In the evolving landscape of modern dating, a peculiar phenomenon has emerged: the “non-asker.” New Yorker Carol—the first to describe the ageism she experienced—came up with the term. It’s inspired by her memories of men she encountered in her dating life nearly ten years ago. These people were incredibly skilled at getting out their own narrative. They expressed scant interest in their role in their dates, particularly with regard to Carol. This concerning trend prompts many questions regarding changing dynamics of communication and the intricacies of intimacy in modern relationships.
Carol’s first post on non-askers has led to some really compelling and fascinating conversations among fundraisers who have had similar experiences. Sarah, a 43-year-old woman, has been on dozens of dates with non-askers. In her own words, she notices that these experiences easily start to feel like a mix because there’s no compelling conversation. Unlike real conversations where reciprocal curiosity builds true connection, these exchanges fall flat, often even creating alienation for those involved.
Andy’s 60-year-old version had his own reckoning when a good friend called him out on his not-asking ways. As he put it, the experience was “massively humiliating,” evidence of the fear society puts in us about how we should have deep, fundamental conversations. Lisa, 30, has a distinct recollection of dating a girl who was “too twee to interrogate.” This experience points to a larger issue—a curiosity deficit in our connections.
Interestingly, this phenomenon extends beyond casual dating. Brace yourself, because one woman’s husband has never once asked her even one question—definitely a red flag on the state of their marriage. These types of examples are becoming all too common and represent a larger trend in face-to-face communication, where curiosity has been replaced with self-serving monologues.
To understand this growing trend, we spoke with Dina an LMSW who is currently in psychoanalytic training. She proposes that societal stigmas around asking for help make people feel responsible for and thus push away the growing population of non-askers. “There’s certainly a current of rising individualism,” she states. “This is going to result in cutting off other people, an inability to recognize them.”
Abby Kluchin, co-host with Faye of the psychoanalysis podcast Ordinary Unhappiness, provides another perspective on the topic. She argues that creativity, like curiosity, has been inappropriately villainized and shamed. It can come from a place of motivation that is not necessarily rooted in genuine curiosity. “At the same time, curiosity isn’t always motivated by pure interest,” she explains. “People don’t only ask you questions out of the goodness of their heart – they can do it to get things from you or to deflect interest from themselves.”
Scott, one of other members of this exchange, has written extensively about his experiences with non-askers. He once confronted friends with a candid observation: “We’ve been talking for half an hour and you haven’t asked me a single question. I’m going to tell you how to have a conversation.” This pointed critique will be familiar to anyone who is frustrated by the often unproductive nature of one-sided dialogues.
Christine, 57, has experienced this in her own life with men. What she calls non-asker traits in men are largely evident from the beginning. Consequently, she has decided not to seek any deeper relationships with them. This utilization decision indicates the increasing realization among people that actual two-way dialogue is what builds a constituency of engaged partners.
Art psychotherapist Katy Cotterell notes the challenge so many adults have with simple human connection. First, she argues, these challenges almost always involve a struggle to ask the right questions. That difficulty is likely due to powerful societal forces that teach us to shy away from honest dialogue and questioning. Patrick Blanchfield adds another layer to this conversation by pointing out that “the act of asking questions is not just a way of showing curiosity – it can be a way to assert power over someone.” This lens creates an interesting tension between inquiry and control in relationships.
This is the important takeaway here from Dina – it is difficult for people to be questioned by others. They must be willing to do the self-reflection work. “It’s hard to ask questions of other people if you’re not asking them of yourself,” she states. This introspective nature can prove to be a vital ingredient in cultivating deeper relationships and steering clear of the consequences that come with being a non-asker.
The deep discouragement reflected in the experiences of Rainy, 25, serve to better demonstrate the discouragement faced within these dynamics. She recounts a story of a friend who waited weeks for a guy to ask her a simple question: “Do you play pickleball?” This anecdote reflects a common issue across the country. So many people deal with romantic ennui and general disinterest when it comes to dating.
Deborah Tannen’s 1990 book, You Just Don’t Understand, provides further insight into this process. She argues that men see conversation as performance, whereas women seek conversation as a way to relate. This essential divergence in interaction styles could explain why non-askers are so much more common among male daters.
Carol shares her own deep insights having been a non-asker herself. She tries to be honest about the moments she failed to be curious about others. During a conversation with a former colleague, she asked, “How are you?” which she noted was a rare instance where she sought information about someone else. This admission shows just how deeply established habits blind even the most inquiry-savvy educators to the efficacy and power of questioning.
This was before the internet blew up, society became even more obsessed with individualism, and with it, the accompanying challenges in creating authentic connection. Every relationship is built on the foundation of constant curiosity and playfulness. Without these forms of attentiveness, dialogue can easily become flaccid and unsatisfying.