I Want To See Other People. Let’s Still Have Sex Though

Imagine this: you start dating someone and think it’s going well. You gush to your friends about the dates you’ve gone on and how sweet they are. You start sleeping together. Naturally, you think, “Wow, I’ve really met someone special.” Then you have a conversation that resembles the following:

You: “Hey, we’ve been seeing each other for a while now, and I was wondering… what are we?”

Him: “What do you mean?”

You: “Am I your girlfriend?”

Him: “Honestly, I’m just not ready for a relationship right now. I want to see other people. Let’s still have sex, though.”

I don’t think I had to preface this article by saying ‘imagine this,’ because for many college-aged people, this situation is, or has been, a reality. This scenario is the genesis of a phenomenon that has plagued our generation and emotionally wrecked at least a quarter of students on campus: the notorious situationship. It’s noncommittal, it’s casual, and it’s gut-wrenching. 

Many people romanticize fleeting, casual relationships and destructive love, but as a born sceptic, I have no tolerance for situationships, and I believe women should disengage from them entirely. On the surface, situationships appear to be harmless, noncommittal relationships. However, in reality, they function as a mechanism to reinforce male power and further women’s oppression. Whenever I hear women discussing their horrible situationships, who they’re willingly dating, I feel sympathy, but I also believe they are inadvertently setting women back.

Although I’m writing under the guise of women dating men, I believe the core “anti-casual” message of this article applies to all people engaging in noncommittal, emotionally draining, and half-baked situationships. 

The Principle of a Situationship

Quite fittingly, the definition of a “situationship” is as vague as the act of being in one. I’ll define it broadly as a romantic connection between two people who are not in a committed relationship. Situationships often entail casual sex, the presence of complex feelings, and an absence of labels. The parties may go on dates and text frequently, yet continue to define themselves simply as “friends with benefits,” “casually dating,” or nothing at all. 

Although the term “situationship” is new, the phenomenon of undefined relationships is not, as exemplified by the casual relationships depicted in older media like Friends With Benefits (2011) and Sex and the City (1998)—particularly the Mr. Big storyline. Despite its history, situationships have become synonymous with Gen Z culture due to their dominance over our dating scene. An estimated 50% of college-aged people have sex outside of committed relationships.¹ Dating apps have exacerbated the phenomenon by making it easier to meet new people and maintain non-monogamous relationships.

The problem with situationships lies in their defining power imbalance. One person holds the upper hand and decides the status of the relationship. This is the half of the situationship who seeks sex and avoids commitment, while the other half settles for non-commitment in the hopes their partner will eventually change their mind. This dynamic is troubling in itself, but it becomes even more unsettling when we consider the gendered aspect of the power imbalances in heterosexual situationships.

In a heterosexual situationship, it is typically the male partner who holds the power: he decides when to commit, if at all, while continuing to benefit from the arrangement.

Gendered Non-Commitment and The Politics of Casual Sex

The observable occurrence that men hold the upper hand in situationships is the product of antiquated relationship structures pervading modern relationships. I recently read Giovanni’s Room by James Baldwin, and a quote by the character Hella, the girlfriend of the protagonist, struck me as particularly significant:

“For a woman,” she [Hella] said, “I think a man is always a stranger. And there’s something awful about being at the mercy of a stranger.” 

Within the context of the chapter, Hella expresses joy that the protagonist has proposed to her.² Although marriage seemingly contradicts Hella’s characterization as an adventurous, “emancipated” woman, she anticipates its advantages. She recognizes that women have historically needed marriage to navigate society. This passage is significant because it conveys how much a woman’s life hinges upon being chosen by a man. 

Being an unmarried woman in the 1950s, when the story is set, carried far more dire consequences than being single today. Yet, many women still feel a strong necessity to have the security of a relationship, and are thus at the “mercy” of men, since men extol commitment. Partnership confers advantages that many women crave: emotional security, status, and eventually, shared wealth. When a man withholds commitment by saying he’s “not ready for a relationship,” he’s exploiting the knowledge, conscious or not, that women often desire to be chosen. By normalizing situationships and making women essentially “earn” commitment, we are perpetuating a culture that pressures women to cater to men’s desires. 

Furthermore, men often avoid commitment because casual relationships benefit them. Studies have found that women have higher rates of sexual regret and guilt after casual sexual encounters than men.³ For young women, casual sex is linked with negative emotional outcomes such as depression, rejection, and lower rates of self-esteem. In contrast, men report having greater sexual satisfaction, happiness and self-confidence following casual sexual encounters.⁴ Situationships allow men to access women’s bodies with little effort and facilitate the sexual objectification of women. Thus, when a man enters a casual relationship with a woman, he benefits from noncommittal sex and can reduce his partner to a sexual object existing for pleasure. His partner, on the other hand, is likely to suffer from emotional anguish and guilt. 

Women Who Love Sex

I truly believe that women can love sex for its own sake.

Many women have casual sex for their own pleasure and enjoy low-commitment arrangements. I dislike rhetoric that suggests women should never engage in hookup culture, because for many, it can be liberating and fulfilling. 

This article isn’t directed at women who enjoy casual sex, since they are often not the people entangled in situationships. These women tend to establish firm boundaries with their sexual partners or opt for one-night stands instead. 

The women who are dragged into months of boundariless, emotionally confusing, sex-based situationships are the ones who misread the dynamics of situationships and hope for eventual commitment. This illustrates the coercive element of situationships, as women are often misled into casual sex under the impression that it will lead to a committed relationship, many of whom would not have consented to casual sex had they known it would remain casual. 

To avoid entering a situationship, it’s crucial for women to ask themselves honestly: Am I seeing this person because I want to have sex with them, or am I having sex because I want to see them?

Conclusion

In all honesty, I have unwittingly been in a situationship. It was weird, and it was brief. 

I mention this to say: I understand how and why situationships form. I cannot shame women for engaging in situationships since they often arise accidentally or involve emotional attachments that make them hard to leave, despite their harmfulness. Moreover, situationships do not occur exclusively in heterosexual couples, which illustrates how situationships are also products of our generation’s growing disconnection to intimacy and commitment—a topic for another time. 

I mainly wrote this article to encourage women to examine situationships more critically, as not merely being toxic relationships, but as products of a male-oriented society. It is often women who vocally complain about being reduced to a situationship and the ensuing mistreatment that follows. In my opinion, being a feminist and practicing self-love means resisting relationship dynamics that diminish women to our bodies and deprive us of deep connections. Feminists should not be in situationships.

---

1 Kaestle, Christine E., and Larissa M. Evans. “Implications of No Recent Sexual Activity, Casual Sex, or Exclusive Sex for College Women’s Sexual Well-Being Depend on Sexual Attitudes.” Journal of American College Health 66, no. 1 (2017): 32-40. doi:10.1080/07448481.2017.1369090.

2 Baldwin, James. “Chapter Four.” In Giovanni’s Room. New York: Dial Press, 1956. 

3 Fisher, Maryanne, Kerry Worth, Justin R. Garcia, and Tami Meredith. “Feelings of regret following uncommitted sexual encounters in Canadian university students”. Cult Health Sex 14, no. 1 (2012): 45-57. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2011.619579.

4 McKeen, Billie E., Ryan C. Anderson, and David A. Mitchell. “Was it Good for You? Gender Differences in Motives and Emotional Outcomes Following Casual Sex”. Sexuality & Culture 26 (2022): 1339–1359 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-022-09946-w