Twenty-five years ago, I watched a single Facebook post quietly reveal something corrosive.
One woman in our friend group posted that she had slept with someone while her Marine fiancé was at boot camp. She was lonely, she said, and asked the group: “Should I tell him?”
The responses poured in, warm and unanimous. “You’re only human.” “These things happen.” “Don’t be so hard on yourself.” Even the committed Christians in the group joined in, telling her it was fine and she absolutely should not tell him. The consensus was gentle: protect her feelings and keep the secret.
I was the only one who pushed back.
“No,” I told her. “You need to stop this and tell him. You also need to decide now whether you want to be committed to this man for the rest of your life or would rather sleep with whoever you want.”
It was my advice she ultimately took.
What shocked me wasn’t her mistake. What shocked me was how completely the group closed ranks around her while never once mentioning Kevin, the young Marine who loved her and was serving at boot camp. Not one person brought him up until I did. They noticed only Lana hurting in front of them. The man who wasn’t in the room simply vanished from the moral equation.
I was disappointed. I thought they were better people than that.
That Facebook thread has stayed with me for 25 years. It revealed a quiet, everyday form of sympathy that feels compassionate but enables betrayal, lowers standards, and damages relationships. This is toxic empathy, and it has grown stronger since then.
Defining Toxic Empathy
The group focused entirely on Lana’s immediate pain. They never widened the frame to include Kevin until I forced the issue.
Healthy empathy holds the full picture. It identifies the distress of the person in front of you, but it also considers the absent party, the damage to trust, and the long-term cost to character.
Toxic empathy is narrower. It locks onto the visible person’s feelings and stops there. It offers comfort (“You deserve grace,” “We support you no matter what”) without requiring honesty or change. It feels kind, but it functions as protection from consequences.
At that moment, the group’s empathy was almost entirely proximal. Lana’s guilt and loneliness were real and present, so they rushed to soothe her. Kevin, isolated at boot camp, trusting her completely, became invisible. Even the Christians defaulted to therapeutic language instead of truth or accountability.
I wasn’t being less empathetic. I was using a wider form of concern: one that declined to shrink the circle of care to only the loudest pain in the room. I saw both Lana and Kevin as real people whose futures were on the line with that choice. She deserved the chance to face it honestly, rather than hide behind comfortable lies.
That distinction — feeling pain versus truly caring about character and consequences — lies at the root of much of our cultural confusion today.
How Group Dynamics Enable Bad Behavior
Friend groups naturally protect their own. When someone slips, the default response is to close ranks and smooth things over. In our circle, that meant offering Lana comfort instead of accountability.
Several things drive this pattern:
First, loyalty to the person right in front of you beats loyalty to abstract principles. Lana was hurting in the group chat. Kevin was far away at boot camp — out of sight, out of mind. Toxic empathy flows toward whoever is visible at the moment rather than looking at the larger picture.
Second, conflict feels worse than compromise. Calling out bad behavior risks drama and awkward weekends. Comforting someone feels good and maintains social equilibrium. Most people choose the path of least resistance.
Third, reciprocity quietly rules. Everyone knows they might need the same pass someday. “We don’t judge each other” becomes a tacit agreement that protects the whole group.
Fourth, common identity makes it easy to excuse flaws. Our crowd prided itself on being open-minded gamers. Once that label was in place, judging someone’s actions threatened the group’s self-image. It was simpler to reframe the mistake as “not that bad” than to question the culture.
Social media makes all of this worse. One vulnerable post triggers an instant cascade of affirmation. What used to be a quiet conversation becomes public pressure to signal support or risk looking judgmental.
The result is a self-reinforcing loop. The more the group enables, the more normal betrayal and secrecy become. Anyone who objects starts to look harsh or “crazy.” Over time, standards quietly erode, and relationships pay the price.
In our group, that erosion was visible. Twenty-five years later, I can count at least eight broken marriages and relationships from that circle; aside from mine, I can’t think of even one that is still intact. The pattern was the predictable outcome of choosing comfort over truth, again and again.
The Modern “Girl Power” Engine
This toxic empathy pattern trends heavily female for understandable reasons.
Women, on average, score higher in agreeableness and emotional empathy. In close friend groups, that often means giving precedence to the woman right in front of them. When “girl power” and “sisterhood” rhetoric pile on, it becomes a powerful bonding mechanism: “Girls support girls.” “Protect her peace.” “Never judge another woman’s choices.”
What sounds empowering quickly becomes enabling. In many female or female-heavy circles today, non-judgment has become the highest virtue. Comforting a friend in distress feels like loyalty. Pointing out the harm to an absent man — a husband, fiancé, or partner — can get you labeled judgmental, cold, or not a “real” friend.
Our gamer group was mixed, but the dynamic was the same. The default response protected Lana and preserved group unity. Kevin’s trust and pain scarcely registered. The men in the circle, understandably, stayed quiet. The therapeutic language of support crowded out any talk of duty, honesty, or fairness to the person who wasn’t there.
