By Sookie Sagamore
This year’s winner of the “Modern Love” essay contest in the New York Times is about the labels we put on our love connections-an aspect that recently became an issue in my own life. Having entered into a bizarre non-relationship, the nature of which is so obscure, I’ve begun referring to it as my “emotional entanglement.”
“Of course!” said one friend, a small light bulb turning on above her blonde hair. When she referred to the guy I’m dating as my “boyfriend,” I quickly corrected her, replacing the clichéd title with a term I coined.
The emotional entanglement is more than friends with benefits. Feelings are involved, but no expectations. It’s dating, spending the night and cooking breakfast together without the title of an actual relationship.
There are many theories as to why men are squeamish about using the “R” word: their heart was stomped on in high school, they’re just not that into you, they still want the ability to f*** around, they’re waiting for someone better to come along.
“It’s a way for the guy to be an asshole and not look like one,” a male friend admitted.
The reasons men of our generation shy from the relationship brings up the issue of men’s ability to maintain a monogamous one.
“All men are dogs,” said a friend who’s recently become single again.
Her anger brought up more questions: if men still act like commitment is there, why are they faking it?
“All these little kids think they’re micro mini-pimps,” said a male source. “They can’t really pimp girls (or be with more than one girl and get away with it), so they get in a pseudo-relationship with a girl to constantly have someone there. But they still try to get other girls,” he explained. “When it doesn’t work out, they don’t feel that bad because they have that other girl and can tell themselves they ‘weren’t really trying.'”
Jaded as his theory might be, my knowledgeable friend has a point. We’ve been raised in a culture of fleeting love. Marriages last less than half the time; it seems everyone’s parents have been divorced at least once, and reality shows have romantics the likes of Flava Flav and Tila Tequila holding ludicrous competitions in hopes of finding that “special one.” In fact, the Public Enemy alum believes in love so much that he’s searched for it on VH1 three seasons in a row.
It’s ridiculous to expect that someone would want to be together “for the foreseeable future” when the reality is closer to “until this week’s elimination challenge.”
As a generation of individualists, are we doing the other person a favor by not tying them down with titles, expectations and Facebook relationship statuses? Or are we giving up on what we still really want?
“I just need to know if it’s possible for two people to stay happy together forever, or at least for a few years,” Juno MacGuff tells her dad in last year’s absurdly popular movie.
Spoiler alert: While she and Paulie Bleeker end up together, I’m left wondering if that kind of commitment is still possible.
I’m trying hard to understand that being tied down is unrealistic; people don’t stay together with one person forever anymore. There’s too much going on between classes, clubs, events, friends and worrying about the future to have another person’s expectations weighing me down. I should be thankful I’m with someone (if I can even say that without alluding to too much attachment) who respects my time and doesn’t want to rob me of it.
But at the end of the day, I’d still like to find the cheese to my macaroni, label or not.