A NEW stereotype is making the rounds among Thomasians — whether on dating apps or in traditional dating scenes, they are often branded as habitual ghosters.
This perception has given rise to the hashtag #GhoUSTe, a clever wordplay on UST’s cheer, “Go USTe”, and the term ghosting, which refers to abruptly cutting off communication in a relationship.
However, ghosting is more complex than it appears. It does not originate in university but rather takes root in a person’s formative years.
Asst. Prof. John Manuel Kliatchko, assistant dean of the Faculty of Arts and Letters and an expert in behavioral science and psychology, pointed to psychiatrist John Bowlby’s attachment theory as a key to understanding ghosting.
The theory suggests that infants have an innate need to form attachments with their primary caregivers, which later influences their development and behavior.
“Talking from a psychological perspective, ang pinaka-root lang talaga no’n is how the person experienced the different types of attachment growing up,” Kliatchko told the Varsitarian.
“Kung ang isang tao naman ay naging maayos or naging positive ‘yong experience niya with others growing up, they will less likely (engage in ghosting).”
Kliatchko observed that relationships formed through dating apps or social media are more susceptible to ghosting because they lack strong emotional bonds.
“The way it happened, the way it developed, social media is ‘yong pinaka-anchor niya e. Nagkaroon lang ng experience of pleasure from having a relationship. You’re not really developing an attachment with that person,” he said.
So, what drives someone to ghost? Kliatchko said some people ghost to avoid the responsibility of ending a relationship.
“Siya (ghoster) ‘yong magkakaroon ng burden to declare, …Ending the relationship can also make a person feel guilty by making the other person feel bad about something. Kaya para di mo ma-experience ‘yong guilt na ‘yon, you just ghost.”
Non-UST students interviewed by the Varsitarian acknowledged the stereotype of Thomasians as ghosters, but many said they were still open to dating them. Some argued it was unfair to generalize all UST students as ghosters.
Kliatchko said such stereotypes influence how outsiders perceive Thomasians in relationships, often leading to expectations that they will behave that way. However, he added that it is ultimately up to Thomasians to either challenge or reinforce the stereotype.
“Sa atin (Thomasians), alam natin kung ano ‘yong totoo at hindi. Ang role ni Thomasian ngayon is how they will make the other person feel or realize na hindi nga totoo ‘yon to dispel the stereotype.”
Thomasians interviewed by the Varsitarian acknowledged that dating experiences vary from person to person, but many shared a common struggle: academic demands make relationships difficult to maintain.
“I think UST is known for its heavy workload, and the students are often very tired, which is one of the reasons why they might be prone to ghosting someone,” one student from the College of Architecture said.
“It really does affect the relationship,” another added. “Kami nga nagkakaproblems pa dahil sa due dates. Imagine if ligawan stage and (you’re) talking to someone na hindi same college, siyempre hindi nila mararamdaman yung feeling.”
However, Kliatchko argued ghosting is more about personality than academic pressures.
“Dahil hindi sila magagandang experience, pwedeng mag-cause na mag-lie low ka sa relationship mo…(But) hindi necessarily dahil ‘yan sa academic challenges. It’s really more of a personality thing.”
He also emphasized that ghosting is not a good way to handle relationship issues.
“Siguro nagiging approach na lang ‘yan ng mga taong wala na masyadong option. Pero ang point ko lang ay it’s already a test of character for this person,” he added.
So, how should Thomasians approach love and commitment? Perhaps the words of St. John Paul II offer guidance:
“Love is never something that is ready-made, something merely ‘given’ to man and woman; it is always at the same time a ‘task’ which they are set. Love should be seen as something which in a sense never ‘is’ but is always only ‘becoming,’ and what it becomes depends upon the contribution of both persons and the depth of their commitment.”
