I liked this article, although I have to fight off feelings of despondency when I read this kind of thing, being an idealistic romantic.

In my view, this is far from how men and women should relate to each other and this “chill” scene has inauthenticity built into it.

What it’s doing is it’s editing out the personality which naturally yearns to be considered and loved alongside physical intimacy. This is what is meant by integrity. The whole person is considered, not divided. When there isn’t a mutual consideration of the person, it is only using another for masturbation and any needs of the other perhaps a vague obligation.

By nature this creates an intentional tear between partners perhaps for self-protection, but at the cost of also dividing the individual within themselves.

It’s somehow “uncool” to be vulnerable, but vulnerability is facing life head on and honest. The evasion of vulnerability is a power struggle over who is less attached and more nonchalant about the other.

The person who settles for this “chill” situation is not guiltless either. They are willingly sacrificing and ignoring their inner needs. They believe gratifying the physical is satisfying themselves, but as it is not integrative, gratification is short-lived. They are setting the standards of intimacy and their boundaries by the decisions they are making. They are responsible because they are making the choice to be involved.

My solution is to re-marry the physical with the emotional, then people will naturally seek out a relationship that holistically nourishes them.