Well the message is timeless - emotional involvement is the coin of the realm and the person who expresses the least of it is in charge of the relationship. The author is on the losing end and she's butt-hurt.

That paragraph you highlighted is the introduction to a six paragraph disquisition on the difference between "chill" and "cool" so that she can pass off her frustrations as if they're something new under the sun: "Chill is a garbage virtue that will destroy the species." But remember, "chill" is not "cool" - "Chill is what Cool would look like with a lobotomy and no hobbies. " LOL. What has two thumbs and no hobbies?

Keep in mind - that's a '70s perspective on a '50s stereotype and aside from the hair and the jacket, that's "chill." "Cool", for what it's worth, dates back to Hamlet at least:

O gentle son,

Upon the heat and flame of thy distemper

Sprinkle cool patience.

I dunno. Probably makes me old, but this whole essay reads like something Reese Witherspoon would say in some earnest '90s movie. Romance has always been about two people mutually ditching their aloofness and finding happiness.

JIMMY STEWART HAS ZERO CHILL