tiktok's boyfriend tests & the spectacle of modern love

the voices in my head about performing intimacy in the digital age

In the latest iteration of TikTok's "boyfriend test" trend, young women film themselves starting a dance, their phones propped carefully to capture both them and their unsuspecting boyfriends in frame. The scoring is unspoken but understood: if he jumps up to join the dance, he passes (proof of his playfulness and devotion, obviouslyyyy). If he smiles but keeps scrolling, he's on thin ice. But if he ignores the performance entirely or, worst of all, shows visible annoyance, the comments sections flood with sympathetic condemnation: “may this nonchalant treatment never reach me,” “leave him!!!",” “it’s ok my ex hated me too.”

These moments of apparent relationship failure have become a genre unto themselves, generating millions of views and spawning countless derivatives.

@mayobbqswirl#single

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

But what drives this persistent urge to test, document, and broadcast our intimate relationships? The answer lies at the intersection of surveillance culture, performative intimacy, and the commodification of human connection in the digital age.

The concept of "testing" romantic partners isn't new — literature and folklore are filled with tales of trials and tribulations to prove love's worth. From medieval courtly love traditions to Jane Austen's carefully orchestrated social tests, humans have long sought ways to verify affection's authenticity. What's changed is the scale, speed, and public nature of these trials.

In the past, relationship tests were often community-sanctioned rituals: meeting the parents, navigating social gatherings, demonstrating provider capabilities. These tests, while problematic in their own ways, were at least grounded in the practical realities of building a life together. Today's digital tests, by contrast, often prioritize performative gestures over substantive demonstrations of compatibility.

the panopticon of modern love

We've created what could be called a "relationship panopticon," where every interaction becomes potential content, every gesture a possible test. Just as Jeremy Bentham's theoretical prison design allowed for constant observation of inmates, social media platforms have transformed our private moments into public spectacles, with an invisible audience always watching and judging.

This dynamic fundamentally alters how we experience intimacy. When a partner doesn't complete the dance, they're not just failing to participate in a moment of playfulness—they're "failing" in front of potentially millions of viewers. The stakes have been artificially inflated by the presence of an audience that transforms ordinary moments into performances of relationship competency.

While "boyfriend tests" might seem like a simple trend, they reveal complex gender dynamics in modern relationships. The predominantly female-driven nature of these tests points to persistent anxieties about male emotional engagement and investment in relationships. However, this framework simultaneously reinforces problematic narratives:

1. It perpetuates the idea that women must constantly evaluate and "fix" male behavior

2. It positions men as perpetually failing to meet increasingly public standards of romantic performance

3. It reinforces heteronormative relationship scripts where women are emotional laborers and men are reluctant participants

In attempting to challenge traditional relationship dynamics, these tests often reinforce them, creating a cycle of performance and disappointment that serves neither party.

The gendered nature of these digital tests isn't a TikTok accident—it's the latest evolution in a long history of women navigating relationship risk. Where Victorian women once relied on carefully coded social signals and whispered drawing room warnings about potential suitors, today's women have comment sections and stitched videos. The tools have changed, but the underlying dynamic persists: women collectively working to protect each other in a dating landscape that still feels treacherous.

The core desires these tests attempt to evaluate aren't inherently problematic. Wanting a partner who notices your needs, who shares your joy, who makes an effort to understand your world—these are reasonable relationship expectations. A partner should want to join your silly dances sometimes, should care when you're upset, should occasionally peel your orange just because it would make you happy. The issue isn't in wanting these gestures of care and connection; it's in the transformation of these desires into public performance metrics.

But there's a critical disconnect between intention and execution. While these tests might seem like a modern form of empowerment — women publicly calling out emotional negligence, creating community standards, sharing red flag warnings — they're simultaneously reinforcing the very dynamics they claim to challenge. Women remain the relationship managers, the emotional laborers, the ones responsible for "fixing" their partners through an endless series of public trials. What could be intimate moments of growth and connection become performances for digital judgment, with every gesture scored and every reaction analyzed. The comment sections full of "dump him" and "you deserve better" might feel like solidarity, but they're also echoing age-old assumptions about women being responsible for men's emotional education.

the gamification of intimacy

The public nature of these tests adds another layer of complexity. When a woman films her boyfriend's reaction to a faked crisis or stages an elaborate loyalty test, she's not just evaluating his response — she's performing her role as the vigilant girlfriend for an audience of millions. The validation she seeks isn't just from her partner but from a digital chorus that has replaced traditional support networks. In trying to protect themselves from relationship disappointment, women have inadvertently created yet another form of emotional labor: the work of documenting, performing, and producing relationship content for public consumption. The very tools meant to verify authentic connection have become barriers to its development.

