Are you stuck in a “situationship?”
If you’ve ever found yourself hanging out, being physically intimate, and enjoying each other’s company, but with a complete absence of any formal label or future commitment—you’ve likely been in one. But what does science actually say about this trend, and is there a way to navigate it ethically and healthily?
Defining a situationship
Langlais et al. (2024) define situationships as “romantic relationships with no clarity or label, low levels of commitment, but similar romantic behaviors as established couples by means of affection and sexual behaviors and time spent together.”
According to the Triangular Theory of Love (Sternberg, 1986), experiences of companionate or consummate love are usually preceded by romantic love. However, Langlais et al. (2024) found that situationships may be experiences of romantic love without the natural increase in commitment. Their survey data showed that while people in a situationship are, for the most part, emotionally and sexually invested, there are significant differences in relationship quality compared to traditional couples.
Essentially, you are doing all the things couples do, but without the security of a shared future. Another researcher, George (2024), defines situationships as being characterised by ambiguity, a lack of communication, and an inability to progress. George refers to recent surveys indicating that nearly 50% of 18-29 year-olds have been involved in a situationship. George reviews findings showing that situationships feature unfulfilling relationships, diminished self-worth, inability to foster intimacy, and for some, lasting emotional trauma. Recommendations centre on equipping young adults to “erect personal boundaries, nurture communication skills, recognize unhealthy patterns early, and summon the courage to walk away from exploitative connections”.
It’s clear that there can be negative consequences to situationships. But are there also healthy ways to navigate them, when the time isn’t right for commitment or it’s not what you want?
Are situationships always harmful, or can they be healthy?
The answer isn’t binary. How you experience a situationship determines whether it becomes harmful or serves a purpose.
When situationships are healthy
Having short-term relationships can actually be entirely healthy, depending on your stage of development. They can serve as a valuable “starter experience” for building relationship skills, especially for those who didn’t have dating experiences at school or university.
Another context for situationships or casual dating is post-divorce dating (or dating after any long-term relationship), when people want to explore their identities, roles and preferences again and do not want to get into another long-term commitment immediately.
A situationship can work if there is an explicit agreement where both people see the arrangement in exactly the same way, and there isn’t an inequality in emotional involvement. For example, in gay situationships, this setup might occur when one person is not yet ready to come out but still wants to explore connection. That may be hard for the other person, of course.
A great example of navigating a sexual minority situationship with a positive outcome is illustrated in Oisín McKenna’s recent novel, Evenings and Weekends – which I recommend if you enjoy reading novels!
When situationships can become harmful
If there is a misalignment or mismatch in power and choice – as when one person wants it to be a proper relationship and the other is happy with no labels, unhealthy dynamics can emerge and unhealthy beliefs can be reinforced.
Typically, no one actually calls their situationship a situationship to each other’s faces: it’s more likely to be their friends labelling it (and encouraging them to end it). This portrays an unhealthy belief that talking about a connection or expressing emotions or needs will “kill it off” or “rock the boat”. That avoids the very vulnerability required for real connection, as well as reinforcing the very belief.
The experience may be different for each person, too. Below, I suggest some questions you might want to ask yourself, depending on which role you have in the situationship.
For the partner in the situationship who dislikes labels: Avoiding commitment means you might be missing out on an opportunity for personal growth and meaningful, deeply fulfilling experiences.True growth requires tolerating the discomfort of getting close to someone and exploring what “relationshippy” experiences actually represent for you. Prolonging this limbo can unintentionally encourage avoidant attachment behavior in one person and anxious attachment in the other (Heller, 2019). George (2024) found that many people report an inability to foster true intimacy as a consequence of a situationship ending.
You could ask yourself: is it just this person I want to have a situationship with (and if so, why) or would it be everyone? Are there any elements of internalised prejudice in why you don’t want to have a relationship with this person? For example, studies such as West (2019) show that daters of all ethnicities are more likely to want something casual with ethnic minorities and long-term with White people. This kind of bias is often unconscious. You might ask yourself: How would I feel about introducing them to my family and friends and why?
