The state of politics makes dating hard. Thankfully I'm queer in New York.
Hear this story
My first date with a woman was a second chance. She asked me out during my senior year of college when I was still partially in the closet. I freaked out, and it took me a year to work up the nerve to ask her about it again.
We met at a cidery in Durham, North Carolina, in a city neither of us lived in. On the way there, I blasted 'First Date' by Blink-182. Tom DeLonge's distinct nasal whine was the only thing I could think of that would capture what I felt, a mix of curiosity and longing I had pushed down for my entire life.
The date lasted two days and spanned multiple North Carolina towns. I left my phone in an Uber halfway through. About a week later, COVID-19 would shut down the United States. We continued to see each other, watching "Tiger King" on Netflix and ordering takeout. After a month or so, things fizzled out. We keep in touch occasionally.
I continued to go on dates with men for three more years, although I wasn't seeking them out. I think I was trying to prove to myself that I was bisexual. Heterosexuality felt like something that was supposed to happen to me rather than something I actively enjoyed.
In the interim, I found myself dating the kind of left-leaning men one dates in their 20s. They talked about politics in the abstract as things to be debated rather than the real-life experiences of others. I was someone they could share their hot takes with.
Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.
In 2023, I switched my dating apps to exclude men and haven't looked back. As Valentine's Day nears, many of us won't be able to escape what it's like dating in modern American politics. This is my experience.
Realizing I'm queer was a big part of my dating life
I'm queer. That's how I would describe myself if someone asked. It affects everything about me, including how I view politics.
For many people in the LGBTQ+ community, being gay is inextricably linked to their political identity. That's not really by choice – when your entire existence has been stigmatized or outright denied by the right and only tolerated by the left for years, you don't have the option to be conservative or even apolitical.
Opinion:Republicans care more about attacking 1% of Americans than helping any of us
The use of the word 'queer' itself is inherently political, a reclamation of what was once only used as a slur – and, occasionally, in my inbox, still is. It's still a word some people in the LGBTQ+ community are uncomfortable with.
For me, it feels most authentic to who I am. I prefer the fluidity of the word 'queer' in terms of both sexuality and gender. 'Lesbian' also feels like a fitting descriptor despite my history of dating men.
I can't avoid the politics of dating
Still, dating didn't get magically easier once I came out. It just meant that I was finally dating people I was attracted to.
Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2012, is regarded as the loneliest generation in America, with 73% of 18- to 22-year-olds reporting that they sometimes or always felt alone.
This is reflected in our information on dating and marriage: The number of married people has recently risen to 51%, according to the Pew Research Center, after a 20-year decline.
In some ways, this is also reflected in my own dating experiences. Since moving to New York City, I've been challenging myself to date more to make friends or find someone special. Because of this, I also spend a lot of time on apps such as Tinder and Hinge.
Opinion:Republicans are going after marriage. LGBTQ+ people like me tried to warn you.
Thanks to dating apps, I've been on a handful of dates over the past year. While none of them worked out, they all taught me something.
On one date, we borrowed books from each other (they lent me "Nevada" by Imogen Binnie, and I lent them "Gender Queer" by Maia Kobabe). After going to a show with someone else, I discovered I didn't like stand-up comedy. My hobbies, interests, past, and how I see the world come up when dating. In turn, I enjoy learning the same things about another person.
I've also been trying to meet people, friends and lovers alike, which generally means spending time in queer spaces. There are 48 LGBTQ+ bars in New York City. I've been to two in the past week alone. I've found that most people stick to themselves. When you're alone, people will strike up a conversation with you, but it's usually not flirtatious.
Politics will come up in passing, just by the nature of my job. Most people I run into have the same politics as I do. I don't mind that. I'm sure there are some LGBTQ+ people in these spaces with whom I disagree, but I haven't come across them.
Can love survive politics?He watches Fox, I watch CNN. Secret to our relationship? Know when to stop talking. | Opinion Forum
Occasionally, I'll get a phone number or Instagram username while I'm out, but it's never a priority. I find it more fun to just exist without the expectation of meeting someone. I don't feel lonely, I feel free.
Dating has gotten easier for me. Now, I hope to find my future.
I do hope to end up with a long-term love one day. As more friends have found their life partners, I've started looking to their relationships as examples. The ones I admire the most are the relationships where politics are at the forefront, even if it feels more and more like we queer people have no say in the matter.
I want to be with someone I can communicate with, someone comfortable with my outspoken nature. I want someone to watch movies and television shows with. I want someone I can imagine spending the rest of my life with. To me, that means being with someone who aligns with my political values.
For those in my generation, I encourage you to treat dating or meeting people like a muscle: You have to build strength in it. The only way to combat loneliness is to find your community, no matter what it looks like. It's not easy, but it is worth it.
