure and Sensitivity
Modern relationships have to balance conflicting values, traditional stability and emotional openness. Men in particular are economically and emotionally strained by expectations that they be both providers and emotionally fluent partners, stable yet sensitive (Emery et al., 2014). Few are socialised for such duality. Research shows that when men attempt to merge these roles, they experience emotional exhaustion, while women often feel unseen despite their partners’ visible efforts (Tartakovsky, 2025).
These mismatched expectations extend to communication itself: men express care through action, while women seek it through expression. What one sees as practicality, the other perceives as distance, leaving both caught in a cycle of misinterpretation and fatigue.
7. Burden of Independence
Autonomy often functions as protection from vulnerability. Historically, women’s self-esteem rose and fell with romantic validation. Today, many replace “Am I loved?” with “Am I self-defined?” Yet the pressure to sustain emotional self-sufficiency can become its own burden. Independence turns performative as a way to prove competence even when connection is quietly desired. The cost of strength is often isolation.
The Digital Performance of Love
For most of history, love lived in privacy as an intimate duty bound by convention, where success was measured by endurance rather than emotional fulfilment. Marriage secured belonging, stability, and legitimacy; affection was a virtue of restraint, not expression. The late twentieth century redefined this script. With individualism and liberalisation, love became a project of self-expression. Romantic partnerships were no longer merely social contracts; they evolved into emotional enterprises that reflected personal choice, compatibility, and self-development (Bala, 2025). The relationship thus became a mirror of the self and, later, with the advent of digital media, a mirror for the world.
1. From Private Emotion to Public Proof
Social media has changed intimacy into performance. Platforms like Instagram and TikTok aestheticised love into curated, captioned, and shareable affection. Visibility became validation: to be seen in love was to be lovable (Taba et al., 2020).
2. Visibility as Reassurance
Online affection shared photos, couple posts, “soft launches” serve as proof of legitimacy, while their absence can signal emotional distance. Psychologists refer to this as relationship visibility anxiety, the discomfort one experiences when their love is not reflected publicly (Emery et al., 2014). Relationship-contingent self-esteem states that self-worth is often shaped by visible success or failure in a relationship, particularly in the public eye (Knee et al., 2008).
Individuals who are anxious in their attachment are likely to choose more visibility in a relationship online, using the public as comfort for private doubts (Métellus et al., 2025). Daily changes in interpretations of partner responsiveness can be paired with increases in posting, suggesting that displays of love often operate in the absence of emotional certainty (Satici et al., 2021). Love is not just felt but continually performed to ease both the self and the social gaze.
But visibility invites surveillance, and reassurance breeds comparison. Algorithms amplify contrast and comparison. Every declaration of love exists alongside idealised couples, curated, filtered, perpetually harmonious. Individuals who tie their self-worth to relational approval are more likely to monitor partners’ online activity, check profiles frequently, and experience distress when public acknowledgement is missing (Knee et al., 2008).
3. Surveillance as Modern Attachment
Anxiously attached individuals seek reassurance through visibility, checking last-seen statuses or story views, while avoidantly attached individuals perform withdrawal, using silence or digital distance to reassert control. These interactions create what psychologists term techno-behavioural attachment loops, where emotional regulation depends on real-time online cues (Métellus et al., 2025). The “seen” tick becomes acknowledgement; the lack of it becomes rejection. Micro-interactions play out love in ways that simulate emotional connection but rarely satisfy it.
4. The Marketplace of Intimacy
Digital culture also transforms relationships into forms of social capital. People exchange romantic posts, “couple aesthetics,” and matching content styles as indicators of stability and desirability (Taba et al., 2020). In an attention economy where visibility equals worth, intimacy itself becomes currency. Sociologist Eva Illouz terms this the commodification of emotion, the packaging of feeling for cultural consumption.
This shift carries a subtle but significant consequence: love becomes measurable through engagement. The likes, comments, or reposts made on someone’s story or post may serve as a quantifiable proxy to gauge emotional validation, further blurring the line between relational authenticity and performative desirability.
5. Aesthetic Burden of Love
Today, affection is not only public but curated. The aesthetic relationship of polished reels, coordinated outfits, and cinematic gestures transforms emotional authenticity into aesthetic credibility. People believe love only when it looks like content. This aestheticisation extends to solitude: heartbreak becomes “soft-girl sadness,” detachment becomes “main character energy.” People stylise emotional states and convert them into visual narratives that align with trends (Taba et al., 2020). This visual coherence replaces the private experience of love and blurs the line between emotional truth and performative aesthetics
6. From Ritual to Reflex
What began as a celebration is now a reflex. People document affection pre-emptively, anticipating the dopamine of visibility. The performance sustains the illusion of closeness even as private connection erodes. Sherry Turkle writes that we are “alone together,” at once hyperconnected and estranged.
Yet beneath this hypervisibility lies an emerging countermovement: the aesthetic of invisibility. Couples choose not to post; singles embrace offline peace. In psychological terms, this marks a return to secure attachment, where love can exist without proof (Métellus et al., 2025). To withhold visibility is now an act of defiance, a refusal to equate emotional presence with digital presence. In this quiet resistance, the truest form of love may be that which resists documentation, where affection, once again, belongs to the people in it, not the audience watching.
