As a decorated veteran of several undefined romantic entanglements, I feel particularly qualified to comment on situationships. Many a night have I listened to “Bags” by Clairo. Many a morning have I woken up to a Spotify Daylist titled something like “pining melancholic sunday morning.” Many an afternoon have I called my mother to explain how a questionably literate, possibly gay, definitely emotionally unavailable man is the next love of my life.
But I’m not special. All of my friends in relationships have also braved the situationship limbo. For months, they endured mixed signals, 2 a.m. hookups, and vague promises of future dates. How they escaped that purgatory and reached the oasis of stable companionship is a mystery to me. I guess they never truly knew yearning.
Situationships can only survive if one party bears this burden of yearning. If both members yearn, they end up dating. If neither yearns, the flame goes out. The quintessential situationship exists only so long as one member finds themselves down horrendous while the other is ambivalent (at best) or simply bored (at worst). The lover and the beloved are out. The yearner and the yearned are in.
Despite the frustration and confusion that situationships can cause, there is also something freeing about having an ambiguous connection to your partner. Sure, there are (allegedly) times when two individuals know that they are looking for either a committed relationship or a casual hookup and communicate that with each other. In my experience, though, it takes time to understand what you are looking for with a particular person, and one of the only ways to find that out is by enduring the dreaded situationship.
There’s also something to be said for the lack of pressure involved in a situationship. Don’t want to go to your partner’s extracurricular event? No problem. It’s not like you guys are dating. Want to take another guy to formal? Totally fine… kinda? He’s asking to leave a spare toothbrush in your bathroom after a week of hooking up? Hmmmm let me think on that one.
My opinion on situationships also depends on whether they are queer or heterosexual entanglements. I’ve had both (Ugh, I know, another bisexual writing for The Herald??) and have found that situationships with women are invariably less complicated than those with men. Usually, when situationships head toward disaster, it’s due to a lack of communication. I am unsure whether I have just been fortunate enough to encounter an unusual number of emotionally unavailable men or whether this quality exists within the entire species. Either way, most of my communication with men has been less productive than conversations in my “Bio, the World & Us” section. Women, on the other hand, are perfect. In my experience, participants in lesbian situationships are more likely to have intelligent conversations about boundaries and expectations. This should surprise nobody.
I am aware that this article will appear in the “Opinion” section of The Herald. I am also aware that I have not voiced a single concrete opinion in this article. It is not for lack of trying. After days of pondering, the best advice that I can give about situationships is to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. But a piece of cautionary advice: situationships are only a situationship to one person. To the other, they’re usually nothing.
If you are still confused about what exactly situationships entail, listen to “Waiting Room” by Phoebe Bridgers. The lyrics consist of her screaming “I know it’s for the better” thirty-six times with increasing amounts of devastating frustration. It’s great. If you are still confused about your opinion on situationships, write an article about it for The Herald. It’s equally great!