Video calls and the pandemic-era partnership

The simultaneous global imposition of stay-at-home orders in March 2020 created a natural experiment of unprecedented scale. Romantic relationships that had been distributed across the usual mixture of in-person and mediated contact were suddenly forced into video as the primary or sole medium. The speed of the transition — measured in days, not years — meant that couples had to develop conventions in real time, without the gradual social negotiation that earlier media transitions had allowed. The conventions that emerged were therefore improvised rather than inherited, and many of them stuck precisely because there was no time to consider alternatives.

Researchers documented within months of the lockdowns a specific exhaustion produced by extended video calling. The causes are multiple: the cognitive load of processing a face without normal contextual cues, the disrupted gaze that prevents true eye contact, the constant self-monitoring of one's own video tile, the absence of the small physical movements that ordinarily accompany conversation. Romantic video calls inherited all of these costs and added the specific weight of trying to feel close through a low-resolution rectangle. Couples who had previously found phone calls relaxing often found video calls tiring, and the asymmetry between media affected which one they reached for after long days.

For couples conducting romantic life over video, the home space had to become photogenic. Lighting, framing, what is visible behind the camera — all became matters of conscious staging. Some couples found this energizing; others found it exhausting. The blurring of romantic and professional mediation in the same physical setting — the same desk used for work meetings and for evening calls with the partner — produced a specific erosion of romantic atmosphere. The bedroom that had been a private space became a broadcast space, and the partner had to be received in a setting that was simultaneously occupational.

One of the unexpected adaptations of pandemic-era video was the long call without conversation. Couples would leave the call open while doing other things — cooking, working, reading — and simply share the ambient presence of the partner. This was not face-time in the traditional sense but a kind of co-presence at a distance. Some couples report that these silent shared calls were more sustaining than the conversational ones, because they simulated the most ordinary feature of cohabitation: being in the same room without needing to talk. The convention was unfamiliar before 2020 and is now widespread.

Dating apps integrated video calling rapidly during the pandemic, and the in-app first date became routine. For users, this changed the sequence of attraction. In a pre-pandemic dating norm, physical attraction was tested early and conversation followed; in the pandemic norm, conversation came first and the physical encounter happened after months of mediated rapport. Akbari and others have noted that this re-ordering produced different match outcomes: relationships that might have failed the early-physical-attraction filter sometimes thrived after extended conversation, and vice versa. The post-pandemic dating landscape retains some of these patterns.

Partners conducting video relationships from different home environments faced asymmetric conditions. One partner might have a private bedroom; the other shared a room with siblings or housemates. One might have reliable broadband; the other a flaky connection. One might have a quiet neighborhood; the other a noisy street. These asymmetries produced subtle inequalities in the relationship — the partner with worse infrastructure was effectively a less-present partner. Long-distance couples have always faced infrastructural asymmetry, but the pandemic made it acute and universal.

Couples separated during the pandemic often incorporated sexual intimacy into video calls, and this generated its own literature. Kate Devlin's work on sex tech notes the rapid adoption of teledildonic devices — connected hardware allowing partners to interact physically through the network — during the lockdowns. For most couples, however, sexual video use remained low-tech: webcams and bodies, with all the awkwardness that the medium imposes. Some couples found this sustained their physical bond; others found it foregrounded the absence rather than mitigating it. The pandemic generated the largest cohort in history of couples with this experience, and the cultural normalization of mediated sex is one of its quieter legacies.

Couples separated by international borders faced the harshest version of pandemic mediation. With travel suspended and border policies tightening, partners who had been planning visits found themselves indefinitely barred from meeting. Video became not a supplement but a substitute, and the substitute was inadequate for the long timescales involved. Stafford's research on long-distance relationships emphasizes the importance of a horizon — a date at which separation will end — and the pandemic erased horizons. Some relationships survived by manufacturing artificial horizons (we will try to meet in country X if it opens); others dissolved under the weight of indefinite delay.

Couples living together but working remotely faced a paradox: continuous physical proximity combined with continuous mediated absence. Each partner spent most of the day on video calls with people who were not the partner, in a home that the partner also occupied. The partner became background — visible, audible, but not addressed. This produced a specific form of loneliness within cohabitation, and Finkel's framing of the all-or-nothing marriage gained pointed application: the modern partnership is asked to supply emotional support that may be eroded precisely when the partners are most physically together.

Mary Aiken and other cyberpsychologists have noted that mediated communication produces a partial disinhibition — people say things on a screen they would not say in person. Romantic video calls inherited this disinhibition, sometimes productively (couples making declarations they had not been able to make face to face) and sometimes destructively (escalations into conflict that the physical presence of the partner would have restrained). The cumulative effect on relationship trajectories is hard to measure but probably significant, especially for relationships conducted primarily through video for extended periods.

As travel resumed and lockdowns lifted, many couples experienced the strangeness of re-meeting after extended video-only contact. The embodied partner had to be reconciled with the on-screen partner, and the reconciliation was not always smooth. Body language, height, smell, touch — all of these had been absent from the relationship for months, and their return required adjustment. Some couples reported a honeymoon effect; others reported a difficult re-acquaintance. The collective experience of mass re-meeting in 2021 and 2022 is documented unevenly but constitutes a real chapter in the history of mediated love.

Video calling did not return to pre-pandemic levels after the acute phase ended. Couples integrated it into normal rotation, alongside text and voice. Long-distance relationships now treat video as default rather than special; co-located couples use it to maintain contact during travel. The pandemic accelerated a transition that would have happened more slowly otherwise, and the romantic infrastructure of the 2020s includes video as a load-bearing element. Whether this is net positive for relational quality remains contested, but it is settled that the medium is now part of the standard kit — one more option in the long history of romantic revision under technological change.

1. Finkel, Eli J. The All-or-Nothing Marriage: How the Best Marriages Work. New York: Dutton, 2017. 2. Stafford, Laura. Maintaining Long-Distance and Cross-Residential Relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. 3. Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books, 2011. 4. Aiken, Mary. The Cyber Effect: A Pioneering Cyberpsychologist Explains How Human Behavior Changes Online. New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2016. 5. Devlin, Kate. Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots. London: Bloomsbury Sigma, 2018. 6. Akbari, Anna. Startup Your Life: Hustle and Hack Your Way to Happiness. New York: Seal Press, 2016. 7. Bailenson, Jeremy N. "Nonverbal Overload: A Theoretical Argument for the Causes of Zoom Fatigue." Technology, Mind, and Behavior 2, no. 1 (2021). 8. Fauville, Géraldine, Mufan Luo, Anna C. M. Queiroz, Jeremy N. Bailenson, and Jeff Hancock. "Nonverbal Mechanisms Predict Zoom Fatigue and Explain Why Women Experience It More Than Men." SSRN Electronic Journal (2021). 9. Turkle, Sherry. Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York: Penguin Press, 2015. 10. Hertlein, Katherine M., and Katrina Ancheta. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Technology in Relationships: Findings from an Open-Ended Survey." The Qualitative Report 19, no. 11 (2014): 1–11. 11. Fischer, Claude S. America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. 12. Marvin, Carolyn. When Old Technologies Were New: Thinking About Electric Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.