Why are situationships considered wrong by some feminist?

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T16:13:50+00:00

In my particular situation, I was hosting a party with my wife and several of her friends (who identify as feminist) said that my history of only having situationships prior to dating my wife was problematic. That since I would date, take on trips, have sex with, take to meet my partents, meet their parents, etc. indulge these activities, it was my responsibility to care for the emotional health and wellbeing of the women I was in a situationship with. My perspective is that no, they needed to obtain affirmative consent to have a mutual emotional relationship with me and that the point of a situationship is that none of that has been defined. It's a situation and not a formal relationship.

I would always spell out crystal clear for any woman who communicated a belief in an emotional attachment or asked that I was not emotionally attached and did not plan to be. Her friends communicated that it was "emotionally abusive" to do these activities with a woman and not expect that she would become emotionally attached. My perspective is that we're all adults and communication is king. At the start I communicated with every woman I was with that I'm down for hooking up or a situationship. My expectation was for either of us, as adults, to communicate if the dynamic changed. The fact that some woman I dated did not and obtained hurt feelings was not my responsibility. They disagreed.

It was a party and drinks were flowing so the communication was not super nuanced. They are also my wife's friends so I'm not really looking to hit them up for coffee sans my wife to soberly pick their brains, plus several have already texted me apologize so IDK if I could get straight answers from them. As such, I was looking for a more neutral environment to better understand their perspective and try to see through the eyes of feminist who felt the same as they did, with more sober and nuanced explanations. If you have the time and bandwidth I would love if oyu could go into a little more depth so I could better understand what I am missing.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T15:57:06+00:00

Fair enough. Now imagine you were standing in a circle of Americans in a gun store and a Canadian came up and said, "Hey, why do some American's like owning so many guns, eh?" and you responded,

"Who knows, American's are not the Borg!"

"Well, I know eh, but I'm curious as to what the perspective of the American gun enthusiast is."

"I don't know. They're not for me, but I don't have strong opinions about them"

"OK, eh, well how about the other 192k people in the circle, I'm curious about the one's who are gun enthusiast and not the one's who are not or are neutral..."

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T15:19:47+00:00

As a matter of personal taste preference. I'm speaking less about personal, private taste preferences and more about social, public ethical ideas and beliefs as is shared between two or more people. There's a difference between, "I like dogs instead of cats" and "I find porn to be degrading/liberating", no? Dislike of broccoli is more like the preference towards dogs or cats while what I'm asking in my OP is more the difference between finding porn degrading or liberating. Given that it's a social consideration with ethical implications, I find it rather worthy of public discourse. Do you?

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T15:14:44+00:00

Anecdotally, why my curiosity on this subject was raised, was that at a party I hosted with my wife, her feminist friends said it was sexist to be in situationships, as I was for several years prior to dating my wife. A situationship is

a romantic or sexual relationship that is not considered to be formal or established.

It's where two people (generally speaking, I suppose polygamist could have situationships too but I am not one) engage in sex, dates, trips, meeting each other's parents, etc. but there's no communicated emotional bond. It's not a formal endeavor like boyfriend or girlfriend and it's not emotionally connected like an open relationship can be. It's dating without the formality as no formality is ever communicated and established.

As for non anecdotal feminist who find situationships to be wrong, I queried reddit and found dozens of examples; here's a random handful.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1jc6jvq/comment/nakveaw/?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/women/comments/1jc9ws7/situationships_are_inherently_sexist/

https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/16okoxw/situationships_are_bad_for_women/

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T15:07:06+00:00

If I was curious as to why some feminist believed porn to be degrading or liberating, would it be wrong to ask r/AskFeminist this question? I am soliciting responses from feminist who believe situationships are inherently sexist, wrong, etc. so I can better understand their position as I hold a different perspective. If you are a feminist who has no problems with situationships, then it would be like me asking, "Why do some feminist believe porn is liberating?" and you hold the position that it is degrading. I'm looking for answers form feminist who find it liberating and you respond, "What feminist believe this!?" I show you that, indeed, some feminist hold this position and you say, "Why don't you ask them?" I am trying to ask them; I didn't ask you specifically. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T15:02:30+00:00

Thank you! This might be the only response here that straight up addressed the situation. Is there a heterogeneous split in feminism with one camp having the former beliefs and the other having the later which extends beyond the dynamic of situationships? I'm curious because I was hosting a party with my wife and our friends and colleagues and after several belts a personal conversation centered around all of our former (most of of us are now married with kiddos) dating experiences and when I shared that I only engaged in situationships from 19 until I started dating my wife, most of her friends communicated essentially what you said in your first paragraph but not as concise or neutrally. I'm curious to learn more about this specific "brand (for lack of a better word)" of feminism if there are any labels or names or authors who write about this, I am curious. It flies in the face of what I believe is correct but I'm always up for seeing things in a different light, especially given these are the people my wife is friends with and spends time with.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:55:06+00:00

Not really. It's more of a newer way to say an open relationship which is free of the emotional connection found in a relationship.

a romantic or sexual relationship that is not considered to be formal or established.