Beyond the Boyfriend
1. The New Anxiety of Intimacy
Empowerment and exhaustion, visibility and withdrawal have rewritten the language of love. The viral unease around having a “boyfriend” was never about relationships. It was about what intimacy now signifies in a world built on selfhood. To love today is to risk contradiction: between a digital culture that demands display and a psychological one that prizes autonomy.
The politics of visibility entangle emotional independence. Yet this hypervisibility exists alongside a quiet withdrawal. Women who once fought for the right to love freely now also defend the right not to. The new language of freedom is solitude, and the new rebellion is restraint. To not post is to reclaim intimacy; to choose singlehood is to reclaim authorship. Both gestures reveal the same wound: people protect themselves from being consumed by another person or by the public eye. This “boyfriend embarrassment” isn’t rejection, it’s recalibration.
People now treat love not as a milestone but as an elective experience, something to integrate into an already full life rather than use to complete it. Perhaps the embarrassment isn’t about love itself, but about the unease of returning to dependence in a world that finally taught women how to stand alone. This discomfort with romantic dependence mirrors larger cultural movements: the “soft life” that privileges peace over hustle, “main character energy” that centres self-narration, and “lying flatism” that rejects performative ambition.
2. The Emotional Cost of Autonomy
Each, in its own way, resists the emotional exhaustion of constant proving to a partner, an audience, or the self. But independence, too, breeds its own fatigue. The modern ethos of autonomy has created a fragile emotional ecosystem. Men grapple with reconciling strength and sensitivity, women balance empowerment with exhaustion, and singles navigate freedom shadowed by solitude.
The result is not detachment but overexposure, and intimacy defined by negotiation rather than stability. And maybe the real rebellion isn’t in avoiding love, it’s in learning how to love without losing yourself. Because if modern love is a negotiation between visibility and vulnerability, its new terms reveal both progress and quiet grief. We’ve rewritten the rules, but not the loneliness. Love, after all, is not the opposite of autonomy. It is what tests its truth.
References +
Apostolou, M., & Lajunen, T. J. (2025). Voluntary singlehood in a Greek-speaking cohort: Different priorities and giving up intimate relationships as reasons for singlehood. Social Sciences, 14(8), Article 462. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14080462
Bala, S. (2025, April). Modern relationship dynamics: The conflict between traditional gender roles and contemporary expectations. IBADAN Electricity Distribution Company. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29582.47685(researchgate.net)
Beauparlant, E. T., & Machia, L. V. (2024). Why are you single?: Examining the influence of reasons for being single on the stereotypes associated with single adults. Current Psychology, 43(35), 28475–28487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024- 06466/8
Emery, L. F., Muise, A., Dix, E. L., & Le, B. (2014). Can you tell that I’m in a relationship? Attachment and relationship visibility on Facebook. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1466–1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214549944
Frost, D. M. (2011). Stigma and intimacy in same-sex relationships: A narrative approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022374
Girme, Y. U., Sibley, C. G., Hadden, B. W., Schmitt, M. T., & Hunger, J. M. (2021). Unsupported and stigmatised? The association between relationship status and well-being is mediated by social support and social discrimination. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211030102
Heng, Z., Chin, J., & Tan, C. (2023). Feelings toward lying flatism and attitudes toward singlehood: the mediating role of happiness belief. BMC Psychology, 11(1), 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01187-2
Jager, J., Rauer, A., & Pettit, G. S. (2024). A Lifecourse perspective on Singlehood. Research in Human Development, 21(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2024.2375912
Joseph, C. (2025, October 30). Is having a boyfriend embarrassing now? Vogue India. Retrieved from https://www.vogue.in/content/is-having-a-boyfriend embarrassing-now
Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., Bush, A. L., & Cook, A. (2008). Relationship-contingent self-esteem and the ups and downs of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 608–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.608
Métellus, S., Vaillancourt‐Morel, M., Brassard, A., & Daspe, M. (2025). Attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction in the digital era: the contribution of social media jealousy and electronic partner surveillance. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51(4), e70074. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70074
Satici, B., Kayis, A. R., & Griffiths, M. D. (2021). Exploring the association between social media addiction and relationship satisfaction: Psychological Distress as a Mediator. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 21(4), 2037–2051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-021-00658-0
Staff, J., & Vuolo, M. (2024). Time-varying correlates of adult singlehood: education, work, living arrangements, and mental health. Research in Human Development, 21(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2024.2345543
Taba, M., Lewis, L., Cooper, S. C., Albury, K., Chung, K. S. K., Lim, M., Bateson, D., Kang, M., & Skinner, S. R. (2020). What adolescents think of relationship portrayals on social media: a qualitative study. Sexual Health, 17(5), 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1071/sh20056
Tartakovsky, E. (2025). Who Is Afraid of Romantic Relationships? Relationship Fears and Their Connection with Personal Values and Socio-Demographic Variables. Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15020191
Tnn. (2023, December 11). Women in India are opting out of traditional relationship timelines like getting married or having children at a certain age, according to a survey. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/women-in-india-are-opting-out-of-traditional-relationship-timelines-like-getting-married-or having-children-at-a-certain-age-reveals-a-survey/articleshow/105905979.cms
