As a research team we have been hearing a lot about the phrase “sneaky links” lately. It’s everywhere, in TikTok captions, group chats, and whispered conversations that start with “don’t judge me, but…” And while it might sound like just another piece of dating slang, it says something real about how emerging adults are navigating intimacy right now. It’s even become the name of a recent Netflix reality show, Sneaky Links: Dating After Dark, which premiered in 2025 and follows people navigating their own secret hookups on screen.
A “sneaky link” might sound like harmless slang, but it reflects something deeper about how many of us navigate intimacy today. A sneaky link is someone you’re seeing romantically or sexually, but in secret. Not “we’re private,” but “no one can know.” And while secrecy can feel exciting at first, it also shapes the emotional dynamics of the connection in ways people don’t always expect.
Why We Hide (and Why It Matters)
There’s a reason sneaky links feel electrifying. Secrecy heightens emotion, creating intensity, urgency, and the thrill of doing something concealed from others. The hidden nature of the connection can feel intimate in a way that public relationships sometimes don’t. But that very secrecy begins to work on you psychologically.
Research shows that keeping a secret often leads to rumination (mentally revisiting the secret over and over), which is associated with reduced authenticity, lower satisfaction, and decreased well‑being (Slepian, Chun, & Mason, 2017). Sneaky links also thrive in motivated ambiguity: no labels, no expectations, no conversations about what anything means. That lack of definition typically creates unequal emotional investment, a dynamic relationship scholars call asymmetrical commitment, which is strongly associated with relational instability and anxiety (Stanley et al., 2019).
But ambiguity isn’t just a by‑product of sneaky links. Instead, it’s something young people often choose. A recent study on “defining the relationship” (DTR) found that adolescents and emerging adults often avoided clarifying their relationship status until ambiguity became uncomfortable or something forced the issue (Knopp, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2020). DTR talks were most likely to happen in more serious relationships, those involving sex, or when infidelity occurred—moments when uncertainty could no longer hold. Importantly, DTR conversations often resulted in increased clarity, intimacy, and commitment. Many young people reported using them to eliminate ambiguity, reduce confusion, and improve emotional security. This aligns closely with sneaky‑link dynamics: secrecy and ambiguity may feel low‑pressure at first, but they eventually create stress and emotional instability.
Technology’s Role: Connection or Concealment?
Technology makes sneaky links easier than ever. Disappearing messages, private stories, restricted accounts, and best‑friends lists shape platforms designed to curate what others do and don’t see. With disappearing messages, private stories, and fake accounts, we’ve created an alternate reality full of secrecy, and while that can feel exciting, it can also make it much harder to build trust. Of course, technology itself is not the problem. It is the way certain digital habits, such as secrecy, selective visibility, and inconsistent communication, shape relational dynamics that make trust harder to build. Dr. Justin Lehmiller’s research on concealed sexual dynamics suggests that secrecy can heighten anxiety and reduce satisfaction, a pattern he documents in his 2020 book Tell Me What You Want (Lehmiller, 2020). While sharing secrets can briefly increase closeness, digital secrecy often fosters anxiety, uncertainty, and emotional inconsistency (Jaffé, Douneva, & Albath, 2023).
When tech‑fueled secrecy becomes the norm, it can also feed emotional detachment. Dr. Scott Stanley argues that ambiguity today often leads people to “slide” into relationships unintentionally rather than “decide” whether the relationship is right for them. This can leave people burned out and confused about their expectations, especially in situations that were never clearly defined to begin with.
Even in committed relationships, nearly half of partnered adults report that technology interrupts communication or emotional presence (Vogels & Anderson, 2020). For sneaky links, where the foundation is already ambiguous, this digital inconsistency amplifies insecurity. Apps like Snapchat, known for their temporary messaging, intensify emotional volatility. Research shows that discovering infidelity‑related messages on the platform triggers strong jealousy reactions (Dunn & Ward, 2019). When we take all of this into account, it becomes clearer that sneaky links may not be as fun or low‑stakes as they initially seem.
Why We Choose Ambiguity (and How It Backfires)
Is every sneaky link toxic? For some people, they genuinely seem to be trying to meet a perceived need for privacy, fun, exploration, and freedom. But for many others, sneaky links become a way to avoid vulnerability. Attachment research shows that people high in avoidant attachment often prefer low-commitment, undefined connections, while those with anxious attachment tend to develop deeper emotional investment and are more likely to get hurt (Stanley et al., 2019).
Recent studies on hookup culture add even more nuance. Emerging adults participate in hooking up for a variety of reasons such as pleasure, exploration, curiosity, or because it fits the social script of this stage of life. But motivations matter. Research shows that hookups driven by non-autonomous motivations, such as pressure, insecurity, external expectations, or a lack of genuine intention, are linked to lower well-being, including higher anxiety, depression, and physical symptoms (Vrangalova, 2014). In contrast, students whose motivations are more self-determined and aligned with their own desires do not show these negative emotional outcomes, highlighting how the “why” behind a hookup often predicts its emotional impact.
