In contemporary dating culture, the term is frequently invoked to describe an interpersonal connection that possesses all the emotional and physical closeness of a conventional relationship, yet operates completely devoid of explicit agreements, labels, or mutual definitions. People often mean vastly different things when they use the phrase. For some, a situationship represents a temporary bridge or a transitional stretching period before something more formal officially begins. For others, it hardens into a static, comfortable holding pattern where they remain stuck for a year or longer. What Dana ultimately wants to know is whether the trust between her and this man is genuinely growing with each passing week, or whether the weeks are simply passing by while they remain frozen in place. A significant number of contemporary readers, navigating similar modern romances, may well be asking themselves the exact same question.
What Is a Situationship, and Why Is It So Hard to Name?
One of the most confounding aspects of this dynamic is that nothing has fundamentally gone wrong, which is precisely what makes it so difficult to address or categorize. He texts back promptly. He shows up when needed. No one has been actively lied to, and no explicit promises have been broken because none were ever made in the first place. There is no glaring, obvious crisis that demands an immediate explanation, and thus Dana has continued to let the silence persist.
While prominent relationship research organizations, such as the Gottman Institute, have not specifically targeted situationships in their clinical studies, decades of extensive observational research into what makes partnerships succeed or fail offer valuable insights that apply to these modern dynamics. Over more than forty years, relationship experts Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Julie Gottman have identified core behavioral mechanisms that consistently appear across the couples they have observed in their laboratory settings.
Among these frameworks is the Sound Relationship House, a theoretical model that conceptualizes a healthy, stable relationship as a house supported by seven distinct levels, all resting upon two heavy weight-bearing walls: trust and commitment. Another vital focus of their research is how two people respond to one another during small, everyday interactions. Together, these established relationship frameworks offer a compelling lens through which to examine Dana and the man whose schedule she knows so well—regardless of whether either of them would dare to call what they have a relationship.
Can Trust Grow in a Situationship When Nothing Has Been Defined?
Within the architecture of the Sound Relationship House, trust and commitment serve as the foundational walls that uphold everything else. Trust, in this context, is defined as the deep-seated knowledge that your partner thinks and acts in ways that genuinely serve your best interests and benefits, rather than solely pursuing their own: the underlying reassurance that a partner has your back and will be there when needed. Commitment, meanwhile, is a distinct concept altogether, demonstrated through both explicit words and consistent actions that prove an individual is fully invested in the relationship through all its phases.
For Dana, the empirical evidence she has gathered may support one of these walls far more strongly than the other. When she sends a message, he replies within the hour. When her car broke down, he physically showed up to assist. In relationship research terminology, Dr. Gottman refers to these everyday overtures as bids, describing them as the fundamental unit of emotional communication, while the act of "turning towards" a bid represents how partners meet each other’s emotional needs.
In longitudinal studies conducted at the Gottman Institute’s Love Lab, couples who remained happily married six years down the line had successfully turned towards each other’s emotional bids roughly 86 percent of the time. Conversely, couples who had ultimately divorced or remained together in unhappy circumstances had turned towards each other’s bids only about 33 percent of the time.
The very first level of the relationship house involves building what researchers call "Love Maps"—the mental database of small, specific details regarding a partner’s daily life, history, and inner world. Dana has spent five months meticulously building hers, accumulating facts about his work schedule, his sister’s name, and his sleeping preferences. However, it remains an open question whether he has been investing similar effort into building a Love Map of her own.
What Does Time Alone Not Tell You?
Five months is undoubtedly long enough to learn a substantial amount about another person. However, accumulating time together is not the same thing as achieving clarity about where you stand in their life. The early stages of falling in love—a state researchers refer to as limerence—frequently arrive first, characterized by intense emotional and physical attraction. According to research outlining the three distinct phases of love, trust is typically built during the second phase, while commitment solidifies in the third. While time passes continuously through all three phases, the mere accumulation of time does not automatically propel two people from one stage to the next on its own.
