I’ve stepped away from the apps for now. It’s a strange world trying to sift through someone’s authenticity when all you’re given is a handful of photos, a tagline, and whatever story they choose to spin (and their “pseudo-intimacy”).

What fascinates me most is how often people overpitch themselves. They craft a highlight reel — charming, witty, seemingly self-aware — but once you scratch the surface, unresolved issues and old wounds quickly reveal themselves. The mask slips, and suddenly you’re not chatting with the polished profile, but with the very raw, unedited side they hadn’t intended to show.

What is pseudo-intimacy?

Pseudo-intimacy is a kind of false closeness someone gives another person that feels rushed, heavy, or contradictory, in hopes of drawing you closer and making you feel special. A fake assumption that intimacy exists when it doesn’t. To put it simply, it’s a hopeful, subtle, seductive coercion, and lately, I’ve seen how this morphs into something that’s not real.

3 Examples of pseudo-intimacy

Example One: There was the guy ( will call him Reg), who, after only a couple of days of light banter, suddenly dropped the late-night question: “Do you love sex?” It wasn’t flirtation, but I don’t think I provoked it, but it was received as a jarring shortcut — skipping over all the natural steps of discovery and pushing straight into territory that’s intimate on paper, but empty in reality. The intensity felt forced, designed to spark a reaction rather than build a connection. That’s pseudo-intimacy in its purest form — heavy-handed, premature, and ultimately hollow.

I picked up what he was putting down ultimately, and needless to say, we haven’t chatted since. 

Example Two: Then came the man who works in the same industry as me; he opened up about therapy, family trauma, and deep confessions almost immediately. At first glance, it looked like vulnerability. But what unfolded was an overfamiliarity that left me more like a stand-in counsellor than a potential partner. True intimacy grows slowly, through trust and balance—not by emotionally unloading on a near stranger.

Example Three: And then there was ‘this guy’. His profile read like a hybrid of LinkedIn and Airbnb (“self-employed, surfer, professional career, one teen almost out of home, a couple of houses!”). But within five minutes of chatting, he shared that his last fling — a two-month “lover” — ended when he caught her in a threesome with two men. Cue contradictions. His profile said he was “not into flings” and “looking for long-term, open to short.” But the conversation revealed confusion, inconsistency, and a complete mismatch between his stated “wants and needs” and his actions. That’s another form of pseudo-intimacy — where the profile promises one thing, but the reality is messy contradictions. And honestly, this is one of the most common patterns I’ve noticed on the apps: men say they want long-term, but behave as if they’re after the opposite. Needless to say, our chat only lasted 45 minutes, and that prompted me to have another mental health break from dating apps ( for the 6th time).

Each of these situations reminded me how easy it is to confuse intensity with intimacy, or credentials with character, or even “preferences” with reality. On the apps, people crave connection so badly that they sometimes throw themselves in at full tilt, mistaking shock-factor questions, oversharing, or carefully curated bios for authenticity. This is because it’s a safe remote and behind a screen, making it very easy to push the eject button when things get confronting. 

But real intimacy — the kind that builds trust and genuine attraction — needs time, boundaries, and consistency, and can’t be based on textual interactions.

That’s the paradox of dating apps. They put people in front of you faster than ever, but they also tempt us into shortcutting the very process that makes relationships sustainable.

For me, authenticity is the non-negotiable. Not perfection, not a glossy pitch, not the instant spark of pseudo-closeness — but someone showing up as they really are, contradictions included, but without the performance. Because that’s where connection actually begins.

5 key personality pseudo-intimacy red flags to watch for:

1. Premature Sexual Intensity

Red Flag: Jumping straight into sexually explicit conversations or questions within the first few exchanges, like “Reg’s sudden ‘Do you love sex?’ question after light banter.

Why: This represents classic pseudo-intimacy – using shock value or forced intensity to create artificial closeness. Genuine sexual chemistry develops naturally through building rapport and trust. When someone skips all the natural steps of discovery, they’re likely more interested in a reaction than a real connection.

2. Immediate Emotional Dumping

Red Flag: Sharing deep trauma, therapy details, or heavy personal confessions right away, treating you like an unpaid therapist rather than a potential romantic partner.

Why: While vulnerability can be attractive, timing matters enormously. True intimacy requires reciprocal sharing that builds gradually. Someone who overwhelms you with their emotional baggage immediately is often seeking validation or healing rather than partnership – and hasn’t learned healthy boundaries around emotional intimacy.

3. Profile-to-Reality Contradictions

Red Flag: Major inconsistencies between what they claim to want (“long-term relationship”) and how they behave (sharing inappropriate stories about recent flings, contradictory dating patterns).

Why: These contradictions reveal either self-deception or intentional misrepresentation. Someone who says they want commitment but acts like they’re seeking casual encounters is likely confused about their own intentions – or worse, deliberately misleading potential matches to cast a wider net.

4. Overpitching and Highlight Reel Syndrome

Red Flag: Profiles that read like carefully crafted marketing materials (the “LinkedIn meets Airbnb” approach) with excessive emphasis on achievements, possessions, or lifestyle credentials rather than personality.

Why: This suggests someone who confuses credentials with character and believes their worth lies in what they have rather than who they are. They’re likely uncomfortable with authentic self-presentation and may struggle with genuine vulnerability when the “mask slips.”

5. Intensity Without Consistency

Red Flag: Hot-and-cold communication patterns, rushing toward false closeness, or creating dramatic peaks and valleys in conversation rather than steady, sustainable connection-building.

Why: This pattern reveals someone who mistakes intensity for intimacy and likely struggles with emotional regulation. Sustainable relationships require consistency and the ability to build trust gradually. Someone who operates in extremes often seeks the dopamine hit of dramatic connection rather than the slower satisfaction of authentic bonding.

The common thread in all these red flags is the confusion between performance and presence – mistaking curated personas, emotional shortcuts, and dramatic gestures for genuine authenticity and connection.


In the end, dating apps are simply tools—and like any tool, they amplify what we bring to them. The question isn’t whether these platforms can deliver authentic connection, but whether we’re willing to show up authentically in the first place. (Find out your Dating archetype– what kind of dater are you?) Real intimacy has always required vulnerability, patience, and the courage to be seen beyond our best angles and cleverest lines. The swipe may be new, but the work of genuine connection remains beautifully, stubbornly old-fashioned.