On the Instrumentalization in Dating: Mirrors, Pedestals, and the Loss of Personhood

Prologue (short story)

My dating quest led me to a hall of mirrors.

Each was framed in ornate detail, suspended along the corridor like altars of attention. In them, I saw not my own reflection, but the gaze of women—each offering admiration, curiosity, warmth. Some smiled, others praised, a few looked back at me with the intensity of affection. It was easy to be drawn in. I smiled. They smiled. But none ever stepped through the glass. None met me beyond the gaze. Each mirror glowed momentarily, then dimmed into silence. I moved on, uncertain.

Disillusionment crept in slowly—first as boredom, then as ache. I noticed shattered glass scattered across the marble floor. Several mirrors had been ripped from the walls and cast to the ground. Deliberate? Frustration? I stepped over the shards and continued.

Next were the pedestals—each holding statues of women, some half-bodied, others full-form. They moved, spoke, and even reached out to touch me, but only when I worked the attached levers and buttons placed at their base. I learned the sequences for each. One required three kind words, another a compliment followed by silence. Some responded with gentle affection, others with flirtation, eroticism, even tenderness. And some were cruel, cold, dismissive.

But a pattern emerged: despite their differences, they all followed a common logic. My inputs, their outputs. My pursuit, their animation. The moment I stopped—stopped speaking, stopped feeding the system, stopped overinvesting—they ceased.

No statue ever reached for me first. Not one initiated contact.

Again, the disillusionment deepened. And with it, a quiet despair set in. This was not love—it was labor. And I was being drained.

I kept walking - slowly. Coming into view, I found many fallen pedestals and broken statues—pieces scattered, arms and faces chipped away, dismembered by time or disappointment. The debris led to a door. It was wooden, unlike the rest of the hall, unadorned save for a single word carved at its center: Sophia.

I reached for the latch.

Locked.

I pushed harder. It didn’t budge.

I knocked. No answer. I called out the name. Still nothing.

I stood there, hand resting on the grain of the door, and began to think—not about what was behind the door, but what I had left behind. The mirrors, the pedestals. Their gestures. Their charm. Their beauty. But also—how I had felt in their presence. Always giving. Always initiating. Always guessing what would work next.

And still—left empty.

Why had I not simply returned to my favorite mirror or statue?

Because each one had taken something from me. Slowly. Quietly. Not by force, but by depletion. My attention. My reflection. My desire. Each performance had drained the realness from my longing.

I exhaled and spoke to the door—not in demand, but in offering.

“Sophia, my name is Jason. I have come in search of a lady to whom I can offer my deepest commitment—honesty, kindness, mutual presence. I wish to see her for who she is. I am sincere, living intentionally. I know the unkindness of this mechanistic world—the disposability it breeds. If this door is in fact a wall, I leave you in peace. And I pray you find solace in your solitude.”

Silence lifting.

Then, the sound of the lock unlatching.

The door opened slightly.

Behind it, two eyes emerged. Not scanning, not performing—simply seeing. A woman stood there—not adorned, not reactive. Her face bore the quiet countenance of attunement.

She stepped forward, not to impress, not to entice—only to be present.

“You knocked,” she said.

“I did,” I replied. “I saw the mirrors. I worked the levers. I listened to the voices. But none saw me. They gave—on condition. Then I found this door. I thought you might be... someone.”

She didn’t smile. She didn’t test. She simply listened.

“Why didn’t you return to your favorite mirror?” she asked.

I paused, then answered, “Because I no longer need to see myself. I seek to be with one.”

She said nothing at first.

Then she opened the door wider.

Behind her was a room—not gilded or glowing—but tranquil. A bench by a window. A cup on the table. A place set, not yet filled.

“This place isn’t like the hall,” she said. “There are no shows here. No performances. No levers. No pedestal. I cannot promise pleasure. Only presence. I cannot reflect you. But I can receive you—if you are ready to do the same.”

I looked back once—at the shards, the collapsed pedestals, the echo of all I had tried to earn.

Stepping through the doorway, I felt a gentle hand upon my arm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Essay

This essay seeks to describe a common cultural phenomenon in western romance and dating. Instrumentalization. Several seminal philosophers, from Immanual Kant to Max Weber to Theodor Adorno, have all referred to in different registers, warned against the reduction of persons into means—mechanisms for pleasure, productivity, or validation—rather than treating them as ends in themselves. In the realm of romance, this takes the form of instrumental rationality—a cold calculus in which the other is approached not as a mystery to behold, but as a function to be optimized or discarded. It rejects personhood. It is an ontological privation of the person into a function, a utility.

Immanual Kant once wrote, in “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”, that we ought to “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” To be used is not only to be diminished, but to be disfigured in one's moral presence. Instrumentalization is not merely a psychological misstep—it is an ontological violence.

