Are Viral TikTok Boyfriend Challenges Reflecting A Desire For Traditional Dating Dynamics?

The most popular was the “orange peel theory,” where women would tell their boyfriend that they want an orange and then ask if he would peel it for them. The ideal outcome is that the boyfriend would peel it for her without a second thought, and the worst outcome is that he would refuse or ask, “Why can’t you do it yourself?” Videos with the latter reaction typically elicited hundreds, if not thousands, of comments decrying his actions as “red flags” and warning the girl to break up with him. 

The “ketchup challenge” presented a similar formula: women would squeeze ketchup onto a countertop in front of their boyfriend, and then ask him to clean it up. If the man instantly acquiesced, they were given virtual applause, receiving comments like “husband material” or “girl, you got a good one.” Meanwhile, men who were confused or refused to be manipulated were booed by the TikTok mob.

The “husband test” trended for some time as well, where women would “accidentally” refer to their boyfriend as their husband on camera to gauge his reaction. Men who reacted positively were seen to be invested in their relationship, while men who seemed puzzled or corrected their girlfriends were demonized as “not being in it for the long haul.” 

Yet another trend – popularized late last year after Tyla released her music video “Water” – features women strategically sitting near their boyfriend and then playing the track’s music video. If the man glances over at the singer twerking, he fails the test for having a wandering eye, and if he pays no attention, he successfully passes.

While these tests sound bizarre, maybe even juvenile, the sheer number of views these videos have received speaks volumes. The leading #orangepeeltheory video has over 3M views and 146.3K comments, the leading #ketchupchallenge video setting at 1.5M likes, and the leading Tyla “Water” trend sitting at 986.8K likes.

Why is this the case? What is causing this sudden influx of relationship “testing”?

Modern psychologists and researchers, like Dr. Carolina Bandinelli, are quick to place the blame on the “patriarchy,” as per an interview with Dazed. “I think women in recent years have realized that heterosexual relationships are still very much marked by oppressive patriarchal codes,” Dr. Bandinelli explains. “Most of the ethical innovations when it comes to love have been brought about by LGBTQ+ people, so heterosexuality has not yet been structurally redefined. This is to say there are no shared codes available to navigate a heterosexual relationship outside of patriarchal codes, and this has led many women to withdraw, or question the very possibility of finding a man who can be their partner.”

But what experts are reticent to admit is that the institution of courtship (and subsequently marriage) existed for hundreds of years prior, throughout the tenure of Western civilization, and was indeed the “ethical innovation” that Dr. Bandenelli alludes to.

How Courtship Protected Women

The idea of the process of courtship was to make sure that women had a fighting chance to enter into a sexual relationship in a manner that protected their interests as much as possible. Unlike women of today, who resort to randomized social media challenges to test the commitment of their boyfriend, traditional courtship was a societally enforced process that forced the male species to exhibit their commitment to a single woman through avenues such as vocal communication, platonic physical demonstrations (opening the door for her, being her dance partner for events, giving her his arm during a walk, moving her to the inside of the sidewalk as a safety precaution), and financial stability (since most fathers would be unwilling to entrust their daughter to someone incapable of providing her with a decent way of life). 

In a historical debrief of mid-19th century courtship in the United States, historian Ann Haddad writes, “Courtship, therefore, was respected as a special time in the lives of a young couple. This period, after introductions and before a formal engagement, served to intensify the feelings of romantic love; to ensure that the bond formed between a couple was true; to guide one in learning the real character of the other; and to ensure that their attraction was based on mutual respect and admiration.”

Haddad continues, “As soon as the father established that a young gentleman was suitable company for his daughter (accomplished through inquiries among his set as to the family and status of the suitor), courtship commenced. In the young lady’s front parlor, with a chaperone present, a courting couple engaged in allowed activities, including singing, talking, piano playing, and parlor games with other guests. Supervised carriage rides and outdoor excursions to dances, picnics, dinners, and concerts were also permitted. During this time, the couple observed one another’s habits and conduct for evidence of good moral character and virtuous principles, and hence suitability.”

Men were expected to restrain themselves sexually during the courtship process.

Because men were expected to restrain themselves sexually during the courtship process, they were forced to become much more creative and delicate with their advances. In today’s society, the norm is that men are inherently bad at communication: they can’t text back, when they do it’s one-word responses and emojis, they can’t hold a conversation unless it’s about sports, and they’re glued to their phones during social occasions. 