I'm going to meet the right person eventually. I have to keep going on dates and looking for that person. All I know is that I'm much happier dating now than I ever was dating guys.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
50th anniversary of 'Jaws': How the film impacted public perception of sharks
A theme song consisting of a simple two-note motif has kept swimmers terrified of open water for decades. John Williams' iconic score for the movie "Jaws," which celebrates the 50th anniversary of its release later this month, is instantly recognizable -- the sound of which is enough to prompt people to look around for a monster of the sea to emerge from the surface, even if they are no where near the ocean, shark experts told ABC News. The movie, one of the first feature films directed by Hollywood legend Steven Spielberg and based on the book of the same name by Peter Benchley, shifted the collective consciousness surrounding sharks and the danger they present for the past 50 years, some experts said. Based in a coastal town in New England, residents are terrified after a woman is killed by a great white shark that seems to want to continue raising its number of human kills as it stalks boats and swimmers. "Jaws" is almost synonymous with the American summer -- similar to Fourth of July and apple pie, Chris Lowe, director of the Shark Lab at California State University Long Beach, told ABC News. The film tapped into humans' primal fear and became a social phenomenon in the U.S. and abroad, grossing over $470 million at the box office, adjusted for inflation. Shot at water level, which is where humans see the water, "Jaws" instilled a fear of the unknown -- which is why it is still relevant today, Ross Williams, founder of The Daily Jaws, an online community dedicated to celebrating the movie, told ABC News. "It villainized sharks and people became absolutely terrified of any species that was in the ocean," James Wilkowski, director of the Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station at Oregon State University, told ABC News. 'Jaws' transformed sharks into the new marine villain When "Jaws" was released on June 20, 1975, it transformed the apex predator into an underwater villain whose presence made water unsafe, Wilkowski said. Whales were the most feared marine animal in the generations before "Jaws," said Lowe, who grew up in Martha's Vineyard, where the movie was shot. Lowe's grandfather was a commercial fisherman, and his grandfather's uncles were commercial whalers, who passed down the terror of whales to the subsequent generations, Lowe said. The fear was based on stories of sailors coming back from whaling expeditions where friends and family had died, Lowe added. "Moby Dick," the 1851 novel by Herman Melville about a whaling ship captain named Ahab and his quest to get revenged on the giant white sperm whale that bit off his leg, likely contributed to the trepidation as well, Lowe said. But the anti-shark propaganda had been brewing long before the movie was released, Williams said. Horror stories published during World War II and films that preceded "Jaws" did not paint sharks in a nice light, Williams said. Chapple, who started his career in Cape Cod, knew people who saw the movie as a kid and still refused to enter ocean waters as an adult. "It was really in the psyche of the community," he said. Misconceptions about sharks due to 'Jaws' Like many fictional films, there were several exaggerations or dramatizations about sharks included in "Jaws" for cinematic effect. The most glaring inaccuracy is that sharks want to attack or eat people, the experts said. The notion that sharks are some "mindless killer" that are going to kill anyone who is swimming in the water or on a boat is inaccurate to the nature of the predator, Taylor Chapel, co-lead of Oregon State University's Big Fish Lab, told ABC News. "We're not on a shark's menu," Wilkowski said. "They don't want to eat us, and if they did, we'd be easy pickings. It'd be a buffet." Shark research began in the 1970s, so at the time, scientists -- and especially the public -- didn't know a lot about them, Chapple said. There are also anatomical inaccuracies in the shark animatronic itself -- including bigger teeth, larger "dark, black" eyes and an unrealistic 25-foot body, Wilkowski said. Technology at the time made it difficult for the filmmakers to get actual footage of the sharks, so there are barely any glimpses of real sharks in the movie and filmmakers largely relied on the animatronic as well, Lowe said. "When the movie came out, it was probably the most deceptively but brilliantly marketed movie ever," Williams said. The biggest misconception that still reverberates among public fear is that a shark sighting is a "bad thing." But the presence of sharks is actually a sign of a healthy ecosystem, Wilkowski said. "To see sharks in an environment is a good thing," he said. "...we just have to learn how to coexist with them." After the movie was released and permeated society's awareness of the dangers that lurk beneath the surface of the water, there was a direct correlation of shark population declines due to trophy hunting, Wilkowski said. "Because people's perceptions of sharks were negative, it made it easier for them to allow and justify overfishing of sharks, regardless of the species," Lowe said. Both Spielberg and Benchley have expressed regret in the past over how "Jaws" impacted the public perception of sharks. But Chapple has noticed a shift in the past two decades, where sharks have transformed from a "terrifying" creature to one people are fascinated by, instead, he said. "The fascination has outlasted and outpaced the fear," Williams said. Humans are actually a much bigger threat to sharks, killing up to 100 million sharks per year as a result of overfishing, according to the Shark Research Institute. Climate change and shifting food sources are also causing species-wide population declines, the experts said. Sharks are crucial for a healthy ocean ecosystem. The apex predators maintain balance in the food web and control prey populations. "If we lost sharks, our marine ecosystem would collapse," Wilkowski said.
