I have a theory. I think a lot of relationships today resemble someone with their pet… and not someone with their partner. And both parties are culpable, if not ensuring this structure continues.

I’m going to attempt to articulate a dynamic I’ve noticed while observing and overhearing stories shared on relationships. I find that the one that most closely resembles the “pet” will end up rejecting the notion. This reaction makes a lot of sense and if anything, proves the point. To be in the pet position in the first place, there were probably several instances of denial.

Today, when we read online about women for women content, a lot of it is surrounding “if he could, he would” or “these are the things I want my partner to do for me.” Or any of the more stringent relationship advice, a well-known example being that of the We Met at Acme’s Do’s and Don’ts on first dates (one of which includes for the girl to not give any gifts to the guy before he asks for you to be exclusive). There’s no issue with breaking the dating process down into principles but it does characterize a relationship as remarkably similar to a negotiation. But it seems consistently that in light of women achieving increasingly more than before (higher education, higher income), they ask more of men than before too.

Traditionally, the male role has been to provide but some point along modern dating, the now-conventional mindset from females is “What can he provide for me” and “What do I get out of this” rather than “What life will we have together?” Sometimes it’s framed in the form of self-care or growth, which arguably is better but at the cost of exploring a relationship. Protecting one’s peace, not meeting them where their standards are… all of these are filters on filters of a pool of potentials.

Denying that relationships involve an exchange, however, seems to be putting on blinders. This might’ve arisen from the notion that reducing a relationship to an exchange is primitive…debasement of a pure connection in a world in which it is so rare. But we can always identify components - they might not have price tags since emotional value is hard to quantify and standardize but we know it has at least some relative value.

Now, the pet dynamic. I notice several pairs where one side is the financial provider and the other side is the presence/visual/company provider. I don’t mean escorts or sugar babies - these are couples where both acknowledge each other as partners. The Stay-at-Home Girlfriends are Having a Moment article is an illuminating read. If you look closely at the treatment of each other, things resemble more a caretaker and a pet than a partner to partner. In a romantic context (or any semblance of one), when you exclusively or mostly use another’s resources without providing a family or other source of fulfillment, you’re a pet.

I think a good litmus test here is asking - does the provider respect the other? Is there something the provider sees in the other that they admire?

A grim, lamentable truth is that often the answer is no. Often, the provider doesn’t respect or admire who they’re with because they’re of the mindset they’ve paid for something - a companionship, a life, a connection. Both parties here are complicit: the provider, in believing they can pay for a companion, a life, a connection and the pet, in trusting that they can depend and utilize at no tradeoff. The trade off is that pets are not seen as builders of a life together or even partners in the short term future. Pets are accessories. Accompaniments.

Edit 8/1 - E mentioned that in this essay, I don’t mention love once. I didn’t realize this myself. I don’t plan to define love though - someone may very well feel love being either party in the above dynamic.

—- cut

Of course, the female trump card in this debate is commonly pregnancy - no male in any relationship foreseeably carries a combined unison of himself and his partner with physically arduous and emotionally toiling effects for the duration of 10 months on average. So let’s account for this too. In previous versions of society, it was common for the male to accumulate resources and the female to build the products of those inputs. Around the 1970s, the percentage of households where men were sole breadwinners and primary breadwinners, 74%, started decreasing and today it’s 23%.

Admiration - do you admire your pet?

Respect - do you respect your pet?