Hookups are also shaped by life course realities. Many emerging adults avoid commitment because they feel too busy, too mobile, or simply not ready even when they want closeness (Lyons et al., 2014). Definitions of hookup behavior are intentionally flexible, and students often disagree on what counts, especially regarding expectations around emotional commitment (Olmstead et al., 2024).
At the same time, risks still exist. First year college women who engage in casual sexual encounters report higher rates of sexual victimization and STI risk (Fielder et al., 2014).
Why “We” Doesn’t Actually Mean Losing “Me”
A major fear among young adults is the idea that being in a relationship means losing independence. Relationship science suggests something different. Developing a sense of we‑ness, a way of thinking and communicating that reflects partnership rather than separateness, is associated with healthier conflict resolution, lower stress, and greater relationship satisfaction (Seider et al., 2009; Gächter et al., 2015). Importantly, we-ness does not require losing your individuality. Instead, it reflects a shared identity that grows between two people while preserving personal autonomy.
The rise of sneaky links highlights how often emerging adults try to balance independence with intimacy. Ambiguous connections can feel safer because they offer closeness without the vulnerability that clarity requires, especially when both partners believe that a casual dynamic will prevent either of them from “catching feelings” (Zoppolat et al, 2024). While this can reduce pressure in the moment, it can also create longer-term patterns in how people interpret intimacy, commitment, and the meaning of sexual experiences (Olmstead, 2020; Olmstead et al., 2024).
The Cost of Staying in the Gray Area
Sneaky links often form a recognizable sequence that begins with excitement and shifts toward emotional complexity. Emerging adults often assume that keeping the relationship undefined will help them avoid catching feelings, yet research shows that emotional attachment can grow quickly even when both partners intend for things to remain casual (Kettrey and Johnson, 2020; Owen, Fincham, and Moore, 2011). This occurs in part because casual sexual encounters carry different meanings for different people. Some view them as exploratory or recreational, while others experience them as emotionally significant or connection-seeking (Olmstead et al., 2021; Anders et al., 2019). When partners enter the situation with different assumptions, misunderstanding becomes almost inevitable.
Ambiguous situations also encourage communication patterns that are difficult to unlearn, such as avoiding emotional conversations, guessing what the other person feels, and suppressing one’s own needs (Owen et al., 2014; Stanley et al., 2019). Secrecy can intensify these patterns by increasing anxiety and reducing the trust and emotional safety necessary for healthy intimacy (Caughlin et al., 2009; Jaffé et al., 2023). Asking yourself what draws you to secrecy, whether both people want the same thing, and whether the relationship feels meaningful even outside the moment can offer important clarity.
Rhea’s Perspective on Sneaky Links
I (Rhea) have witnessed many people I know participate in the trend of having a “sneaky link,” and many, if not all, of these relationships seem to follow a predictable series of stages. Initially, there is a strong sense of excitement and freedom that comes from being able to experience physical intimacy and companionship without the expectations or responsibilities of a committed relationship. This stage often feels empowering, especially for young adults who value independence and exploration. However, as time passes and the individuals involved begin to know each other on a deeper level, emotional attachment often starts to develop. Despite having conversations about maintaining a casual and noncommittal dynamic, one or both partners may begin to think about the relationship more frequently and desire greater emotional closeness.
In many of these situations, asymmetrical relationships emerge, where one partner becomes more emotionally invested than the other. This imbalance can lead to feelings of jealousy, insecurity, and frustration, particularly when one partner interacts romantically or physically with other people. Because there is no formal commitment, the more invested individual often feels unable to express these emotions or set boundaries without appearing unreasonable. As a result, the less invested partner remains free to engage with others, while the other is left questioning their initial decision to pursue the relationship “just for fun.” Over time, this dynamic can negatively impact self-esteem and shape how individuals approach trust and commitment in future relationships. Ultimately, what begins as a low-stakes, casual arrangement can evolve into an emotionally challenging experience that highlights the complexity of intimacy without commitment.
What These Patterns Teach Us
Rhea’s experiences reflect broader findings that emotional investment often grows even in relationships that begin casually (Anders et al., 2019; Fielder et al., 2014). Many emerging adults report uncertainty, jealousy, or difficulty expressing needs when the relationship lacks clear expectations or boundaries (Dunn and Ward, 2019; Slepian et al., 2017). These patterns can influence later relationships by shaping assumptions about trust, communication, and commitment (Lyons et al., 2014; Vogels and Anderson, 2020).
Patterns that develop in secrecy rarely stay isolated. Choices made in ambiguous relational contexts often spill into future relationships by shaping how someone understands emotional safety, how comfortable they feel naming their needs, and whether they believe vulnerability is worth the risk (Olmstead, 2020). Clarity can feel challenging, but research consistently shows that clear communication strengthens relational security and satisfaction.
Emerging adults do not need to choose between independence and intimacy. We-ness allows for both partnership and individuality. If a relationship feels stuck in the gray area, try moving toward openness by being honest about what you want, asking what the other person wants, and exploring whether the relationship you have aligns with the one you both need. A relationship that exists in the light is possible, and clarity is the first step toward it.