For the other partner who wants commitment and a label: Some questions to consider include: How does being in a situationship affect your sense of agency? Do you see yourself as having equal power in this dynamic, or are you acting as a passive recipient who simply goes along with whatever the other person wants? When these connections inevitably dissolve, many people report diminished self-worth as an impact (George, 2024) – which may stem from a lack of agency or equality.
On the other hand, you might also want to reflect on the traditional narrative that being ready for long-term commitment is the only destination of personal growth. There are many alternative narratives for relationships, from serial monogamy to polyamory and other forms of non-monogamy. It’s easy to make assumptions about what other people might want or ought to want, based on the narratives we’ve grown up with. You each have different needs or priorities: it doesn’t mean one is wrong and one is right, or that one is more evolved or mature than the other.
Are situationships new?
Short-term relationships used to be understood as a natural part of the development of young adults – as well as in post-divorce dating. Today, when many people have been burned by ambiguous situations, there is a push to want clarification much earlier. However, others may not be ready to say whether they think a connection can become long-term early on, creating a conflict of needs.
At the same time, since the “friends with benefits” trend (which either began in 1995 or 2011 – see Wikipedia for details) it seems to be much more socially acceptable now to explicitly ask for a “no labels” relationship. We are heavily influenced by what we read and watch; and a romantic trend can easily get magnified and normalised once it is named, discussed, and popularized in social discourse (Berger, 1966; Ledingham, 2018).
Is the “go with the flow” mentality ruining modern dating?
“Going with the flow” or being “chilled” sound relaxed, but can hide a lot of dating friction or be dismissive of someone’s needs for clarity. When people lead incredibly busy lives or live far apart, arranging to meet up requires effort that you might not want to put in without commitment. When someone doesn’t want to commit to plans at the weekend (perhaps hoping for a better offer), or doesn’t initiate plans, it can feel like ambivalence, a lack of respect, or a lack of genuine interest.
Are situationships just people accepting less than they deserve?
They can be. If you find yourself allowing something that doesn’t feel good, or where you experience it as being treated badly just to keep someone around, you are accepting less than you deserve. However, it might be useful to consider whether this is our narrative or just that of our friends.
If you feel “stuck” in relationship limbo (an interesting metaphor worth interrogating!), consider imagining more meaningful bonds that enable you to flourish. What would a healthy relationship look like for you and would it be different from what you have? How important are the labels compared with how you treat each other and how much enjoyment you get? In other words, if everything else were perfect but there was no label, could that be OK?
A feature of a healthy relationship is to be able to voice your needs and expectations with confidence and self-acceptance – and to hear the other person’s. If there isn’t a way for both sets of needs to be met, how can you build the strength to walk away? Is there a way to do so while maintaining compassion for both yourself and the other person’s current preferences and journey?
In making a healthy decision, it can be helpful to reflect on how you feel when you are together and apart and how the situationship contributes to your values and goals. I wish you luck with staying true to yourself and finding contentment and fulfilment, however that is achieved!
Further reading
Want to build your confidence in setting clear boundaries and navigating early dating? Check out the new, expanded second edition of my Dating Workbook for practical scripts and step-by-step guidance on creating healthy, authentic connections.
https://www.autostraddle.com/an-investigation-of-gay-situationships-a-time-honored-and-life-ruining-tradition-438203
Evenings and Weekends by Oisín McKenna
References
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. Penguin.
George, A. S. (2024). Escaping the situationship: Understanding and addressing modern relationship ambiguity among young adults. Partners Universal International Innovation Journal, 2(3), 35-56.
Heller, D. P. (2019). The power of attachment: How to create deep and lasting intimate relationships. Sounds True.
Langlais, M. R., Podberesky, A., Toohey, L., & Lee, C. T. (2024). Defining and describing situationships: An exploratory investigation. Sexuality & Culture, 28(4), 1831-1857.
Ledingham, S. (2018). The discursive production of romantic realities (Doctoral dissertation, City, Universtiy of London).
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological review, 93(2), 119.
Stinson, D. A., Cameron, J. J., & Hoplock, L. B. (2022). The friends-to-lovers pathway to romance: Prevalent, preferred, and overlooked by science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 562-571.
Wikipedia contributors. (2026, June 22). Friends with benefits. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friends_with_benefits&oldid=1360675757