Have we outgrown emotional intimacy?

Popular discourse often tends to assert that people are becoming lonelier with time. Young people, especially Generation Z, or Gen Z, seem to be facing the most blame for their emotional unavailability and apparent lack of interest in pursuing long-lasting relationships. A lot of this discourse is backed by the fact that fewer and fewer people are getting married or deciding to have children. This often leads to a widespread belief that people have grown out of the need for emotional intimacy and prefer a hyper-individualistic life. However, I believe otherwise.

This is not to say that those who have chosen to distance themselves from prospects of love and relationships, or those who prefer to look inward to have their emotional needs met, do not exist, or that they are in the wrong for choosing to live that life. However, this does not mean that changes in the patterns of relationships or the dynamics through which people seek love, affection, and partnership are a direct indication of an entire generation's need for intimacy in their lives.

There are innumerable factors to consider here. The first to consider would be the statistics based on which we draw conclusions about feelings of loneliness. It is true that there are many studies which have concluded that people feel lonelier now than they have before, but there are also numerous studies which have concluded otherwise. An important fact to note is that studies about feelings of loneliness have only been conducted on a large scale after the year 2000. The metrics used to measure these feelings have also varied largely.

So, if loneliness has not increased astronomically, do the trends indicate a reluctance in people to pursue relationships?

An almost unavoidable part of discussing relationships in today's world would be Gen Z's relationship terminology. Attachment patterns, "baiting," "benching," "bread-crumbing," red and green flags (more on this later), "situationships"—the vernacular seems endless, and people are quick to conclude that the dating scene is incredibly complicated and requires too much work. Many even go on and say that this is reflective of the younger generation's unwillingness to commit to long-term partnerships.

However, if looked into closely, one would realise two things. First, none of these terms really introduces new laws or dynamics into the endlessly entangling prospects of love. Second, none of these reflect an unwillingness to pursue emotional intimacy.

Attachment patterns are the sets of behaviours people exhibit when in relationships, in relation to how they conduct themselves and respond to their partners' behaviours. Baiting essentially refers to leading a person on with the idea that one is emotionally available for a relationship when they are actually not. Benching refers to the idea of continuing a relationship with a person without really committing to them, keeping them around as an option. Bread-crumbing refers to the act of providing a partner with just enough affection to keep their attention while never progressing the relationship further. Flags, often paired with the colours red and green, refer to categorising one's behaviour in relationships into those that indicate positive versus negative intentions. Situationships refer to relationships which are not entirely platonic, but aren't exactly in an exclusive romantic relationship either.

None of these are circumstances that are unknown to those who have delved into the world of dating. The prospect of love, relationships, and partnership is incredibly convoluted, and has always been. The use of such terms are more indicative of a generation's way of making sense of a world that seldom does. It is also often a way for people to come to terms with the complicacies of relationships and form their own boundaries in relationships, establishing their standards and having their emotional needs met.

This attempt to make sense of a scene that young adults are often plunged into should only be indicative of their efforts to seek emotional intimacy and partnership.

Finally, there is the discourse on mental health and the "growth" mindset that often leads people to falsely believe that younger generations reject the notion of emotional intimacy and only rely on themselves to fulfil their emotional needs. While it may be true that more people find emotional fulfilment after having dealt with their mental barriers and resorting to a support network rather than just one person (a partner), does that automatically mean that they have chosen to forgo their emotional needs? Or that finding peace in friendships or even in a beloved pet does not count when it comes to emotional validation and fulfilment?

It is cliche for a reason to say that human beings are social animals. While a life geared towards meeting one's own needs is nothing to sneer at, people continue to pursue connection, attachment, and a stable partnership. With the ever-evolving nature of social dynamics, sticking to any particular metric to judge how people choose to feel or conduct themselves in regards to emotional connection seems archaic. Collectively catastrophising an entire generation's perception of love, connection, and relationships hardly seems to be the way to understanding the depths of their emotional needs.

So, have people outgrown emotional intimacy? Seems unlikely. A lot may have changed. People may speak a different language to seek it, but that does not take away from their experiences. People may seek it from other sources, but that does not discredit its existence.

But what do I know? I'm still trying to fathom the concept of beige flags.

Syeda Afrin Tarannum is a sub-editor at Campus, The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.