The talking stage. It sounds almost innocent when you say it like that. Like a natural, gentle corridor between two people who are simply taking their time, getting to know each other, moving carefully before making anything official. The language is deliberately vague, and I do not think that is an accident. When something is hard to name, it is also hard to be held accountable for.
So let me say what I actually think the talking stage is, at least in the way most people experience it.
It is an audition. One that asks you to show up with real emotional investment, real time, real vulnerability, without offering you any real commitment in return. You are expected to perform the role of someone worth choosing while the other person reserves the right to keep their options open.
That is not a stage. That is a setup.
***Please note that this site uses affiliate links if you would like to read the legal stuff you can find it here
The Word “Stage” Does a Lot of Quiet Work
Think about what the word stage implies. A stage is temporary, yes, but it is also progressive. It suggests movement.
A beginning that is heading somewhere. When you call something a stage, you are implying that what comes next is more than what came before. That this is a waypoint on a journey, not a destination in itself.
That implication is exactly why the language works so well for the people it protects. If you are the one who is less invested, calling it a stage keeps the other person patient.
They are not being strung along. They are in a stage. They are on the way to something. Just not yet.
Except that for a significant number of people, the talking stage never becomes anything else. It simply continues, indefinitely, with all the warmth and contact of something real and none of the clarity. Or it ends quietly, without ceremony, because there was never anything formal enough to require a proper ending.
The person who called it a stage walks away clean. The person who believed in the destination is left trying to grieve something that technically never existed.
What It Actually Asks of You
Here is what nobody says when they invite you into a talking stage. They are asking you to invest, genuinely, emotionally, with the kind of attention and care that real interest requires, while they retain the right to be doing exactly the same thing with someone else at the same time.
This is the part that I think deserves to be said plainly, because it tends to get buried under the softer conversation about modern dating being complicated and everyone just figuring things out.
When someone is in a talking stage with you, there is a reasonable chance they are in a talking stage with other people too.
That is not a cynical assumption. It is simply the reality of how this particular ritual tends to function.
The talking stage, for many people, is less about slowly deepening a connection with one specific person and more about running a quiet parallel process, keeping several conversations warm while waiting to see which one develops most naturally into something they want to pursue.
I am not interested in pretending that it does not happen. What I am interested in is what it means for the person who is in it wholeheartedly, having good faith conversations, building genuine feelings, while the person on the other side of the phone is doing the same with two or three other people they have not mentioned.
The Transparency That Changes Everything
Here is where my view on this gets specific, and it is something I feel strongly about. I do not think that speaking to multiple people at once is automatically wrong. Dating is complicated, people are trying to figure things out, and in a world of apps and endless options, it is not always realistic to expect that every early conversation is exclusive by default.
What I do think is that basic transparency changes the entire moral character of the situation.
If you are talking to someone with genuine interest, and you are also talking to other people, that is your right.
What is not fair, not to the other person and not to the kind of connection you are claiming to be open to, is allowing someone to believe they are in something exclusive when they are not.
Allowing them to make emotional decisions based on incomplete information.
Letting them invest in a picture that is missing half of its details.
Saying “I want you to know that I am speaking to other people as well, and I am taking my time to figure out what I want” is not a romantic death sentence. For the right person, it is actually a mark of character. It says: I respect you enough to be honest with you even when honesty is inconvenient for me.
The absence of that transparency is not just inconsiderate. It is a form of control, keeping someone in a position of emotional investment while withholding the information that would allow them to make a genuinely free choice about whether they want to be there.
When the Talking Stage Is Actually Legitimate
I want to be honest here because I do not think this is entirely black and white, and writing as though it is would not serve the people reading this who are navigating it in good faith.
There are situations where taking time before defining a relationship is genuinely the right thing to do. When both people are moving intentionally. When neither person is hiding the pace or the ambiguity behind a convenient label. When the time being taken is actually producing something, deeper conversation, clearer understanding, and genuine forward movement, rather than simply maintaining a comfortable holding pattern.
The difference between a legitimate slow start and a talking stage used as cover is not really about time. It is about intention, honesty, and whether both people are equally informed about where they stand.
Two people who are genuinely taking their time, who are both clear about what they are doing and why, who are not keeping significant information from each other about who else might be in the picture, that is something I can respect. That is two adults being careful and thoughtful about something that matters.
What I cannot get behind is using the softness of the language to avoid the accountability of the reality.
Using “we are in the talking stage” as a reason to never have to say “I am not sure I want this,” or “there are other people I am also considering,” or “I am not ready to give you clarity.” Those are the honest sentences. The talking stage is sometimes how we avoid saying them.
What You Are Owed From the Beginning
This is the thing I keep coming back to, and it connects to everything I believe about how people should treat each other when they are exploring something romantic.
From the very beginning of any real conversation between two people who are both interested in where things might go, there is a basic level of honesty that is simply owed. Not a declaration of love. Not a commitment that neither person is ready to make. Just honesty about the situation as it actually is.
If you are speaking to other people, say so. Not necessarily in the first message, but before the other person has had the chance to develop genuine feelings under the impression that your attention is singular. Before you let them invest in something that turns out to be different from what they thought it was.
That honesty is not romantic poison.
For someone with real confidence and real intentions, it is simply the truth, and the truth, offered with care and respect, is the only foundation on which anything genuine can actually be built.
The talking stage, as it is most commonly practised, asks you to skip that foundation. To build something warm and real on top of ambiguity and managed information and the polite fiction that neither of you is quite here yet, so neither of you has to say anything definitive.
I think we deserve better than that.
Final Thoughts on Stop Calling It The Talking Stage
Language shapes behaviour. When we give something a soft, acceptable name, we make it easier to engage in without examining it too closely. The talking stage has become so normalised in modern dating conversation that questioning it feels almost prudish, like you are failing to understand how things work now, like you are asking for too much too soon.
I want to push back on that. Asking for honesty is not asking for too much.
Expecting transparency about something as basic as whether the person you are speaking to is also speaking to others is not an unreasonable standard.
Wanting to know what you are actually in before you invest yourself in it is not neediness. It is wisdom.
The name “talking stage” has made a particular set of behaviours feel neutral when they are not always neutral.
It has made it easier to keep people in the dark under the cover of something that sounds like a process. It has given people a way to have almost-relationships without any of the accountability that a real one would require.
Stopping to ask what it really is does not make you difficult. It makes you someone who knows what they are worth and refuses to accept less than honesty as the entry price for their attention.
That is not a small thing. In the current landscape of modern dating, it might be one of the most powerful things you can be.
If this made you think differently about something you are currently in, or something you are about to walk into, save it to Pinterest and send it to someone who needs to read it.
Related Posts:
The 3-6-9 in dating, does it work?