There was a time when relationships came with names: courting, dating, engaged, married, or single. Today, we have “situationships,” a softer, slipperier word for something far more confusing. It is closeness without clarity, commitment without courage, presence without responsibility. Two people behave like they are in a relationship while insisting it is not one.
Most situationships begin innocently: laughter, connection, shared vulnerability, and mutual care. Yet when the question arises, what are we?, the answer dissolves into fog: “Let’s not label it,” “I’m not ready for anything serious.” These phrases are the modern language of avoidance.
The tragedy is that situationships thrive on hope. One person waits for clarity or commitment, while the other enjoys intimacy without accountability. They steal time quietly. Months turn into years. Birthdays are celebrated discreetly. Crises are handled without rights. Over time, people shrink their needs, silence questions, and mistake emotional self-denial for maturity. Eventually, this waiting teaches doubt, embarrassment, and fear. But wanting clarity is not desperation, it is dignity.
Situationships often reflect fear of permanence: fear of heartbreak, vulnerability, or repeating past mistakes. They benefit one person more than the other, turning ambiguity into advantage. Not every undefined relationship is harmful; exploration is allowed. The problem arises when time and intimacy exist without honesty or direction.
Situationships become unethical when one knows they will never commit but allows the other to keep hoping. Sustained ambiguity is not openness; it is avoidance. Real love requires courage: to say yes, to say no, or to say, I cannot give you what you want, and let someone leave whole.
Love asks a simple question: will you choose clarity, or let someone walk away with their dignity intact?
Leave a comment