Choose Clarity Over Ambiguity
Sneaky links may feel exciting, but ambiguity rarely stays carefree. Over time, it becomes emotionally draining, and secrecy begins to shape what you believe you deserve. Relationship research is clear: connections built on clarity, mutual intention, and emotional honesty are more stable and more satisfying (Stanley et al., 2019). They do not require hiding, guessing, or settling for uncertainty.
Defining the relationship matters. The same study on DTR talks found that young people who clarified their connection tended to experience more security, clearer expectations, and healthier communication (Knopp et al., 2020). In other words, clarity isn’t about labels, but about emotional safety.
Commit to clarity. Commit to honesty. Commit to relationships, whether they are casual or serious, that allow you to be seen. Commitment doesn’t mean locking yourself down too soon. It means choosing intention over avoidance. Ask for what you want. Show up truthfully.
You deserve connection that exists in the light. And the first step toward that kind of intimacy is committing to clarity, starting with yourself.
References
- Anders, K. M., Goodcase, E., Yazedjian, A., & Toews, M. L. (2019). Sex is easier to get and love is harder to find: Costs and rewards of hooking up among first-year college students. Journal of Sex Research, 56(9), 1088–1098.
- Caughlin, J. P., Scott, A. M., & Scott, S. B. (2009). Putative secrets: When information is supposedly a secret. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(5), 713–743.
- Dunn, M. J., & Ward, K. (2019). Jealousy in response to infidelity-revealing Snapchat messages. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 341–349.
- Fielder, R. L., Walsh, J. L., Carey, K. B., & Carey, M. P. (2014). Sexual hookups and adverse health outcomes: A longitudinal study of first-year college women. Journal of Sex Research, 51(2), 131–144.
- Gächter, S., Starmer, C., & Tufano, F. (2015). Measuring the closeness of relationships: A comprehensive evaluation of the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0129478.
- Jaffé, M. E., Douneva, M., & Albath, E. (2023). Sharing secrets may increase closeness but also increase anxiety: The emotional dynamics of secrecy. PLOS ONE, 18(3), e0282643.
- Kettrey, H. H., & Johnson, A. D. (2021). Hooking up and pairing off: Correlates of college students’ interest in subsequent hookups and romantic relationships with other-sex and same-sex hookup partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 58(7), 915–942.
- Knopp, K., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2020). “Defining the relationship” in adolescent and young adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(7), 2078-2097.
- Lehmiller, J. J. (2020). Tell Me What You Want: The Science of Sexual Desire and How It Can Help You Improve Your Sex Life. Hachette Books.
- Lyons, H. A., Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2014). Young adult casual sexual behavior: Life-course context and motivations. Sociological Perspectives, 57(1), 79–101.
- Olmstead, S. B. (2020). A decade review of sex and partnering in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(2), 769–795.
- Olmstead, S. B., McMahan, K. D., & Anders, K. M. (2021). Meanings ascribed to sex and commitment among college-attending and non-college emerging adults: A replication and extension. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(6), 2435–2446.
- Olmstead, S. B., McMahan, K. D., & Anders, K. M. (2024). “It is a purposefully ambiguous term”: Examining emerging adults’ definitions of hooking up and how they vary by sex/gender and educational background. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(7), 2711–2725.
- Owen, J., Fincham, F. D., & Moore, J. (2011). Short-term prospective study of hooking up among college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 321–330.
- Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., Shuck, B., Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Knopp, K. (2014). Commitment uncertainty: A theoretical overview and implications for couple functioning. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(4), 207–219.
- Seider, B. H., Hirschberger, G., Nelson, K. L., & Levenson, R. W. (2009). We can work it out: The role of “we‑talk” in marital conflict. Psychology and Aging, 24(3), 604–613.
- Slepian, M. L., Chun, J. S., & Mason, M. F. (2017). The experience of secrecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 1–33.
- Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Kelmer, G., Scott, S. B., Markman, H. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2019). Unequally into “us”: Characteristics of individuals in asymmetrically committed relationships.
- Vogels, E. A., & Anderson, M. (2020). Dating and relationships in the digital age. Pew Research Center.
- Vrangalova, Z. (2014). Does casual sex harm college students’ well-being? A longitudinal investigation of the role of motivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(4), 945–959.
- Zoppolat, G., Righetti, F., Đurić, M., Balzarini, R., & Slatcher, R. (2024). It’s complicated: The good and bad of ambivalence in romantic relationships. Emotion, 24(5), 1190–1205.
Discover more from Decide To Commit
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am a Senior at Northern Illinois University. I am majoring in Human Development and Family Sciences with an emphasis in Family Social Services and a minor in addiction studies. Once I graduate, I plan to get my master’s and work as a marriage and family therapist!
I am an associate professor at Northern Illinois University in Human Development and Family Sciences, and a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. As a researcher I am interested in commitment in couple relationships, romantic relationship formation, marriage, and decision-making in the emerging adult (18-29 year-old) population.
I am a Junior at Northern Illinois University. I am majoring in Psychology and minoring in Family and Child Studies, along with an additional minor in Addiction. My plan for after graduation is to apply to graduate school programs in pursuit of a doctorate in psychology.