These "tests" represent a broader trend toward the gamification of relationships. Like video game achievements or social credit scores, they reduce complex human interactions to binary pass/fail scenarios. Dance/don't dance. Peel the orange/don't peel it. Clean the ketchup/ignore the mess. This simplification offers the illusion of control over the messy, unpredictable nature of human connection.

The phenomenon mirrors broader societal shifts toward quantification and optimization. Just as we track our steps, monitor our sleep, and rate our Uber drivers, we now seek to measure and evaluate our romantic connections through standardized metrics and viral challenges.

a peculiar projection

There's also a projection happening in these digital trials. When we watch a boyfriend fail to join a TikTok dance or forget to peel an orange, we're not just watching a single moment of potential neglect — we're watching ourselves, our past hurts, our future fears.

Each viral "boyfriend test" becomes a mirror reflecting thousands of individual relationship anxieties back at its viewers. The comments section transforms into a chorus of collective trauma, where "dump him" really means "I stayed with someone who made me feel invisible until I forgot my own shape" and "red flag" translates to "leaving that relationship felt like learning to breathe again."

We're no longer evaluating relationships in isolation but through a kaleidoscope of accumulated heartbreaks, where every small gesture carries the weight of every relationship that ever disappointed us. Perhaps this is why these tests resonate so deeply—they're not really about the couples on screen at all, but about the universal experience of loving and losing and trying to protect ourselves from doing it again. In our desperate attempt to create formulaic tests for love, we've revealed something far more fundamental about human nature: our deep need to make meaning out of pain, to transform our personal wounds into collective wisdom.

In this digital colosseum of relationship judgment, we risk becoming prisoners of our past traumas, forever watching new love stories through the lens of old scars. They say to "speak from the scar, not from the wound" — to share from a place of healing rather than bleeding — but in these endless feeds of relationship content, are we all speaking from our wounds, raw and unprocessed, turning strangers' tender moments into triggers for our own unhealed hurts. In wanting to protect ourselves and others from pain, we've created a feedback loop of hypervigilance, where even the most innocent moments can be twisted into omens of doom by an audience processing their own wounds through the performance of strangers' love.

So when does pattern recognition become paranoia?

At what point does our attempt to learn from the past become a self-fulfilling prophecy that prevents us from fully experiencing the present?

the anxiety of authentication

Below the surface, these tests reveal a deep-seated anxiety about authenticity in an era of carefully curated online personas. We're seeking proof that our relationships are "real," that our partners' affections extend beyond the frame of Instagram photos and couple TikToks. The irony, of course, is that we seek this validation through even more layers of performance and documentation.

Moreover, these tests often function as a form of public insurance—a way of establishing a visible record of relationship "red flags" that can later justify its end. "I showed you all along that something wasn't right," the narrative goes, turning personal audiences into witnesses and validators of relationship narratives.

The psychological impact manifests in new forms of relationship anxiety:

• Content anxiety (pressure to document relationship milestones)

• Performance comparison (measuring one's relationship against viral standards)

• Validation seeking (needing public approval for private choices)

• Documentation compulsion (feeling that unfilmed moments "don't count")

• Algorithm-induced relationship doubt (being fed a constant stream of "red flag" content)

These tests often function as a form of public insurance—a way of establishing a visible record of relationship "red flags" that can later justify its end. "I showed you all along that something wasn't right," the narrative goes, turning personal audiences into witnesses and validators of relationship narratives.