This essay will describe how instrumentalization in dating denies personhood by examining how it manifests, the rationalizations that sustain it, briefly commenting on the motivations behind it, the distorted outcomes of it, and finally an appeal to an relational ethics, and moral compass as a response to instrumentalization.

Why do I write this?

I have seen what becomes of sincere young men who seek not conquest or consumption, but communion. Men who long to provide, to protect, to offer—not as performers, but as whole persons. They seek connection—not curation. Presence—not projection. But they find themselves ghosted, mirrored, used, or ignored. In a few more words, I write this, for the sincere young man, bravely embarking upon an unknow journey for love and communion – not simple sex and lust – but one who understand he is a holy provider, protector, confidant seeking to be met and receive just as much as he gives and offers And yet—if they do not see clearly, they risk becoming what they behold: reactive, disillusioned, and performative in turn. To this young man I say: hold fast to your soul. The indifference you encounter is not always malice—it is often the residue of fear, fragmentation, and a culture that has exalted detachment over intimacy. Those who are hot one moment and cold the next are not whole within themselves. They perform what they cannot yet embody. That is not yours to fix, and it is not yours to carry. Let it go. To hold on is to risk the disfigurement of your own being. Faith is your compass now. It is your ally.

And in faith, let us now turn to the phenomenon of instrumentalization in dating. Not to indict, but to understand—to see clearly the cultural conditioning that has led many (women and men alike) to approach others with defensiveness, selectivity without depth, and emotional detachment masked as empowerment. Our aim is not judgment, but liberation. To speak truthfully about the loss of personhood in romance so that, perhaps, something deeper can begin to be reclaimed.

Important Note: While this essay focuses on the instrumentalization of men in dating, it does not deny that men, too, can and often do instrumentalize women. Both sexes have absorbed cultural scripts of performance and detachment. My aim here is not to generalize, but to give voice to a pattern affecting sincere young men, often overlooked in the modern discourse.

Cultural Trend of Instrumentalization

Let us consider the motivations and rationalizations of instrumentalization in dating. At the heart of the matter is she does not know herself. She knows what the culture says who she is. What her mom said she is, her dad, her teachers, her beguiling friends, and what social media says. She may or may not know what care is. She may or may not know what respect is. She may have been given little formation in the virtues of dignity, elegance, and grace—concepts once held as feminine ideals, now displaced by curated self-expression and empowerment as performance. Whether she consciously can speak of it, she understands enough to know our society functions under the grip of nihilism and post-truth solipsism. These cultural trends bode horribly for the man of meaning, virtue, and truth, looking for Sophia’s invitation to sip and chat.

Her motivation is egocentric. She has been taught to prioritize personal fulfillment over relational growth with another person, which this – by itself – leads to a hedonistic calculus of utilitarian view of the man. He fits into her world. Her world does not adjust to his needs, desires, or longings.

Her motivation arises from fear of dependency – or expressed vulnerability. Western culture despises emotional dependency as weakness. In dating, this translates to avoidance of emotional commitment.

Her motivation is to filter for a commodity, not to discern for connection. Dating apps and social media have successfully created a cognitive distortion that there is an abundance of options – each always better. This translates to devaluing the man in front of you. He risks being evaluated before he is known, under the rubric of scanning and interpreting one under the worst possible light. Grace is absent.

Her motivation is ego preservation. She has unhealed trauma from past relationships. She has now adopted a transactional approach instead of relationship, she has settled for transaction. This protects (so she thinks) from further harm. Translation: the man is not seen as a person with moral agency, but a slot machine or vending machine. I have heard, one woman, refer to her man as an “entertainment package”.

In all, these motivations conspire to rationalize seeing him as a means to her ends. Phrases like “I need a man…” or “I want a man …” easily pair well with a catalog of competing men vying for her attention, her sex, her validation. Existing to serve her ends, the man enters the social Darwinian arena of a fearsome sexual marketplace. Instead of asking herself, how best can I relate to him? How does he relate to me? Instrumentalization has perverted this honest question and search into “How best can I rationalize him into my ‘busy’ life?” He is reducible to fulfilling my desires, he is replaceable.

How does Instrumentalization Make Itself Known in Dating?

The most famous example is status signaling. She ponders at first impression what the social optics exist between you two if she were committed. The cultural indicator of value is firmly in play, namely: physical traits, popularity, achievement, money and lifestyle. She asks herself, “how does he add value to my life in these areas?”

The next example is reciprocity, or should we say the noticeable lack thereof. It is imperative to keep one’s options open. Subtle reminders provided to signal to him, you are not the first choice, such as delayed communication, delayed affection or effort – delay becomes the vehicle and reminder that she receives but does not necessarily return. Intentionality is absent.