However, The Dictionary of Love (1858) all but contradicts this notion with an entry entitled “Love Letters”: "Love letters are among the sweetest things which the whole career of love allows. By letters, a lover can say a thousand extravagant things which he would blush to utter in the presence of his fair charmer. He heaps up mountains of epithets and hyperboles, expressing the inexpressible heights, and depths, and lengths, and breadths of his affections. Here he may at his pleasure revel and rave in eloquent nonsense about minutes lengthening into hours, hours into days, days into weeks, weeks into months, months into years, years into interminable ages!”

So how on earth did men go from writing long-form romantic letters and taking their love interest to dances and picnics, to swiping right on Tinder, sliding into DMs, one-night stands, casual hookups, open relationships, and serial dating? 

Ahhhh, that’s right, while psychologists are all too happy to blame “patriarchal codes,” modern feminism is the real villain in this story.

Feminism Ruined Courtship

In the 1960s, the United States saw the revival of the women’s suffrage movement, commonly known as second-wave feminism, which was concurrent with the development of the birth control pill. The push for women to become more like their male counterparts – fighting for equal footing in politics and the workplace – quickly translated to the push to separate sex from the responsibility of pregnancy, much in the way that their male counterparts could. Feminists sought to abolish the “restrictive” courtship process, claiming that it was nothing more than a construct meant to force women to restrain their sexual urges and thrust them into unhappy marriages, waiting on their abusive husband hand and foot while barefoot and pregnant with their 14th child. The feminist agenda argued that women could entirely escape the unhappy fate of marriage and pursue an exhilarating career, but still manage to satiate a sexual appetite, now that the risk of pregnancy was out of the picture. 

This attitude is reflected in most of the mainstream dialogue we find on marriage, with articles like this one from Glamour, decrying the institution of marriage as a way to enslave women: “Heterosexual marriage is undeniably a patriarchal system. It began as a way to trade women as property, keeping them subdued and restricted. Christine Delphy called the marriage contract a ‘work contract.’ The unpaid labor women are forced to undertake (including childcare, cooking, cleaning, emotional labor, and family planning) becomes an unappreciated – and discredited – foundation for men’s careers which patriarchy and capitalism value and reward them for.”

However, it appears as though this was a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

What feminist proponents entirely forgot is that the courtship process was not a random game, the work of old embittered individuals trying to stop young people from enjoying the opposite sex. Instead, the institution of courtship and marriage was based on the innate understanding that men are biologically inclined to polygamy and hold very little of the burden of sexual intercourse. Conversely, women hold the majority of the burden of sexual activity due to their unique ability to bear a child: the ever-present risk of maternal morbidity (a concern that for most of history was significantly higher than it is today, due to the lack of medical advancement), the general physical stressors of pregnancy and birth, and the increased financial obligation of child-rearing. For the good of the female, it was necessary to establish parameters recognizing the load of accountability that women took on in a sexual relationship and expecting her male counterpart to enter into a lifelong obligation to support her in that endeavor. 

As these mores and sanctions disappear, courtship gives way to seduction and possession, and men become again the sexually, familially, and civically irresponsible creatures they are naturally always in danger of being.

With that said, the ideal was that romance and physical attraction played a role in this picture, as we see in historical romance novels from authors ranging from Sir Thomas Malory to Jane Austen. However, it was universally understood that – while hormonal attraction is a powerful motivator – it can peter out quickly in the face of adversity. Therefore, traditional courtship and marriage embedded those emotions in the much firmer foundation of a societal institution with moral obligations. 

Thanks to the rise of second-wave feminism and the embrace of the sexual revolution, society ceased to uphold the institution of marriage, leaving religious organizations as the final bastion of true female empowerment. But with societally embraced Epicureanism, the religious sentiment became flaccid and lukewarm, leaving traditional courtship and the institution of marriage a ghost of times past. 

Leon R. Kass – a well-known American physician, scientist, and ethicist – bemoaned this reality in an essay entitled “The End of Courtship,” writing, “As these mores and sanctions disappear, courtship gives way to seduction and possession, and men become again the sexually, familially, and civically irresponsible creatures they are naturally always in danger of being. At the top of the social ladder, executives walk out on their families and take up with trophy wives. At the bottom of the scale, low-status males, utterly uncivilized by marriage, return to the fighting gangs, taking young women as prizes for their prowess. Rebarbarization is just around the corner. Courtship, anyone?”

Now, with the process of courtship a relic of the past, women have desperately taken it upon themselves to vet a mate, somehow hoping that if they squirt some ketchup on a counter or demand a peeled orange, they can simulate the same result. While some might laugh and pass these challenges off as juvenile or attention-seeking behavior, I would argue that they actually unveil a collective longing for traditional courtship rituals sidelined by modern feminism. This is not something to laugh at; it is something to mourn.

Support our cause and help women reclaim their femininity by subscribing today.