Miami Herald
5 hours ago
- Miami Herald
New '1984' foreword includes warning about ‘problematic' characters
The 75th anniversary edition of George Orwell's novel 1984, which coined the term 'thoughtcrime' to describe the act of having thoughts that question the ruling party's ideology, has become an ironic lightning rod in debates over alleged trigger warnings and the role of historical context in classic literature. The introduction to the new edition, endorsed by Orwell's estate and written by the American author Dolen Perkins-Valdezm, is at the center of the storm, drawing fire from conservative commentators as well as public intellectuals, and prompting a wide spectrum of reaction from academics who study Orwell's work. Perkins-Valdez opens the introduction with a self-reflective exercise: imagining what it would be like to read 1984 for the first time today. She writes that 'a sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity,' noting the complete absence of Black characters. She also describes her pause at the protagonist Winston Smith's 'despicable' misogyny, but ultimately chooses to continue reading, writing: 'I know the difference between a flawed character and a flawed story.' 'I'm enjoying the novel on its own terms, not as a classic but as a good story; that is, until Winston reveals himself to be a problematic character,' she writes. 'For example, we learn of him: 'He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones.' Whoa, wait a minute, Orwell.' That framing was enough to provoke sharp critique from novelist and essayist Walter Kirn on the podcast America This Week, co-hosted with journalist Matt Taibbi. Kirn characterized the foreword as a kind of ideological overreach. 'Thank you for your trigger warning for 1984,' he said. 'It is the most 1984ish thing I've ever f***ing read.' Later in the episode, which debuted on June 1, Kirn blasted what he saw as an imposed 'permission structure' by publishers and academic elites. 'It's a sort of Ministry of Truthism,' he said, referring to the Ministry of Truth that features prominently in the dystopian novel. 'They're giving you a little guidebook to say, 'Here's how you're supposed to feel when you read this.'' Conservative commentator such as Ed Morrissey described the foreword as part of 'an attempt to rob [Orwell's work] of meaning by denigrating it as 'problematic.'' Morrissey argued that trigger warnings on literary classics serve to 'distract readers at the start from its purpose with red herrings over issues of taste.' But not all responses aligned with that view. Academic rebuttal Peter Brian Rose-Barry, a philosophy professor at Saginaw Valley State University and author of George Orwell: The Ethics of Equality, disputed the entire premise. 'There just isn't [a trigger warning],' he told Newsweek in an email after examining the edition. 'She never accuses Orwell of thoughtcrime. She never calls for censorship or cancelling Orwell.' In Rose-Barry's view, the foreword is neither invasive nor ideological, but reflective. 'Perkins-Valdez suggests in her introduction that 'love and artistic beauty can act as healing forces in a totalitarian state,'' he noted. 'Now, I find that deeply suspect... but I'd use this introduction to generate a discussion in my class.' Taibbi and Kirn, by contrast, took issue with that exact line during the podcast. 'Love heals? In 1984?' Taibbi asked. 'The whole thing ends with Winston broken, saying he loves Big Brother,' the symbol of the totalitarian state at the heart of the book. Kirn laughed and added, 'It's the kind of revisionist uplift you get from a book club discussion after someone just watched The Handmaid's Tale.' Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer, Harvard graduate and professor of literature at American University, also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: 'That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all.' Kirn responded to that sentiment on the show by pointing out that Orwell was writing about midcentury Britain: 'When Orwell wrote the book, Black people made up maybe one percent of the population. It's like expecting white characters in every Nigerian novel.' Richard Keeble, former chair of the Orwell Society, argued that critiques of Orwell's treatment of race and gender have long been part of academic discourse. 'Questioning Orwell's representation of Blacks in 1984 can usefully lead us to consider the evolution of his ideas on race generally,' he told Newsweek. 'Yet Orwell struggled throughout his life, and not with complete success, to exorcise what Edward Said called 'Orientalism.'' Keeble added, 'Trigger warnings and interpretative forewords... join the rich firmament of Orwellian scholarship-being themselves open to critique and analysis.' Cultural overreach While critics like Kirn view Perkins-Valdez's new foreword as a symptom of virtue signaling run amok, others see it as part of a long-standing literary dialogue. Laura Beers, a historian at American University and author of Orwell's Ghosts: Wisdom and Warnings for the Twenty-First Century, acknowledged that such reactions reflect deeper political divides. But she defended the legitimacy of approaching Orwell through modern ethical and social lenses. 'What makes 1984 such a great novel is that it was written to transcend a specific historical context,' she told Newsweek. 'Although it has frequently been appropriated by the right as a critique of 'socialism,' it was never meant to be solely a critique of Stalin's Russia.' 