970x125
Modern dating happens in a world that no longer has clear guardrails. There is no Austenian social choreography of paying calls, and we have long left Vienna ballroom etiquette behind us. On the face of it, there is a myriad of options, and everything seems possible.
The complication is that not everything is good for everyone. Lack of commitment can hurt. Delayed decisions mean reduced options. It takes planning and decision-making — intentionality, not drifting — to thrive in this context.
I recently spoke with students at Georgetown University about this. After the formal discussion ended, many stayed behind. They didn’t want another lecture. They wanted answers.
The questions clustered around four recurring tensions young adults are navigating with impressive seriousness.
The 4 Recurring Tensions
1. Situationships and the Cost of Not Deciding
Sometimes young people’s relationships reflect the insecurity of the broader world. They find themselves in “situationships” — romantic or sexual relationships that are not clearly established or recognized as such. These can show up, for example, as “friends with benefits” (FWB).
Allow me to state the obvious: Non-decision is a decision. If you don’t decide, every whim of your environment may decide for you. Because of our human status quo bias, we can get locked into a situationship and hesitate to break the ambiguity.
Ambiguity feels safe in the short run but can be expensive in the long run, as you may miss better opportunities. And empirically, it is generally wiser to align your body language — including sexual intimacy — with your level of commitment. When behavior signals more than intention, attachment tends to follow.
2. Do Partners Converge or Polarize?
Historically, we observe strong assortative matching among long-term partners: people pair with those similar in looks, values, education, and even sense of humor. We also observe increasing political sorting, particularly in more polarized societies and periods. The more political leaning is understood as an identity marker, the less acceptable it becomes to date across the aisle.
That is unfortunate, because romantic love can be a force for social integration.
Over time, couples tend to converge in daily habits. Political convergence, however, appears more modest than initial sorting. Interestingly, the more politically engaged spouse often exerts greater influence within the relationship (rich literature on this tension from Zuckerman et al.).
3. The “Singles Tax” and Opportunity Costs
Is there a “singles tax”? In other words, is it costly to remain single? This is classic Loveonomics.
Overall, the answer is yes. Couples benefit from economies of scale: shared housing, shared fixed household tasks, shared risk. If one partner is temporarily sick or underproductive, the other can compensate — a form of informal insurance. In some countries, tax codes explicitly favor married couples over singles.
Singlehood is not a failure. But from a strictly economic perspective, partnership often generates efficiencies.
4. Is Assortative Matching Wise?
Should we actively seek assortative matching — for example, by dating within our religious or educational community?
Empirically, strong assortative matching along education, income, religion, and core values predicts greater relationship stability. Values shape how we plan our lives and invest our time. If partners see eye to eye on these fundamentals, there is strength in unity rather than recurring conflict.
Values are also tied to vulnerability. It matters to feel safe expressing them. That said, when differences are embraced, supported, and even cherished, they can become a source of bonding and growth. Bottom line: Compatibility reduces friction. Complementarity creates growth.
Bottom Line: Plan, Don’t Drift
The world is uncertain, and modern dating lacks external guardrails. That means you must make your own decisions. Intentionality is powerful; “seeing where it goes” is not. Research on decision-making and life outcomes supports this.
How exactly to practice intentionality in love may be the topic of another post. In the end, love is not only about maximizing utility. It is about choosing a direction — and committing to it.
The most striking thing about the Georgetown conversation was the rigor and intelligent curiosity students brought to the topic. They are not disconnected, polarizing, or drifting apart. They are thinking carefully.
With young people like this, there is reason for optimism. They will seek, learn, and do better than previous generations.
