Situationships, monogamy, and other relational standards
Why do young people seem to prefer situationships? Is that the good old fear of commitment? I was recently asked by the podcasters of Montreal Campus — the journal of UQAM students.
Although we were not able to find a time for the interview that would fit their deadline, their input was a great opportunity for me to give a few thoughts to situationships, the growing-in-popularity relational trend whereby people would spend romantic time together without future-oriented commitment or relational definitions. Ambiguously defined on the web, I’ll go with the (admittedly vague) definition that situationships are something between friends-with-benefits and dating: more romantic than the former and more disengaged than the latter.
One could indeed see situationships as a relational opportunity avoided out of fear. However, this perspective misses the reasons why committed relationships may have lost their appeal. I want to name three of them — expectations, standards, and prospects.
EXPECTATIONS. We live in a society with distorted relational models that somehow created the belief that romantic relationships and, more specifically, “true love” effortlessly grow on happiness, sexual compatibility, and mutual understanding. As a relational therapist, I cannot support this fairy-tale view. Being with someone requires patience and communication, openness to vulnerability, and a good dose of self-affirmative practices. None of these elements come without effort, frustration, and mistakes. Learning how to argue is a long journey in understanding and honoring anger, tolerating the frustration of feeling unheard, and practicing non-destructive and non-shaming ways of expressing needs. This is not the picture that mainstream movies and social media depict, and often, family models seem unreliable or insufficient due to the rapidity of societal changes. As a result, people may avoid committed relationships because they are unprepared for the work that they require. The contradiction between expectations and reality remains unresolved, and the illusion of endless opportunities makes one swipe to the next better fit.
STANDARDS. Another related issue with committed relationships is that current standards may seem high and unmeetable. I recently read Dan Savage’s post on micro-cheating, and he makes the great point that people who believe in monogamy should be very circumscribed in what defines an end-of-relationship behavior. A potentially endless list of unacceptable behaviors reflects the insecurity of seeing dangers everywhere, another unfortunate consequence of the lack of relational models that reflect contemporary needs and opportunities in a realistic and reasonable way. Unrealistic expectations generate unrealistic standards by creating the specter of a stringent list of don’ts alongside a binding list of musts that define our worth in a relationship. These obligations can feel suffocating, seriously undermining personal freedom, and ultimately uninteresting; many may simply feel that the effort to pass the bar is not worth it.
PROSPECTS. Situationships and other forms of uncommitted relationships give freedom. This does not mean that committed relationships lack freedom entirely; relationships must always make time and space for individual expression. Yet, committed relationships usually entail adjustments — organizing life with someone requires considering their needs and availabilities together with ours. All sorts of solutions, compromises, and alternatives are possible but must be negotiated. Honest communication should be cultivated in uncommitted as much as committed relationships; however, life-arrangement negotiation is less necessary in situationships. People can be emotionally available to one another when they meet, then return to other priorities when the date ends. Women and other people stereotypically assigned to care may use this type of freedom to depart from traditional family roles and cultivate personal growth. Immigrants and other people lacking natural social ties in their surroundings may use this freedom to build a larger social network spanning from family-type friendships to caring for their aging parents.
Thus, committed relationships may have lost their appeal due to unrealistic expectations, excessive standards, and limited prospects. And yes, young people may find that situationships are a cooler way to engage in romance: as society transforms social needs, possibilities, and obligations, situationships may offer the flexibility that rigid ideas on committed relationships lack. Ascribing these choices exclusively to fear of commitment may be unfair. As we strive to be the best possible selves to our loved ones, we must also show more creativity in defining how to respond to our emotional needs in realistic, compassionate, and self-affirmative ways.
Written in February 2024.