'Rather,' she added, 'it was a commentary on how absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the risk to all societies, including democracies like Britain and the United States, of the unchecked concentration of power.' Beers also addressed the role of interpretive material in shaping the reading experience. 'Obviously, yes, in that 'interpretive forewords' give a reader an initial context in which to situate the texts that they are reading,' she said. 'That said, such forewords are more often a reflection on the attitudes and biases of their own time.' While the foreword has prompted the familiar battle lines playing out across the Trump-era culture wars, Beers sees the conversation itself as in keeping with Orwell's legacy. 'By attempting to place Orwell's work in conversation with changing values and historical understandings in the decades since he was writing,' she said, 'scholars like Perkins-Valdez are exercising the very freedom to express uncomfortable and difficult opinions that Orwell explicitly championed.' Related Articles Gabbard Links 'Ministry of Truth' to Obama Speech, Calls Biden 'Front Man'Tulsi Gabbard Compares Biden Admin to Dictatorship Over 'Ministry of Truth'Joe Biden's Disinformation Board Likened to Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth'Memory Holes, Mobs and Speaker Pelosi | Opinion 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Buzz Feed
12 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Toddler Parenting Trends Parents Are Sick Of
Parenting in the age of social media is a unique beast. Between information overload and influencer overwhelm, there's a fervor for particular trends or products that can be A Lot. Recently, Reddit user ActualEmu1251 shared the toddler parenting trends they've HAD it with, and they made some points. Here's what they had to say: ActualEmu1251 also asked other parents what trends they're so done with, and even more points were made: "The 'holiday baskets' for every single holiday like Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Easter, July 4…Like, your child does not need a new book and holiday t-shirt and toy every time there is a special day!" "Over-the-top, elaborate birthday parties. No, I am not going to make a balloon arch or rent a bouncy castle or have a snack table with an array of different colored matching desserts and an original cocktail named after my child." "The gift opening at parties drives me nuts! It just makes all the other kids jealous that they can't play with all the stuff at the party." "Sad beige/grey/'pastel' toys and clothes for babies and toddlers because parents want their homes to look cute on social media instead of letting their kids enjoy color." "Not saying 'good job/well done' to kids and instead saying stuff like 'you really worked hard at that'." "I used to think wooden toys were cute and fancy, and now I just think of how dangerous they can be when turned into projectiles." "I hate the whole Montessori toddler thing, like please don't show me a video about how my 3-year-old should have a whole functional miniature kitchen so she can cook eggs by herself. I can just cook her eggs for her. She's 3." "Why do I need to create fake mud with cereal when we have real mud, grass, stones, etc., outside for free?" "Someone telling you, 'you only get 18 summers with them' when every day feels like 12 days and every year feels like a century." "I hate being called 'mama' by anyone but my child. Hate." "I kept trying to get into a toy rotation habit and then realized that I don't care to spend my energy making sure my kid is excited about his toys. Some get naturally kind of hidden or put away for a while, and then he's happy to see them again, but I truly don't care if he's bored with them — he can go find something else to do in that case. I don't need to curate a selection of toys every week." "The mommy wine culture and promoting the idea that there is no other way to relax and that you need to drink excessively to parent your children." "I hate how boy clothes have essentially two vibes as they get older, sad beige baby or sport mode (black and other primary colors). It takes so much effort to dress a boy in bright colors." "The gendered everything! I'm not super hippy dippy or anything, but mine was never into astronauts, monster trucks, dinosaurs, etc., at all, but somehow it seemed like we had no choice but to buy items with these printed on them. And the fact that everything still has to be either bright blue or pink in this day and age. Just annoying." "Feeling like I have to research everything to death to find 'the best'. Last summer I spent WEEKS trying to find a sunscreen that was 'clean', reef-safe, etc. and not horrifically expensive. This summer I bought the Banana Boat 360 because I'm not wrestling my toddler every time we want to go in the sun to spread mineral goo all over his body and then ultimately have to scrub the excess off in the bath that night. I spray him, use a makeup brush to put some Up&Up brand mineral lotion on his face, and we go out. End of story." "Consultants. On any possible topic. Sleep consultant, potty training consultant, weaning consultant, lactation consultant, first bath consultant, you name it! This whole industry feels predatory. They make moms/dads feel incapable of parenting mostly through social media, just to monetize all these services." "I've seen moms on Instagram put makeup on their toddlers (I'm not talking makeup for pageants) like blush, eyelash extensions and tinted gloss." "Exploiting children on social media for likes, attention and/or $$$." Do you agree with being done with these trends? What parenting trends have you absolutely had it with? Share in the comments or anonymous form below!
