'I'm doubling down: Nonchalance is ruining modern dating.'

Want to support independent women's media? Become a Mamamia subscriber and get an all-access pass to everything we make, including exclusive podcasts, articles, videos and our exercise app, MOVE.

I seem to have accidentally started a small fire.

On a recent podcast episode of Mamamia Out Loud, I said one tiny, insignificant thing.

We were discussing celebrity relationships— specifically, the difference between the very curated, 'we-are-best-friends' vibe of Victoria and David Beckham, and the can't-keep-their-hands-off-each-other energy of Dua Lipa and Callum Turner.

Watch: Are young women settling in 2025? Is it a crime to want to be loved loudly? Post continues below.

I watched footage of the latter couple laughing into each other's mouths and said what I thought was a reasonable opinion: "I never want a nonchalant man, I want my man to be as chalant as possible."

Well… most people did not like that (like, at all). In fact, you could say it got... heated.

"Em Vernem... noooo!! Your idea of a 30 year-old relationship is disgusting. I couldn't imagine anything worse. I'm exhausted just thinking about it."

"Em be careful what you wish for, it can get really annoying having someone pawing at you constantly."

"I actually felt a bit sad that Em thought that was normal for long-term relationships."

The consensus was that my desire for public, obvious affection (which has now been coined as 'chalance') was immature, unrealistic, and frankly, a bit concerning. The 'mature' view, apparently, is that true, long-lasting love looks more like the Beckhams: comfortable, quiet, and deeply platonic.

Well, I took that feedback, I absorbed it, and I've decided this is the perfect opportunity to double down.

Nonchalance is ruining dating, and we're all being tricked into thinking it's 'normal'.

The difference between chalant and nonchalant. Image: Instagram/@dualipa, @davidbeckham.

This feedback loop of "that's not realistic" is exactly why so many of us end up in relationships where we feel more like roommates than partners. We're told that the fiery, 'obsessed-with-you' stage (known as limerence) has to fade, and what's left is... well, a less than sub-par situation involving an agreement to co-habitate.

I refuse to accept this.

The backlash made me revisit my own relationship graveyard, and I landed on one particular ghost. I dated a guy for a few months who hated public displays of affection.

I'm not even talking about a full-on make-out session outside a Woolies. I mean, he wouldn't hold my hand. He'd give these weird, stiff, side-hugs. His favourite physical touch move? A crisp high-five.

I wish I was kidding.

Here I was, being intimate with this person behind closed doors, and then in public, I felt like his platonic friend he'd just run into at the pub. It wasn't about "showing off" the relationship, it was about feeling like the person I was sleeping with actually liked me in the light of day.

That feeling of rejection was the reason I had to end it. And I know I'm not alone.

After the Out Loud pile-on, I got DMs from women saying they completely agreed with me but were too scared to post it in the Facebook group. They are in long-term relationships (we're talking 20+ years) and said their partners are still obsessed with them, still touchy, still "chalant".

Why has loving loudly become something to be embarrassed about?

Listen to the nonchalance vs. chalance dating debate on the Mamamia Outloud podcast. Post continues below.

It's not an immature fantasy. We get to demand that someone loves us loudly. It's a basic measure of emotional connection, like, as my co-host Jessie pointed out… the 'bird test' — If you point out a bird, you want a partner who will at least look up.

The bar is just so upsettingly low. We're meant to get excited about a guy who... remembers to text. When we're settling for that, of course asking for 'chalance' seems like a huge demand.

So what does 'chalance' look like 30 years down the track? When I was asked this, I had my answer ready.

It's being at home, and he says, "Hey, I've just booked a table at your favourite restaurant. Let's just go out... let's put on something nice".

It's him holding my hand as we walk, and making sure he's standing on the side of the road, "so if a car comes, he gets hit, not me. I'm safe".

It's him pulling out my chair at the restaurant and saying, "You look so beautiful tonight," loudly, so the tables around us hear. It's leaning in for a kiss before we eat, and kissing again after, and walking home holding hands.

And you know what? My co-hosts agreed this was a totally fair and worthy "ambition".

So no, I don't feel "sad" for wanting this.

I think it's sad that we've lowered the bar so much that asking for basic, public affection is seen as a ridiculous fantasy. I don't want a "best friend" I occasionally sleep with. I want someone who is, and remains, as chalant as possible.

So, are you really fine with not being loved loudly? Or are you just going with the flow and telling yourself that this is what you actually want? Don't @ me.

If you want more from Emily Vernem, you can follow her on Instagram @emilyvernem.

Feature image: Supplied.