Researchers Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades have previously highlighted two distinct pathways by which a relationship tends to progress to its next milestone. The first pathway, known as "sliding," involves taking a significant relationship step simply because it feels like the path of least resistance or the next logical sequence, without either partner truly pausing to deliberately choose it. The second pathway, "deciding," involves conscious, intentional choice.
A comprehensive report titled Before I Do, published by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, surveyed more than 1,000 American couples and found that those who made deliberate, conscious decisions at major relationship transitions generally fared better over time than those who merely slid through them. While that specific report focused primarily on couples moving toward formal marriage, related analyses emphasize that the principle of deliberate commitment remains critical whether individuals are casually dating, cohabitating, or already married.
A recent 2025 study published in the academic journal Sexuality & Culture by researcher Langlais and her colleagues sheds further light on these dynamics, beginning with in-depth interviews of ten young adults aged 18 to 30 who were either currently in a situationship or had recently exited one. The researchers subsequently surveyed nearly 90 college students regarding over a hundred distinct situationship experiences. The findings indicated that many participants viewed a situationship as a potential stepping stone or route toward a more traditional, defined relationship. Emotional investment, open discussions about the future, and a clear sense of being prioritized by one’s partner were each strongly correlated with higher overall relationship satisfaction and stronger commitment levels.
Nevertheless, because the study offered a snapshot primarily focused on female, college-aged participants, it could not definitively track how situationships evolve over extended periods—which remains the central question weighing on Dana’s mind. Commitment, under the theoretical definitions established by relationship experts, is actively demonstrated through words and actions that clearly communicate mutual investment. Over five months, the man in Dana’s life has consistently shown up physically, yet he has never articulated what it is he is actually showing up for.
How Do You Ask "What Are We?" Without It Sounding Like an Ultimatum?
When partners finally decide to address the elephant in the room, the manner in which the conversation begins often dictates its entire trajectory. Relationship researchers refer to this opening phase as the start-up and distinguish between two primary styles. A harsh start-up typically opens with the pronoun "you" coupled immediately with an implicit or explicit criticism. A softened start-up, by contrast, focuses entirely on personal vulnerability and emotional honesty regarding the current situation.
A softened start-up generally follows a three-part structure: identifying an inner emotion using "I feel," connecting that feeling to a specific, observable behavior rather than a character flaw, and clearly stating a positive need.
For Dana, a harsh conversational approach might sound accusatory: "You never tell me what we are or where this is going." A softened alternative, however, would look very different: "I feel a bit nervous bringing this up because I genuinely like what we have built together. At the same time, I’ve noticed we have never really talked about where this is heading, and I need to know whether you see it moving forward anywhere."
While utilizing a softened approach does not magically guarantee an outcome that Dana wants or expects, it dramatically changes the nature of the interaction, making it far easier for her partner to receive her inquiry as a genuine question rather than an aggressive charge or an immediate ultimatum.
What If the Answer Is Not What You Hoped?
Should Dana choose to initiate that conversation, her partner might respond in any number of ways. He might agree that he wants to move forward. Conversely, he might state plainly that he does not want a conventional relationship, that he likes things exactly as they are currently configured, or simply that he is unsure. Each of these potential responses would provide Dana with the concrete clarity regarding commitment that five months of prompt text replies were ultimately unable to provide.
At the same time, hearing an undesired answer can be deeply painful. The insights from recent academic research serve as a vital reminder of why so many individuals linger in situationships for months or even years: the persistent, quiet hope that the dynamic will naturally transform into something more permanent over time.
Late on a Sunday evening, as the weekend draws to a close, Dana opens her messaging application and types out the opening line of a text message: I like what we have. She reads the short sentence twice on her screen. In the end, she decides against sending it. Instead, she snaps a quiet photograph of the evening sky visible through her window, hits send, and waits to watch the screen light up with the familiar indicator of three small dots.
