This declaration on a dating app translates to: “man willing to date someone temporarily.” The man in question is 33-year-old Scott Tolbert, who describes himself on his dating app profile as “looking for a long-term relationship, but open to short.” He believes that his flexibility toward dating sets him apart from his peers.
Tolbert doesn’t think it’s natural to put timelines on human connection. He was quick to tell me that himself. “Things just evolve, or they don’t. That’s how animals are. Panthers and wolves and stuff, they just live, you know? I’m like that too,” he shared. Among his other listed qualifications: he “loves dogs, food, and music,” promises to “make you laugh before you make him laugh,” and is seeking “a fellow adventurer.” Could that be me?
This is a man announcing he is open to something men have historically never objected to once. It is unprecedented to watch someone so boldly advertise their willingness to participate in the most standard option available to men throughout history.
Is this radical transparency the new frontier? Fleeting, confusing emotional connection as a marketed option? And how long is short-term? Or does asking that question misunderstand the point altogether?
When I saw this, I thought… Wow. Finally. A man brave enough to consider something low stakes. This clarified he’s: open to sex, open to not defining things, and open to disappearing after three weeks, which is so evolved.
When talking to a friend of mine who’s dated men with the same “open to short-term relationship” setting, she agreed. “I love knowing he’s going to ghost me. It’s just a matter of when. And that’s a fun game for me personally. I can’t wait to get emotionally invested.”
Though I respected his bravery, I ultimately couldn’t match Scott Tolbet. It’s admirable that he wasn’t afraid to grab the third rail. Of course, the third rail is there — the inevitable emotional abandonment and awkward confusion — everyone knows it’s there, and they don’t acknowledge it. And of course, grabbing it will immediately kill him, but he still grabbed it… He didn’t pretend it wasn’t there, and I think that’s pretty cool. That said, it did kill him. Best of luck, Scott Tolbert!
