Putting Political Litmus Tests In Your Dating App Bio Is A Red Flag

A recent romance column in The New York Times lamented how men have retreated from emotional intimacy: “Men, Where Have You Gone? Please Come Back.” But the Gray Lady ignored the political elephant in the room.

With the sex gap in voting remaining high — and growing among the college-educated in 2024 compared to 2020 — it stands to reason that political differences may prove an insurmountable barrier to romantic relationships. When people only want political “discussions” that confirm their ideological biases, they make the kind of deep emotional vulnerability that romantic relationships require difficult, if not impossible.

Dating App Virtue Signaling

As a single male in a jurisdiction that gave Kamala Harris over 90 percent of the vote last November, I see this phenomenon every day. I couldn’t tell you how many times I see references to “Free Palestine” in dating app profiles — an average of at least once a day and possibly more than that. It speaks volumes that I discovered that the watermelon represents the Palestinian cause simply because it appeared in so many dating profiles. Other political messages get sprinkled in as well, from references to the “death of democracy” to protest photos to comments deriding those who dub themselves “apolitical.”

Because of my location, “woke” profiles predominate, but conservative and MAGA types do appear, particularly during inauguration weekend in January. One recent profile had so many “-isms” in it that it took me some time to realize she was advertising herself as a conservative.

But in almost all cases, I try to avoid these profiles for multiple reasons. First, politics and policy are what I do, but they aren’t who I am. My work occasionally becomes so exhausting, and politics so all-consuming, that I relish the opportunity to engage in intellectual discussions about art, sports, the weather — anything but politics. Truth be told, I would prefer a relationship with someone outside of politics, all else equal, simply to ensure I have other topics to focus my time and energies on.

Overcoming Differences

The broader concern speaks to the Times essay, which decries that “we have moved into an era where many men no longer seek women … to connect across difference.” Based on many of the profiles I view on a daily basis, a not-insignificant number of women in my area seem more interested in broadcasting their views than connecting with others. If the first impression someone provides in her profile involves insulting Elon Musk — or even Joe Biden — how likely is she to engage in a reasonable intellectual discussion of the issues of the day, let alone the intimate conversations necessary for a romantic relationship to grow and flourish?

I have dated women well to my left politically, had no qualms about doing so, and in a couple of cases might have married said females, had unrelated circumstances not intervened. I tend not to impose personal litmus tests — I attend Mass weekly but have yet to seriously date a practicing Catholic — and while I recognize that others do so, I find the concept slightly foreign.

Yet dating in Washington seems like a gauntlet of litmus tests. On one recent occasion, I went out on two nice dates with a female my age, and we had agreed on another. But when I tried to arrange that third date, I received a response saying, “I would like to pursue a relationship with someone I am more ideologically aligned with.”

At this point, some readers might respond by saying good riddance to bad news. It’s a fair enough sentiment, but one that doesn’t make me any less single.

Relationships or Gratification

At 54, Rachel Drucker, the author of the Times article, may not have picked up on the “woke” nature of some college-educated millennials and how politics has permeated relationships. Having previously worked for Playboy, she instead focused her column on how omnipresent adult content online has sucked in younger males, leading to a withdrawal from relationships.

But in some respects, pornography and the coarser websites that “contribute” to our political discourse share eerie similarities: Both appeal to emotions and do so to generate clicks and profit. Portions of Drucker’s essay could apply as readily to some of the political bile that spreads on social media as to websites like OnlyFans: “There’s no need for conversation. No effort. No curiosity. No reciprocity. No one’s feelings to consider, no vulnerability to navigate. Just a closed loop of consumption.”

In both cases, the solution isn’t easy, but it is simple. Get away from the screens, put down the phones, and engage with others substantively and seriously. Respect differences, and hopefully understand them. Grow relationships across boundaries and without ideological preconditions. That’s the way to breach our political divides and become more vulnerable — and more human.