Gen Z's romantic trajectory plays out like a carefully orchestrated social media campaign. This performative intimacy isn't limited to aspiring influencers or content creators—it has seeped into the cultural groundwater of modern relationships. The democratization of digital performance means everyone is now simultaneously audience and actor, critic and creator. A lawyer and a barista might approach their relationship documentation with the same strategic mindset as a full-time content creator, marketing principles seeping into intimate moments. We're seeing something beyond Debord's society of the spectacle: a world where intimacy and its performance have become inextricable. The "boyfriend test" trend merely makes explicit what's already implicit in modern relationship culture—that love, like everything else, is shaped by its presentation to an audience, even when that audience is just our own social circle.

Having never known a world without digital performance, Gen Z relationship milestones read like a content strategy deck: soft launch (a strategically cropped hand in an Instagram story), hard launch (the official couple photo), ongoing content maintenance (monthly pre-date night GRWM Tiktoks), and eventually, and then finally a quiet archiving of all previous couple content. This isn't just documentation—it's the relationship. The experience of falling in love becomes intertwined with its performance, each moment of connection simultaneously lived and broadcast. The line between experiencing and performing intimacy has blurred, creating a generation that experiences love through the lens of its eventual audience.

The algorithm doesn't just reflect our relationship anxieties—it manufactures them. Each viral boyfriend test spawns dozens of derivatives, each relationship "prank" generates countless imitators, creating an endless loop of performance and validation seeking. But it's not just content creation being rewarded; it's specifically content that generates tension, uncertainty, and drama. A simple dance executed perfectly by a loving couple rarely goes viral. A dance rejected, a prank that causes tears, a test that reveals relationship cracks—these are the moments the algorithm pushes to millions of viewers. We're not just performing our relationships; we're performing their potential failure, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where looking for red flags ensures we'll find them.

This constant performance and evaluation takes a quiet but serious toll. Young people are developing what therapists call "digital relationship anxiety"— a persistent fear that unrecorded moments aren't real, that private joy is somehow incomplete without public validation. Partners report feeling like they're dating not just each other, but a phantom audience of critics and commenters. The pressure to maintain both the relationship and its public performance creates a new kind of emotional exhaustion. We're not just managing our feelings, we're managing our feelings about how our feelings look to others, creating layers of meta-anxiety that previous generations never had to navigate.

And okay, if I’m being completely honest, I catch myself doing it: going to capture a moment and already hearing the imagined TikTok commentary running through my head like a preemptive defense. The way we're sitting slightly apart on the couch ("ick"), his focus on the TV instead of me (“he's not that into you sis"), the fact that he didn't join my silly dance ("girl, leave him"). It's like living with a chorus of relationship experts in my head, each one ready to dissect every interaction for signs of doom. Interestingly, my most photographed relationship was my worst one — we had the perfect couples photos, matching pajamas, the "how he looks at me" moments that would have gotten millions of likes. Meanwhile, my healthiest connections exist in moments that would get torn apart online: sitting in comfortable silence, inside jokes that wouldn't translate to camera, candid photos that would have TikTok relationship experts writing frame-by-frame analyses of our body language red flags. There's something strange about knowing the moments that feel most real would be deemed most wrong by an audience I've never met but somehow can't stop performing for. The chorus of commenters lives in my head now, and while I know how to love deeply and freely in private, I find myself hesitating to share even the smallest glimpse online — not because the love isn't real, but because I can't bear to give those voices any more ammunition.

a crisis of communication

Perhaps most troublingly, these trends point to a crisis in direct communication. Rather than having honest conversations about needs and expectations, we're increasingly turning to indirect "tests" and public exposure as tools for relationship navigation. The framework of testing replaces dialogue with performance, understanding with evaluation, intimacy with spectacle.

This shift didn't happen overnight. Each technological evolution has pushed us further from private connection toward public performance:

• Letters and diaries (private documentation of intimate thoughts)

• Phone calls and emails (one-to-one communication, still safely private)

• Social media posts (curated sharing for a known audience)

• Stories and temporary content (constant documentation becomes expected)

• TikToks and Reels that live forever (relationship moments transformed into infinite loops of content, watched and rewatched by strangers who think they know your story better than you do)

As younger generations increasingly understand relationships through the lens of social media performance, we risk losing touch with the raw, messy, unquantifiable aspects of human connection that matter most. After all, love isn't a performance to be optimized or a test to be passed — it's a private language spoken between two people who choose, again and again, to keep showing up for each other, phones down, cameras off, no audience required.