Casual sex and its cousin, friends with benefits, are likely familiar terms. However,
"situationship" is relatively new, describing relationships that are intimate and often
romantic but lack an official label. This ambiguity suits those who prefer not to define the
relationship, perhaps to maintain freedom or avoid commitment.
Unfortunately, these arrangements often lead to one person desiring a deeper commitment
while the other prefers to keep things casual. The person seeking more commitment may
hesitate to express their feelings, fearing it could end the situationship. Eventually, these
unspoken desires can erupt into arguments, causing the entire dynamic to unravel.
Situationships may have existed for some time but have only recently been labeled.
They're increasingly common among millennials and Gen Z, reflecting evolving
relationship norms.
Regarding attachment styles, situationships often echo the pursuer-distancer dynamic
discussed in my previous article on why avoidant and anxious people attract.
The pursuer, typically anxiously attached, desires more closeness and commitment, while
the distancer, often avoidantly attached, prefers maintaining emotional distance.
For anxiously attached individuals, situationships can reinforce their belief that they are
"too much" in relationships, especially if the arrangement collapses, causing distress,
particularly if the avoidant partner is seeing others, sparking jealousy.
These relationships mimic committed ones in many ways—hanging out, sex, social events
—but lack the security of a defined commitment. The avoidant partner's reluctance to
discuss the future exacerbates feelings of neglect for the anxious person.
Avoidant individuals may feel blindsided when they discover the anxious partner's desire
for commitment, leading to intense emotions and potential conflict.
Those with disorganised attachment, combining anxious and avoidant traits, also struggle
in such setups. Their anxious side desires commitment and certainty, while their avoidant
side may prompt withdrawal, intensifying the push-pull dynamic.
Securely attached individuals typically avoid situationships or enter them without expecting
increased intimacy or commitment.Ultimately, situationships suit avoidant individuals best, providing intimacy without the pressure for emotional conversations or commitment. However, avoidant individuals may also disengage if intimacy becomes too intense, due to their fear of closeness.
You mightwonder why two avoidant individuals don't form such relationships more often. Typically,neither person fights for the relationship, leading it to fizzle out quickly.
Occasionally, situationships evolve positively, with both parties desiring a committed
relationship. However, this outcome is rare and lacks substantial research.
Moving to casual sex and friends with benefits, these arrangements vary widely. A one-
night stand involves brief sexual encounters, while friends with benefits entails ongoing,
non-committed sexual relations between friends.
Again, these setups are ideal for avoidant individuals but challenging for anxious or
disorganised attachment styles due to the lack of emotional connection, certainty, and
commitment.
Engaging in casual sex or friends with benefits isn't inherently wrong for anxious or
disorganised attachments. Still, it's crucial to understand the potential risks and
consequences, especially for those leaning towards anxious attachment.
Long-term, aiming for secure connections provides a healthier and more fulfilling path to
meeting emotional and intimacy needs, especially for the anxiously attached.
Comments