More and more people want a stable relationship, want to share life with someone, and are willing to get involved. People who don’t play hard to get, who don’t wait three hours to reply to a message. And yet, or perhaps precisely because of that, they encounter silence, ambiguity, or ghosting. When they clearly express that they like the other person, that they want to get to know them seriously, something cools down. Late responses, indecision, what is known as a classic situationship appear. Those who show availability are accused of moving too fast, being intense, or too involved. Meanwhile, those who remain in a vague position arouse more interest, more pursuit, more desire. It is a widespread feeling that invites us to wonder what is happening in our way of bonding.
Read more Political criticism of judges: freedom of expression or “banana republic”?
Psychologist and sexologist Laura Morán observes a clear tension between desire and context: “People still want to have deep relationships, but it is true that we start and maintain them in contexts that invite not getting too involved, not closing options,” she says. The context the specialist refers to is the digital environment in which we usually relate in recent years, which has changed the pace and texture of our bonds. “Although not all relationships start on apps to find a partner, they later develop through chats like WhatsApp or Instagram. And that makes some things happen faster, but it can also cause them to end faster or change the level of involvement and the way of exposing oneself,” Morán points out. In her practice, she explains, there are many people who want a bond but fear showing it. “It seems that interest has to be rationed so as not to scare, but all people still need to connect. However, it shouldn’t be too noticeable,” she argues.
But what psychological mechanisms are behind this? According to Morán, when someone clearly expresses what they feel, it forces the other to take a position. “When you start to get to know someone and the other person clearly conveys what they feel or what they are looking for, it forces you to explain what you feel and what you are looking for.” If times or expectations are not shared, things can cool down. Instead of having an honest conversation about one’s own feelings, ambiguity becomes a strategy to avoid conflict or rejection.
The psychologist adds another relevant nuance that somewhat relieves the other party of blame: “There are also people who, perhaps because of their biography, have learned that getting involved has a cost. And when someone is very available, instead of approaching, they regulate or self-regulate by distancing themselves. This is not necessarily disinterest, but self-protection.”
The seduction of uncertainty
But if clarity exposes, distance seduces. In the psychologist’s opinion, the good thing about ambiguity is that it leaves room for fantasy: “When the other does not define themselves much, we fill in what is missing with what we need and desire.” The initial intensity in some relationships comes not so much from reality as from what we ourselves project.
Uncertainty works as a powerful activator of desire. “This is what is called intermittent reinforcement. It is the mechanism of slot machines. Since sometimes you win, you always end up putting in the coin,” she explains. A message that arrives after hours of silence generates a greater emotional discharge than constant and predictable communication. Dating apps facilitate this dynamic. “Now I talk to you, then I don’t, now I show myself closer, now I distance myself, etc.”
The result is fertile ground for insecurity and avoidant or insecure attachment patterns. Morán clarifies that apps do not create these attachment styles, “but they allow them.” It is easy, for example, to withdraw without giving explanations and to talk to many people at once. “That is not possible to do in a nightclub, for example.”
Read more The opening of the Círculo de Bellas Artes, an explosion of irreverence and creativity
All this is having consequences. Chaining ambiguous bonds leaves a mark on people. “Each bond activates expectations and hope and, of course, when it ends and closes, sometimes very abruptly, there is the feeling that ‘maybe I made it up’ or ‘it was my fault,’ etc. This leads, over time, to doubts about one’s own worth. You start questioning if maybe you are too intense and expose yourself less.” The paradox is evident: clarity causes rejection and rejection, self-protection, thus reinforcing the unavailability that is criticized.
Liquid love and market logic
But the phenomenon is not only psychological, it also has a very clear cultural dimension. Sociologist Francesc Núñez, professor at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), places the problem in a broader logic: “Nowadays, market logic conditions all our actions. No one wants to be ‘foolish’ and, therefore, one searches, compares, and keeps the best.” In this logic, choosing a partner increasingly resembles buying a washing machine.
“We have assumed that the human brain works like a computer. This means it applies calculation to choose the best. The ‘best’ in this market logic is what maximizes the cost/benefit ratio and increases our capital in the different markets in which we operate, including the market of social relationships, love, work…” In that framework, showing emotional clarity can be perceived as a loss of power. “Emotional clarity makes you more predictable and, therefore, more vulnerable in a logic of choice. The one who does not show their cards has more chances to win,” argues the sociologist.
Brevity and ambiguity become normalized as low-risk strategies. “In a relational market where commitment has become very difficult and the fear of being rejected or replaced has become a structural factor in personal relationships, brevity and ambiguity become normalized. It is about not taking risks.”
The medium transforms the experience
Asked whether applications are only modifying the medium or also expectations, Núñez answers: “We could say that the medium transforms the structure of the experience and what we expect in a relationship. Apps not only make bonds possible but also shape the type of bonds you can have. There is talk of a tinderization of relationships: you search, compare, and if you find something better, you change.” If we broaden the perspective even more, the sociologist warns that the consequences of these new ways of relating are already visible: “The logic previously mentioned of ‘I seek my satisfaction and to achieve it I am willing to step over everything’ is devastating social life, making personal relationships difficult and convulsing desire to the point of paralyzing it in a context of supposed abundance,” he assures.
Deep down, it seems that a misunderstanding about what it means to have a healthy relationship underlies this whole matter. Morán points out that the idea has been installed that the right bond is the one that flows without discomfort. “The moment relating involves exposing yourself, having uncomfortable conversations, different times, managing uncertainty, we reject it.” Any friction is interpreted as a sign that it is not the right place.
Read more The Marriott in Caracas, the hotel where Venezuela’s future is decided