This isn’t ancient history. The same script plays out today in group chats, mom groups, workspaces, and online spaces. A woman confesses a betrayal or selfish choice, and the replies flood in with affirmation and excuses. The male partner becomes an afterthought, or worse, the villain for expecting fidelity while she “explores her feelings.”
The quiet result is social exclusion. When female friend groups bond through mutual emotional protection, male opinions and male pain get pushed to the margins. Men learn that their trust is negotiable in the eyes of their partner’s circle. Over time, this deepens the divide between men and women and makes lasting commitment feel riskier for everyone.
“Girls support girls” can be beautiful when it fosters genuine strength and growth. But when it becomes a shield against accountability, as often happens, it stops being empowerment and starts weakening the very relationships women say they want.
The Cultural Damage
When toxic empathy becomes normal, the damage spreads far beyond one friend group.
In our circle alone, at least eight marriages and relationships eventually broke apart. That wasn’t a coincidence. A culture that teaches “these things happen” and “don’t tell him” quietly trains people to treat commitments as flexible and other people’s trust as optional. Over time, the muscle for honesty, fidelity, and working through hardship atrophies.
The results are predictable: more fragile relationships, higher divorce rates, and deeper distrust between men and women. Military couples and those separated by work or duty pay an especially heavy price. When a partner’s loneliness is met with group encouragement to hide betrayal rather than face it, the returning service member often discovers a foundation built on sand.
Wider cultural costs run deeper. When feelings consistently trump truth and accountability, personal responsibility declines. “Follow your heart” replaces “keep your word.” Standards slip, and any disagreement with the prevailing narrative gets labeled cruel or bigoted. In the larger culture, we see it when people are pressured to instantly affirm a child’s claim to be the opposite sex, when questioning reparations based on group identity is treated as heartless, or when men claiming to be women are able to breach women's private spaces or compete against women in sports. Consequences shrink, character suffers, families weaken, and communities grow brittle. A society that cannot say “no, that’s wrong — fix it” eventually pays in resentment, loneliness, and deepening social fragmentation.
There is also a quiet but real exclusion of men. When female friend groups bond through mutual emotional protection, male partners become invisible or inconvenient. Their pain, their right to truth, and their investment in the relationship get minimized. This widens the growing divide between the sexes and makes it harder to build genuine trust.
Our old group was a tiny mirror of something much larger. The same dynamic now runs through workplaces, churches, family chats, and online communities. What feels like kindness in the moment frequently sacrifices long-term strength for short-term comfort. The wreckage piles up quietly: broken homes, cynical partners, and fewer people willing to bet on lifelong commitment.
The Counter-Example
My own relationship took a very different path.
Early on, I told Clark soberly and clearly: I had loved him since we were 16. As far as I was concerned, I was already married to him in my heart. If we ever broke up, I would be fine, but I would never love anyone else.
It scared the hell out of him. He almost ran. But he couldn’t.
Years later, when he went to boot camp himself, the distance clarified everything. He realized he could not imagine his life without me. He proposed at his graduation. Nine months later, we were married.
While the rest of the group churned through broken relationships, ours endured. The difference wasn’t luck or superior chemistry. It was radical upfront honesty, consistent action, and a refusal to play by the group’s script of comfort and minimization.
I didn’t push. I simply showed up: driving from Kentucky to Pensacola once a month, writing him a near-daily letter at boot camp, always being available when he called. Without realizing it, I created the conditions where choosing commitment felt natural and right to him. Without knowing it, I demonstrated my commitment.
Clark made the decisions, but I shaped the environment. We built something grounded in reality rather than feelings-first affirmation. The group’s toxic empathy had no hold on us because we had already chosen a different center of gravity.
Toward Healthier Empathy
Real empathy isn’t just soothing the person in the room. It’s caring enough about someone to tell them the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable.
In that old Facebook thread, the group chose the easy kindness of affirmation. I chose the harder kindness of honesty. One protected Lana’s feelings in the moment. The other gave her — and Kevin — a real chance at something permanent.
Cultures that consistently favor short-term emotional comfort over truth and accountability don’t stay strong for long. They produce more fragile relationships, more broken trust, and deeper divides between men and women. We are living with the results.
The good news is that individuals can still refuse the script. You don’t need to be harsh or judgmental to push back. Sometimes it’s as simple as widening the frame: “What about the person who isn’t here? What kind of life and relationship do you actually want?”
Healthy groups need both care and clarity: real support that includes accountability, not simply endless grace without repentance. They need people willing to be the liminal voice that says the quiet part out loud. And healthy societies are made up of lots of healthy groups.
Twenty-five years later, our relationship is still standing while so many others from that circle are not. That outcome wasn’t inevitable. It was the result of choosing principle over comfort, truth over affirmation, and long-term integrity over the path of least resistance.
If we want stronger relationships and a healthier culture, we need more of that kind of care — the kind that sees the full picture and cares enough to speak clearly.
Editor’s Note: PJ Media's loyal subscribers help us bring content like this to the public by supporting us in a media and online environment hostile to what we stand for. Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member