Human relationships, like an old couch or a once-beloved pair of jeans, tend to wear out in places. Somewhere around the seven-year mark, many couples begin to feel a vague, unsettling restlessness—hence the famous "seven-year itch."

The term, popularized by the 1955 Marilyn Monroe film, suggests that romantic partnerships hit a dangerous period of decline after roughly seven years, leading to higher rates of dissatisfaction, infidelity, and divorce. But is there any science behind this claim, or is it just another cultural myth?

The answer, as with most things in psychology, is complicated. The "seven-year itch" isn’t exactly fiction, but it’s also not destiny.

Let’s unpack the research, explore contrary findings, and see what the latest science tells us about relationship longevity.

Let’s get one thing straight: emotional abuse can be sneaky.

It’s the ninja of relational dysfunction—silent, strategic, and often only visible in hindsight.

If you’ve ever looked back on a relationship and thought, Wait a minute, was that… bad?, congratulations, my friend—you might have been emotionally bamboozled.

Emotional abuse doesn’t show up with a neon sign that says, “THIS IS TOXIC.”

It’s more like a slow gas leak. You don’t notice it at first, and then suddenly, you’re dizzy, disoriented, and questioning if you’re the one who’s crazy.

So, let’s break down some of the signs you may have missed while you were too busy blaming yourself for things that weren’t your fault.

Imagine you’re sitting across from a therapist. Maybe me. Maybe someone else. You clear your throat, you look down, and then you finally say it:

"My wife hits me."

And just like that, the universe seems to malfunction.

You expect disbelief, maybe laughter. Maybe a confused head tilt, like a golden retriever hearing a kazoo. After all, this isn’t how the story is supposed to go.

But here’s the thing: it happens. A lot more than most people want to admit.

And because I like telling the truth about therapy, even when it makes people squirm, let's talk about it.

Let’s talk about why women hit first, why men often don’t hit back, and why nobody wants to acknowledge the whole messy, contradictory, and deeply human reality of domestic violence.

Family life in 2025 is becoming increasingly difficult because, financial strain is often an uninvited yet influential partner.

When economic pressures mount, families may find themselves "trading down," adjusting their lifestyles to accommodate reduced means.

This phenomenon extends beyond mere dollars and cents, deeply influencing the emotional and relational dynamics within the family system.

I

n this post, I’ll delve into the social science of financial belt-tightening, so we can uncover the multifaceted impacts on family relationships, and explore evidence-based interventions to foster resilience and cohesion.

Sexual intimacy is often idealized as a source of pleasure, connection, and fulfillment. Yet, for many women, it is also entangled with a powerful, often unspoken force—sexual shame.

A new review published in Sexes suggests that sexual shame can suppress sexual arousal and desire, leading to diminished sexual functioning and overall relationship dissatisfaction (Graziani & Chivers, 2024).

Rooted in a complex web of biological, psychological, and cultural influences, sexual shame can profoundly impact a woman’s self-perception, sense of worth, and ability to experience intimacy.

An interesting recent study published in Current Psychology forces us to confront a disquieting reality: certain personality traits—namely, narcissism and psychopathy—can fuel antisemitic beliefs.

Researchers Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams from the University of Bern identify these beliefs as 'dark-ego vehicles,' meaning they serve as outlets for self-centered needs like dominance, aggression, and moral posturing.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Children of the Algorithm, gather 'round!

Did you enjoy your Super Bowl? The touchdowns, the beers, the commercials selling your greatest insecurities back to you?

Well, let's talk about the real MVP—breasts.

Novartis, our friendly pharmaceutical overlord, brought you a bouncing, cantaloupe-colored PSA: 'Get screened for breast cancer, you degenerates! You stare at boobs all day anyway!'

An excellent cause, yes.

But the delivery? Pure Cinemax After Dark, raising the question: how does blending a health message with softcore aesthetics affect public trust?

When health campaigns become indistinguishable from soft porn, is the message amplified—or trivialized?

Because I was one of the founders of what is perhaps the largest science-based couples therapy practice in the world, I enjoy many scientists and researchers as clients. Many have entered therapy to manage their social anxiety.

Why? So, it turns out some people hate scientists.

Not just the kind of hate where you roll your eyes at some nerd in a lab coat, but the kind of hate that gets scientists harassed, threatened, and, in at least one case, nearly mobbed in Amsterdam.

Why? Because of science cynicism, which is just a fancy way of saying, "I don’t trust those guys because they seem smart and therefore must be up to something."

A new study in Frontiers in Psychology suggests that staring at your phone while your partner is trying to connect with you—what many call "phubbing"—can lead to some nasty relationship behaviors.

In plain English, ignoring your partner in favor of doomscrolling might make them more likely to lash out.

The study found that people who feel snubbed by a screen get aggressive in ways that mess with emotional intimacy.

And for women, the gap between how much support they want from their partner and how much they get plays a big role in that aggression.

Once upon a time, in a world where people sincerely believed that love conquers all—and yet kept making dating apps with increasingly complex algorithms to help people avoid the wrong kind of love—some researchers decided to study romantic attraction through the lens of racial ideology.

Because, you see, humans are strange creatures.

They want to believe in free will but also prefer to be shackled to patterns they don’t even notice.

One such pattern, known to the social sciences as homogamy but to your Aunt Cheryl as “birds of a feather flock together,” is the tendency to be romantically drawn to people who resemble us in some fundamental way.

Same hobbies, same religious upbringing, same favorite childhood TV show. And yes, same race.

Let’s start with the obvious: life is a chaotic mess.

Some people manage the chaos by meditating.

Others do it by impulse-buying decorative candles.

And some, according to a new study published in Sexes, do it by having more sexual partners.

That’s right.

Researchers have taken a long, hard look at how women navigate rapid emotional highs and lows and whether their tendency to observe their own thoughts (or not) influences their romantic statistics.

The findings?

If you tend to oscillate between euphoria and despair faster than a stock market crash, and if you don’t really notice your thoughts much, you might just have more sex partners.

As wildfires become more frequent and severe due to climate change, a new and alarming consequence is coming to light: exposure to wildfire smoke may significantly increase the risk of dementia.

A recent study published in JAMA Neurology found that folks exposed to wildfire-generated fine particulate matter (PM2.5) faced an 18% higher risk of developing dementia—far greater than the risk posed by other air pollutants (Elser et al., 2024).

This finding raises serious concerns about how environmental factors, particularly air quality, shape long-term brain health.

It also underscores the disproportionate burden of pollution-related health risks on vulnerable communities, making it an urgent issue for public health, environmental justice, and dementia prevention.