It’s easy to pretend like you’re in love when there’s clout on the line.
On a visit to a now-defunct TikToker content house in Los Angeles last February, I happened to meet two diminutive 20-somethings, both decked out in chunky streetwear and topped with matching neon-green hair. They were, unmistakably, a pair of TikTok stars, both of whom exhibited the same characteristic shyness I’ve come to expect of young influencers when the cameras are off. I asked them what kind of videos they made, and they told me “couple goals.”
“Couple goals” accounts are a crucial part of TikTok World: If the idea of a collab house is the joy of watching your favorite TikTokers hang out together, imagine the ecstasy of watching them kiss. The first few major TikTok couples — Charli D’Amelio and Chase Hudson, Addison Rae and Bryce Hall, Josh Richards and Nessa Barrett — were shining examples of the form, revealing just enough on-camera flirtation to make their followers root for the relationship, but keeping enough a mystery to drive speculation within the exploding influencer gossip industry.
No pair captivated TikTok more than Sienna Mae Gomez and Jack Wright. Gomez, a 17-year-old body positivity influencer, and Wright, an 18-year-old dancer and Hype House member, began posting videos of themselves hugging and kissing last October, but left their followers perpetually guessing whether they were officially dating or not. Both were beloved for their senses of humor, displaying the casual cool of the popular kids who you’d actually want to be friends with. When the gossip account TikTok Room held its first awards last year, Gomez and Wright won “Best Ship,” devoted to the couple audiences most wanted to get together.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22643820/Screen_Shot_2021_06_07_at_5.34.56_PM.png)
But after videos showing the two together began to slow down this spring, a friend of Wright’s made an explosive statement on Twitter: that Gomez had allegedly sexually and verbally assaulted Wright. The post, as well as several others made by Wright’s twin brother and his friends, were deleted, and Gomez repeatedly denied the accusations. I’m not going to linger more on what did or didn’t happen between the two of them; they’re teenagers, and I doubt one more person weighing in would be at all helpful, but one part of Gomez’s statement stood out.
In her video addressing the allegations, she painted a picture that redefined the golden-hour-on-the-beach portrait of her and Wright’s relationship. Essentially, she said that she’d felt used for content. “If I wasn’t around for the TikTok kiss or the TikTok video, I wasn’t important to him,” she said. “Two weeks ago I asked him to film a video with me for my mental health’s sake because I couldn’t move on with everyone thinking we were still together. He told me it wasn’t healthy for either of us because this would mean losing his online girlfriend.”
It’s almost verbatim what Trisha Paytas, the YouTuber who’d once been a part of David Dobrik’s Vlog Squad, told me when I asked about her former relationship with fellow member Jason Nash. He’d use her in YouTube videos with “girlfriend” in the title, yet only show affection when they two were on camera. He broke up with her, she says, once he’d decided she was no longer “useful” for his content.
Celebrity PR relationships have existed since long before the internet, but there’s something deeply cynical and sad about newly microfamous teenagers orchestrating one themselves. Consider, for instance, the number of apparently straight teens on TikTok making content that many have considered queerbaiting (though could, on the other hand, be an earnest means of exploring their own sexualities). Even if you’ve never been in love before, it’s easy to mimic the outward appearance of a romantic relationship, and it’s even easier when both parties understand that doing so successfully will grow their following.
You tend to see this dynamic a lot with married couples on social media too, pairs who build giant audiences by posting “relatable” goofs with their spouse, airing petty annoyances and pulling pranks but assuring viewers that actually, being married rules. (Except, of course, when they break up, as was the case for TikTok’s most famous husband and wife duo, Mike and Kat.) There’s a discomfort in watching some of these types of videos; often you start to get the sense that these two people might actually hate each other yet both feel trapped, not only in the marriage but in the algorithm — the fear that if they no longer post content together, they won’t matter anymore.
All of this is to say: No one should compare their own relationship to those of influencers who bank on presenting the view that they are very much in love. Everyone likes to look at pretty people kissing, but perhaps that’s all “couple goals” accounts really need to provide. I can’t help but think of one comment I read on a TikTok video of two silhouettes slow dancing in an achingly beautiful aquarium, set to twinkly, misty jazz. It read something like, “ok whose friends actually take videos of them like this,” and I laughed because the answer is obviously “no one’s.” The couple clearly tilted their phone on the side of the wall and filmed it themselves because they knew it would look extremely cute and would get a lot of views from envious people. Which is sort of embarrassing, honestly! Like, imagine being in an actual aquarium and having to wait for all the parents and kids to leave the hallway before you can film your corny TikTok and act like some magical fly on the wall just happened to have a camera phone?
For what it’s worth, none of the couples mentioned in this column are still together. Well, except one: While the TikTok house they were part of ultimately broke up, the shy, neon-haired kids I met last year are happily still dating. According to their TikToks, they seem very much in love.
