Being Chosen Is the New Sexy: The Monogamy Nostalgia Meme Nobody Saw Coming
Friday, April 4, 2025.
Once upon a swipe, we all got tired.
Not just of ghosting, breadcrumbing, or the infinite scroll of romantic potential like a Black Mirror rerun with no off switch—but of something deeper: the existential fatigue of being optional.
And into this weary digital dating arena tiptoes a surprising idea, one that smells suspiciously like 1953 but wears the eyeliner of 2025:
Being chosen is the new sexy.
It’s not about ownership, say the whisperers of this emerging meme.
It’s about witnessing and being witnessed. It’s about one person knowing your weirdness and signing the lease anyway.
Esther Perel said “love and desire live in tension,” but lately, the real tension is between “you’re mine” and “you’re one of twelve people I’m managing emotionally through a shared Google Calendar.”
The Poly Saturation Point
Let’s start by admitting the obvious: polyamory didn’t go mainstream—it went podcast.
And then TikTok. And then brunch.
What began as a serious critique of mononormativity has, in many corners, become a lifestyle brand (De Rosa et al., 2023).
While ethical non-monogamy (ENM) still serves a vital function for many—especially queer and neurodiverse communities (Rubel & Burleigh, 2020)—some folks are quietly asking:
Is this radical transparency, or just well-marketed commitment-phobia?
And more provocatively:
Is monogamy actually the new counterculture?
Let’s not confuse the backlash with reactionary conservatism. This isn’t a return to purity rings and sitcom fidelity. It’s more like emotional minimalism. A Marie Kondo for the heart. Does this partner spark commitment? If not, swipe left.
The Situationship Hangover
Dating app culture gave us choice, but it didn’t give us clarity.
The term “situationship” now has its own mini-industry of TikTok therapists explaining what it means to cry in the shower after six months of sharing French fries with someone who still won’t call you their partner.
Sprecher (2021) describes modern courtship as “prolonged ambiguity,” a dynamic that disproportionately benefits the less-invested party. In short, “situationships” are often relationship purgatories, heavy on vibe, light on intention.
In response, some people—especially young women—are declaring the sexiest phrase alive is:
“I choose you. Only you. On purpose.”
Not because they hate polyamory, but because they hate being treated like a menu item at an emotional buffet.
Is Exclusivity the New Subversion?
Here’s where it gets interesting.
To declare monogamy in 2025 is no longer a default setting—it’s an intentioned choice.
That means it’s earned the potential to be, dare we say, hot.
In a culture where abundance creates anxiety, scarcity can signal value.
Psychologist Barry Schwartz (2004) coined the term “The Paradox of Choice” to describe how too many options often lead to dissatisfaction. The same holds true in the realm of relationships. Picking one from many now requires courage, not convention.
In fact, new research suggests that committed monogamous relationships report higher average levels of emotional security and sexual satisfaction than most forms of open relationships (Vrangalova & Savin-Williams, 2014; Mogilski et al., 2019). Not because monogamy is better—but because emotional focus may be an underrated aphrodisiac.
Monogamy has been rebranded, friends. Not as a moral imperative. But as a form of radical, bestowed attention.
Clashing Currents: The Post-Romantic vs. the Re-Romantic
This meme isn’t universally loved. In fact, it’s quietly setting off culture wars in therapist group chats and podcast debates.
On one side: the post-romantic poly advocate, who sees the couple unit as a capitalist relic, a monolith that excludes other valid relationship forms. Love is expansive. Why cage it?
On the other: the re-romantic monogamist, who isn't anti-poly but deeply suspicious of a culture that treats emotional intimacy like gig work. Love, they argue, is not scalable.
You can’t do “deep work” in five relationships, say these new romantic minimalists.
They want monogamy with eyes wide open—not the old model of fused identity, but two sovereign souls choosing daily to build something intimate and rare.
To quote one such thinker (on a subreddit with 32 upvotes and a lot of emotional capital):
“I’m not looking for a love that sets me free. I’m looking for a love that grounds me. The revolution is being chosen in a world that teaches you to always keep your options open.”
Reclaiming Romance Without Regressing
Let’s be clear: this meme is not about undoing the valid critiques that made ENM flourish.
It’s about asking:
What if desire actually thrives inside intentional commitment?
What if exclusivity is erotic precisely because it says, “I saw everyone—and I still want you”?
What if being chosen becomes our culture’s new form of love poetry?
This may not be progress or regress—it’s just another human pendulum swing, back and forth between freedom and closeness, self and other, open fields and garden walls.
We’ll keep building our emotional cities on top of ruins and renaissance alike.
Final Thought: “Choose Me, Dammit”
There’s something endearingly human in this whole idea. Not perfect, not ideological, not anti-anything.
Just a soft rebellion against being endlessly swipeable.
The meme hasn’t gone viral because it’s too vulnerable to be cool. It sounds a little desperate. It admits to loneliness. It even risks… sentimentality.
And yet.
In a culture oversaturated with options, being chosen is quietly becoming the sexiest thing of all.
Not because it makes you special.
But because it means someone finally stopped scrolling.
Be Well, Stay Kind. and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
De Rosa, A., Stewart, C., & Morris, S. (2023). Performative intimacy and digital exhaustion: Trends in ENM communities post-COVID. Journal of Digital Sociology, 8(2), 132–150.
Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2019). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(5), 1259–1276.
Rubel, A. N., & Burleigh, T. L. (2020). Neurodiversity and relationship satisfaction in ethical non-monogamy. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 279–290.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Harper Perennial.
Sprecher, S. (2021). Ambiguity in modern relationships: A review of situationships, entanglements, and the modern mating muddle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(6), 1823–1842.
Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2014). Psychological and relationship well-being of sexually open and monogamous individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(6), 1121–1132.