If reciprocity is returned without delay, then one may encounter another example of instrumentalization, that is – hokey intimacy. This appears as late night texting revealing about her past ex or vulnerable moments that cut deep – or, text confessions – about whatever really. They reflect emotional depth but by morning the sun has evaporated any sincerity or mutuality that the moonlight played the night before.

The classic examples must be stated: rotational attention, spinning plates, and emotional hedging all of which suggest emotional availability – but the discerning gentlemen easily recognizable for there lack of specificity and notorious vague language. The most toxic: love bombing (run for the bunkers when they hit).

In all, these examples of instrumentalization reveal the disposability of you in dating.

A Deeper Dynamic is at Work

After considering the motivations and examples of dating instrumentalization, we ought to reveal the culturally unchallenged and normalized behavior of self-confirmation. Many women, especially highly desirable ones, have been accustomed to receiving quite a bit attention. In honesty, so much so, that she does not have time, nor energy to process it all. So, she receives without responding in kind (no reciprocity) or selective engagement when needing to fill up again. Self-confirmation refers to using a man as a mirror, or the one trained in apt performance to pull firmly her levers and sweetly push “the right” buttons to confirm her desirability, that is - what she has told herself about herself. The man is the mirror…akin and not too far off from “Snow White’s” mirror on the wall. The personhood of the man is second place, low priority.

That said, she may not consciously know what she is doing – ethically meaning her actions have much less moral standing such as malicious intent. Now, for the ones who do, and yet willfully choose to instrumentalize a man as a means to an end, reducing him as her source for self-confirmation, a voice that emerges from her cell phone in times of need, then gentlemen, that is nefarious. Bad fruit. A bad apple. Do not taste. You, sir, have much more ontological, existential, and sacred meaning as a man and person, than to be used in a game of emotional calculus confirming to her what may honestly be a lie. Remember faith? This is where it comes in.

Consequences of Treating Another Human Being as an Instrument for Your Own Egoic Gratification or Insecurity

Tersely, instrumentalization breeds cynicism, disorientation, and disconnect. Trust declines between man and woman – a simple pursual of YouTube uncovers a plethora of dating self-improvement gurus and alpha doctors attesting to it – yet, embracing it as well. In a word, harm. Harm occurs.

A young man begins to doubt that sincerity matters. Performance matters. Conforming to the game of (im)postures and appearance matters. To be emotionally generous is a liability. Your effort is filtered across a rubric of relationships as mediums of exchange and value, not truth, union, witness, embracing the other for the other. Love appears silly, even misplaced.

For her, in her effort to escape suffering and pain, she paradoxically cuts herself off from her own capacity to love – because she is either unable or unwilling to receive or recognize masculine presence (beyond mere attention). This presence is filtered out through the dark triad of lenses: suspicion, control, and posturing.

The ultimate cost is the end of meaning. The relationship is post-truth and transactional. Dignity, elegance, and presence are ancient voices of wisdom from a bygone era. Just as white tie events have vanished in our present society (save the rarest of places), so does the sincere, discerning, present man. Not because he does not exist, or does not offer himself, he is simply not received in this western culture. A man of presence threatens the narcissistic supply and gamification of attention; presence demands a woman hold space for depth, honesty, mutuality, introspection.

What is a Young Man to Do?: A Ethical Response

In short, young man realize that those who instrumentalize you – no matter how beautiful and charming she may seem behind curated displays – are not living well. In fact, they are surviving. They are unhappy. Do not join them. Do not let their weakness become your dismay, and later despair. But rather, do not apologize for your depth of sincerity, gravity, truthfulness, kindness, love, and masculine presence of stability. Be drawn instead to a woman of character – listen to her words, yes, but observe if they align with her behavior. Has she done the work to integrate her insecurities and past trauma to be a stronger woman of care and wisdom? Discern for this pattern. Saying she has potential while ignoring the patterns in your discernment is a bit foolhardy – since said potential is really you projecting upon her what you want her to be. Dangerous. Recognize early if you are treated as a function, a utility, a mirror for her own self-confirmation, or if she is receiving you and returning care back to you.

There will be days, young man, when you wonder if your presence is too much for this world—when your sincerity feels like a liability and your desire for mutuality goes unanswered. But let this be remembered: it is not your presence that is too much—it is this culture’s shallowness that is too little. Refuse to collapse into cynicism or imitation. Refuse the seduction of becoming what you hate. Guard your soul from fragmentation. And above all, continue to knock on that door marked Sophia. It may not open on the first day, or even the hundredth. But one day, a woman of presence—formed not by the echo chamber of self-confirmation but by suffering, reflection, and grace—will meet you at that door. She will not ask you to perform. She will not reduce you to a mirror or a machine. She will receive you, and in that meeting, the the good and the true will stir beautifully. And when it does, you will know: love was never gone, only hidden, waiting for two who dared to remain whole.

3 comments