This column first published in The Goods newsletter. Sign up here so you don’t miss the next one, plus get newsletter exclusives.
Biden’s position toward Israel hasn’t changed, but the Democratic Party has.
The split in the Democratic Party on US policy toward Israel and Palestine isn’t just among politicians — it’s among their voters as well.
In a new poll with Vox and Data for Progress, Democratic voters are divided on whether President Joe Biden’s administration should be harsher toward the Israeli government. The poll, which had a 3 percent margin of error, was conducted from May 19 to 21 among 1,319 likely voters. In it, after being given a short summary of how Biden responded to the crisis last month, 32 percent of Democrats say they believe “the administration should condemn Israel’s actions.” Meanwhile, 39 percent agreed “the administration has the right approach to Israel.” Only 11 percent of Democrats believe that the administration should be more supportive of Israel.
By the time the poll was being fielded, the New York Times reported that more than 200 people had died in the latest round of fighting, “the vast majority of them Palestinians killed by Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip.” The conflict heightened after Israel worked to evict Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem. The Biden administration quietly advocated for a ceasefire, but not forcefully enough, some critics said; the White House condemned violence by Hamas but said it did not find Israel’s attacks disproportionate.
Republican responses to some of the questions are more uniform. For instance, more than 60 percent believe that “Biden is not supportive enough of Israel,” and 60 percent agree that the administration should condemn Hamas further.
As Vox’s Alex Ward has explained, there is a growing divide on US policy toward Israel within the Democratic Party that became more visible in the last month. That’s partly because former President Donald Trump’s posture toward Israel was remarkably conciliatory, which can help explain why a once bipartisan approach has become more complicated among Democrats:
As president, Trump gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nearly everything he wanted, including recognition of Israeli sovereignty over disputed territory like the Golan Heights, moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and a “peace plan” that fulfilled nearly all of the premier’s wish list. Meanwhile, Trump closed a Palestinian political office in Washington, DC, stopped aid to the West Bank and Gaza, and effectively cut ties with top Palestinian officials.
Some of the party’s younger, more diverse, and more progressive lawmakers have also elevated questions about support for Israel and pointed to the plight of the Palestinian people.
Biden, however, seems not to have moved along with his party. Just last week, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said, “We have a long and abiding relationship — strategic relationship — with Israel, and that will continue to be the case no matter who is leading the country,” reported the Washington Post.
A plurality of Democratic voters, though, want that relationship to shift: The poll found 45 percent want the US to decrease the $3.8 billion in military aid it sends to Israel.
Much — but not all — of Justice Ginsburg’s women’s rights legacy is probably safe.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh just handed down a subtle but potentially very significant signal that he will protect at least some of the feminist victories won by Ruth Bader Ginsburg two decades before she joined the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s move does not mean that he is likely to tack left on questions like abortion, but it does suggest there are some limits to this Court’s willingness to toss out earlier victories by liberals.
In Reed v. Reed (1971), a case that Ginsburg helped litigate, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Constitution limits the government’s ability to discriminate on the basis of gender. Over time, the Court gradually expanded this holding, eventually concluding that “a party seeking to uphold government action based on sex must establish an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for the classification.”
Yet while these decisions are now firmaments of American constitutional law, they were controversial among conservatives for many years. As a young lawyer working in the Reagan Justice Department, for example, future Chief Justice John Roberts wrote several memos and other documents suggesting that these anti-gender-discrimination decisions represent “an unjustified intrusion into legislative affairs.”
The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, Roberts is widely considered the most moderate member of that majority, and many of the conservative justices have shown a disregard for certain precedents — including Kavanaugh. So it was far from clear that at least five of the current justices would vote to uphold the Court’s gender equality decisions if confronted by a case challenging those decisions. Until today, there appeared to be a real risk that Ginsburg’s legacy could be overruled by a conservative bench.
But that risk now appears greatly diminished, thanks to a move by Justice Kavanaugh.
On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it will not hear National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, a lawsuit challenging a federal law that requires men — and not women — to register for the draft when they turn 18.
That might seem like bad news to anyone hoping the court would apply gender nondiscrimination precedents to a new area. But the good news comes in a brief opinion that Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.
In it, she suggests that she believes that gender discrimination in the selective service program is unconstitutional — the main reason she’s not interested in taking up the case, she seems to say, is that Congress is considering legislation that could expand selective service registration to women.
Kavanaugh joined the opinion in full. And that opinion begins with a quote summarizing many of the Court’s gender equality decisions — the Constitution “prohibits the Federal Government from discriminating on the basis of sex absent an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification,’” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her opinion — followed by a long list of citations to the Court’s gender equality decisions.
So, in joining this opinion, Kavanaugh signaled that he agrees with Sotomayor, and with the gender equality decisions that Sotomayor cites.
