A woman in yoga pants is whispering into her phone in the parking lot outside Target.

“I just think he’s emotionally avoidant.”

Twenty years ago she would have just said:

“He never talks.”

That is the shift.

The language of therapy escaped the therapist’s office and entered ordinary life.

Now everyone appears to possess a partial graduate education in Attachment Theory acquired through social media, heartbreak, podcasts, and twelve hours on Reddit at two in the morning.

“He’s avoidant.”
“She’s anxious.”
“That’s disorganized attachment.”
“My nervous system no longer feels safe.”

Attachment Theory is no longer functioning merely as developmental psychology.

It is now:

• dating shorthand.

• identity language.

• moral language.

• status language.

• emotional explanation.

• social sorting.

Couples increasingly understand love psychologically instead of morally.

Many life partners slowly become experts in each other’s attachment injuries, while losing the ability to make each other feel loved.

That is one of the quiet tragedies of modern intimacy.

Modern Americans increasingly use food the way earlier civilizations used liturgy.

Not entirely consciously, of course.

Nobody stands in Whole Foods holding artisanal bone broth whispering, “At last, a coherent metaphysical framework.” People still think they are discussing inflammation.

But underneath the endless conversations about seed oils, raw milk, gut health, fasting windows, sourdough fermentation, protein optimization, ancestral diets, carnivore protocols, liver capsules, glucose spikes, adaptogens, “toxins,” and biblical eating plans, something much larger is unfolding.

Folks are just trying to reconstruct meaning.

A recent piece in The New York Times explored the rise of “biblical eating,” an online movement centered around consuming foods mentioned in scripture — fish, minimally processed foods, raw dairy, homemade breads, locally sourced ingredients, fasting practices, and forms of dietary simplicity presented as spiritually aligned living. 

At first glance, it looks like just another wellness trend.

It is not.

It is a significant cultural signal.

There was a time when folks went to the doctor because something hurt.

Now women sit in bed at 11:43 PM refreshing microbiome dashboards to see whether their Lactobacillus percentages changed after brunch, menstruation, stress, oral sex, kombucha, antibiotics, a magnesium supplement, or what increasingly appears to be the emotional weather system of late capitalism itself.

Civilization has entered an interesting phase.

Lately I’ve noticed something subtle but increasingly unmistakable: the couples I see are beginning to experience their bodies less as places they live and more as systems they manage.

Sleep is scored. Recovery is scored. Fertility is scored. Mood is tracked. Cortisol is inferred.

Attention is fragmented into metrics. The nervous system has become a public relations department.

And , of course, eventually, inevitably, optimization culture arrived at the vagina.

More and more couples and families are experiencing each other primarily through interruption.

Not cruelty.

Not betrayal.

Interruption.

A strange thing has happened to modern intimacy.

Life partners now routinely tell each other:
“I’m listening,”

while simultaneously glancing at a glowing rectangle containing Ukrainian drone footage, celebrity divorce rumors, protein powder advertisements, weather anxiety, a former classmate’s suspiciously photogenic vacation in Mallorca, and a man explaining dopamine fasting from inside what appears to be an aggressively beige podcast bunker.

And somehow this counts as presence.

Somewhere this morning, a woman stood in front of a mirror holding two versions of herself.

One shirt meant comfort.

The other meant fewer interpretations.

She chose accordingly.

Not because she is weak.
Not because she is vain.
Not because she is confused about feminism.

But because women understand something many men still insist on treating as theoretical:

Visibility has consequences.

There is a particular tone companies use when they want you to feel safe.

It’s upholstered.
It’s well-lit.
It speaks in sentences like, “your privacy is our top priority.”

And then—so gently you almost admire the choreography—it installs a tracking pixel and asks how you’re feeling today.

I’ve noticed something subtle in my couples work: life partners hesitate not only with each other, but increasingly with systems.

They occasionally pause before answering my intake questions. Not because they lack insight—but because they’re not entirely sure who, or what, is listening.

There is a quiet fantasy running through much of artificial intelligence research. It goes something like this:

We will build a machine that is perfectly aligned with human values.
It will be rational. Obedient. Predictable. Safe.

It will, in other words, behave better than we do.

Now pause there for a moment.

Because if you’ve ever spent ten minutes observing actual humans—at dinner, in traffic, or in a long-term relationship—you may notice something awkward:

We are not aligned. Not internally. Not relationally. Not culturally. Not even across breakfast preferences.

And yet, somehow, we persist.

The research you’ve just handed me—summarized in —leans into that uncomfortable truth with a kind of intellectual shrug and says: maybe the problem isn’t that AI lacks alignment.

Maybe the problem is that we’ve misunderstood what safety looks like.

The film Song Sung Blue begins small—so small it’s easy to miss what it’s doing.

A man tries on a voice and discovers it steadies him.

A woman watches, then steps in beside him—not out of conviction, exactly, but because something about it brings them into alignment.

It gives them a place to meet that feels clearer than the rest of their life.

At first, it’s light. A shared experiment.
Then, almost without announcement, it becomes a place they can return to.

That shift—quiet, incremental—is the film.

My vocation has taught me that relationships don’t just struggle with conflict or communication. They also struggle with something more fundamental:

how to keep something alive over time.

There was a time—not especially noble, but impressively certain—when the state required a vial of your blood before it would permit you to marry.

Not your vows. Not your intentions. Not even your character, which would have been ambitious. Your blood.

Romance, it seems, once required lab work.

Massachusetts, in its calm, unhurried way, stopped asking in 2005.

The official explanation was practical to the point of anticlimax: screening for syphilis had become inefficient, redundant, and faintly ceremonial in a world where antibiotics exist and public health has learned to aim with more precision.

So the ritual ended.

No speeches. No cultural reckoning. Just a quiet administrative shrug.

But if you linger here—if you resist the urge to move on—you begin to notice something else slipping away with it.

Not just a test.

A kind of weight.

There are stories you summarize at your peril.

This is one of them.

Because if you reduce “Taibele and Her Demon” to a lonely woman is tricked by a man pretending to be a demon,you have described the skeleton and misplaced the body.

The tale is much odder, sadder, funnier, and morally slipperier than that.

And, as with much of Isaac Bashevis Singer, the comedy comes wearing the clothes of metaphysics.

First, the story itself.

There is a recurring mistake in public conversations about sexuality: the assumption that fantasy should map neatly onto real-world wishes.

It rarely does.

Fantasy often expresses tension, paradox, symbolic play, unresolved longings, and imaginative experimentation rather than literal desire.

This distinction matters when discussing recent research on women’s interest in aggressive erotica, women’s use of pornography more broadly, and the striking phenomenon of women developing intense romantic attachments to fictional—and sometimes nonhuman—characters.

There are experiments that produce findings.

And there are experiments that become scripture.

Milgram became scripture.

That is rarer, and more dangerous.

Because once an experiment hardens into parable, people stop reading it as evidence and start using it as anthropology.

People obey authority.

Full stop.

A complete theory of civilization, apparently, tucked into 3 words.

One always wants to ask: compared to what?

People also resist authority. Mock authority. Seduce authority. Elect authority. Marry authority. Divorce authority. Project God onto authority. And, in one of history’s least charming habits, outsource conscience to authority.

Milgram was never about simple obedience.

That was the tourist brochure.

Milgram was about what happens when social legitimacy begins to colonize moral perception.

That is a different problem.

And one with longer legs.