That does not mean that these decisions are completely safe — on a 6-3 Court, Kavanaugh could be outvoted by the other five Republican appointees — but it is a hopeful sign for feminism. Kavanaugh is the Court’s median vote in most contentious cases, so it is unlikely that the Court will overrule a major line of precedents without his approval.
The Court’s gender equality decisions, briefly explained
As mentioned above, the Court did not hold that gender discrimination can violate the Constitution until the early 1970s. That’s likely because of a conflict between the 14th Amendment’s text and the historical context that led to the amendment’s ratification.
The 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and, as the Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), the Fifth Amendment imposes these limitations on the federal government as well. This reference to the “equal protection of the laws” is quite expansive, and could potentially be read to prohibit many forms of discrimination.
But the 14th Amendment was also ratified in 1868, just a few years after the United States ended a civil war fought over slavery. The original purpose of this amendment was to ensure racial equality, especially for formerly enslaved people, not to protect women from discrimination.
The Supreme Court squared this circle by holding that the Constitution places fairly significant limits on the government’s ability to discriminate on the basis of gender, but that these limits are less strict than the limits imposed on race discrimination.
When the government engages in race discrimination, its actions must survive a test known as “strict scrutiny,” which, as its name implies, is very hard to overcome. To prevail in a race discrimination case, the government must show that such discrimination is “precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.”
Gender discrimination, meanwhile, is only subject to a test known as “intermediate scrutiny” — which, as its name implies, is less rigorous than strict scrutiny. The Court initially applied this somewhat weaker test to laws that engage in gender discrimination in Craig v. Boren (1976). Later decisions established that the government must have an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for gender discrimination — so laws that discriminate on the basis of gender are still treated with a fair amount of skepticism — but the Court has never applied strict scrutiny to gender discrimination cases.
Many conservatives resisted this compromise approach to gender discrimination cases, however. As recently as 2011, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that lawmakers may enact laws that treat men differently from women. “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex,” the late justice said in a decade-old interview. “The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.”
In 1981, future Chief Justice Roberts penned a draft article explaining the conservative objection to cases such as Craig. “Classifications based on race are suspect and do merit careful scrutiny, in light of the historic purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Roberts wrote. But “extension of heightened scrutiny to other ‘insular and discrete’ groups … represents an unjustified intrusion into legislative affairs.”
Roberts, in other words, took the position that the 14th Amendment must be read exclusively in light of its narrow historical purpose — to protect against race discrimination — and that its equal protection guarantee should not be applied to gender (or any other form of) discrimination.
Roberts, it should be noted, wrote these words in a draft article prepared for publication by his boss, then-Attorney General William French Smith. So it’s unclear whether Roberts was expressing his personal views or the views of his superiors. But the young Roberts also wrote several other documents suggesting that he disagreed with decisions like Craig, and several women’s groups criticized his nomination to the Supreme Court, in part due to fears that he would overrule these decisions.
In any event, it now appears that at least one member of the Court’s six-justice conservative majority is unpersuaded by the conservative critique of decisions like Craig. Justice Kavanaugh’s decision to join Sotomayor’s opinion in the Selective Service case is significant because it signals that at least one Republican appointee to the Supreme Court will vote to strike down laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of gender.
So what does this mean for the future?
If the Court does hear a case in the future asking it to overrule decisions like Craig, Kavanaugh’s vote is not enough to prevent that outcome. Though the Court’s three liberal members would undoubtedly reject an attack on Craig and similar cases, those three liberals plus Kavanaugh only add up to four of the Court’s nine votes.
But there’s also good reason to believe that at least one of the remaining five justices would reject an attempt to toss out decades of precedents establishing that the Constitution frowns upon gender discrimination. Although Roberts is very conservative, he’s also more cautious about overruling precedents than his other conservative colleagues. Indeed, last June, he broke with those colleagues and voted to strike down an anti-abortion law because the law was nearly identical to one that the Court had already declared unconstitutional.
Whatever Roberts may have thought about gender discrimination and the Constitution back in the Reagan years, he’s likely to be more cautious today about striking down a line of decisions that stretch back half a century.
As a law professor, Justice Amy Coney Barrett also warned that there are certain past precedents that “no serious person would propose to undo even if they are wrong,” and, in her brief time as a justice, Barrett has occasionally broken with the rightmost faction of her Court. So it’s also possible that she would vote to preserve the Court’s gender discrimination decisions.
This is not to say that feminists should heave a sigh of relief and expect the Court to preserve every past decision that advances women’s equality — if you expect Kavanaugh or Barrett to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, or if you expect Roberts to cast another vote for abortion rights in the future, then you should be prepared to be gravely disappointed.
But, at the very least, Kavanaugh’s move in the Selective Service case suggests that some of the most important feminist victories of the past several decades will not be overruled.