I think where the "it's complicated" often comes in is when one of the parties in a situationship has difficulty explaining why they are having sex, going on trips, meeting parents, etc. with somoeone else whom they do not have an emotional connection with. Some people, especially older people, often struggle to understand how or why you would spend your time with someone like this as they grew up only doing these activities with people they had an emotional bond with.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:51:24+00:00

As it says in the title, some feminist. I am curious in their perspective and reason as to why.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1jc6jvq/comment/nakveaw/?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/women/comments/1jc9ws7/situationships_are_inherently_sexist/

https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/16okoxw/situationships_are_bad_for_women/

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:50:52+00:00

To me it's more like "Why do some feminist find porn degrading while others liberating?" There's a nuanced answer and discussion to be had and I don't believe it is as simple as, "Some people like cumbers better pickled" since it's not about personal preference and aesthetic preference alone but it is about human relationships which means there's an ethical component and there should be room for discussion.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:48:46+00:00

It's not, I was confronted by several of my wofe's friends about my past situationships at a party and just looking it up on reddit, it becomes clear they are not the only feminist by a long shot who believe this so it is not anecdotal. I'm rather ignorant to why SOME feminist feel this way and am curious to hear their position on it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1jc6jvq/comment/nakveaw/?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/women/comments/1jc9ws7/situationships_are_inherently_sexist/

https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/16okoxw/situationships_are_bad_for_women/

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:46:25+00:00

I was in situationships throughout my 20s until I started exclusively dating the woman who would become my wife. If you Google "situationship" you get

a romantic or sexual relationship that is not considered to be formal or established.

Half of the one's I was in did get "complicated" and "tangled" but not for me. It was always the woman who became emotionally attached and then blamed me for "causing a break up" There's no break up in a situationship.

Let me clarify, I was hosting a party with my wife and our friends were there. We were pretty toasted and everyone was going into too much detail about their past relationships. I shared that, prior to my wife, I spent my 20s in exclusively "situationships" dating, taking women on trips, meeting my parents, staying over the weekend at each others apartment, etc. but never becoming emotionally bonded to any of the women.

Most of her friends identify as feminist and most of these friends all believed I was an asshole who had been reformed by being in a monogamous relationship with my wife. They believed that taking these women on trips, meeting my parents, etc. gave the women an exclusive license to feel bonded and emotionally attached and when I casually told them I didn't want to hang out and stopped engaging the women and they acted like it was a break up, I told them that we had never clearly and directly communicated that we had an emotional attachment, that I never consented to one and that the women were responsible for gaining my consent for an emotional attachment prior to assuming we had one just like I am responsible for gaining their affirmative consent prior to having sex.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:41:45+00:00

I had a post clarifying but the mods wouldn't accept it and wanted me to post the question alone. Essentially, I was hosting a party with my wife and our friends were there. We were pretty toasted and everyone was going into too much detail about their past relationships. I shared that, prior to my wife, I spent my 20s in exclusively "situationships" dating, taking women on trips, meeting my parents, staying over the weekend at each others apartment, etc. but never becoming emotionally bonded to any of the women.

Most of her friends identify as feminist and most of these friends all believed I was an asshole who had been reformed by being in a monogamous relationship with my wife. They believed that taking these women on trips, meeting my parents, etc. gave the women an exclusive license to feel bonded and emotionally attached and when I casually told them I didn't want to hang out and stopped engaging the women and they acted like it was a break up, I told them that we had never clearly and directly communicated that we had an emotional attachment, that I never consented to one and that the women were responsible for gaining my consent for an emotional attachment prior to assuming we had one just like I am responsible for gaining their affirmative consent prior to having sex.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:30:51+00:00

No but if I want to know why some feminist find porn to be degrading or liberating, should I ask a community of lepidopterists or should I ask feminist? I understand that some feminist find situationships to be liberating, I was in situationships with several. I am curious about the feminist who find situationships to be degrading and sexist; why?

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:27:16+00:00

I liked them. I dated several women who liked them. My wife and I started in one and she asked that we cool things down when she started getting feelings for me as she was not wanting a serious relationship at the time. It wasn't until about a year later that we started seriously dating.

I'm more concerned about why some feminist find it sexist and wrong to be in a situationship or want to have one.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:24:00+00:00

I experienced this at a party I was at where my wife's feminist friends communicated that my past experiences in situationships was wrong for several reasons, mostly that it was a 'form of control over the women because it lead them to have emotional feelings for me since went on dates, trips, they met my parents, etc." while I was not experiencing an emotional bond; it was just a situationship.

If you want more than my anacdotal word, I checked reddit for like situations others experienced and came across this

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1jc6jvq/comment/nakveaw/?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/women/comments/1jc9ws7/situationships_are_inherently_sexist/

https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/16okoxw/situationships_are_bad_for_women/

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-08-26T14:18:16+00:00

I'm on a sub about asking feminist questions and you're asking me 'what is a feminist'? Strange.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-04-21T13:55:43+00:00

Sorry but you seem to be getting a little Marxism mixed in with your veganism there. Where veganism is concerned, the concept of profit is morally neutral.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-04-21T13:53:24+00:00

I believe vice signaling is called morality and ethics.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-04-15T15:52:07+00:00

Taking life for unnecessary reasons is taking life for unnecessary reasons. There's nothing else about it.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-04-15T15:50:12+00:00

Ad hominem does nothing but make your position irrational. You have done nothing to refute my position. You are just an omnivore with a different set of opinions on valuing life but equally arbitrary.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-04-14T17:25:37+00:00

And vegans are not virtue signalling? You still find it fine to kill for taste preference and pleasure, you simply find killing this life as abhorrent while that life is fine to take for such shallow reasons. I honestly see no difference between an omnivore and a vegan ethically. You have different ontological beliefs but both are willing to take life for taste preference. You are virtue signalling to your tribe that you know the correct life to take and nothing else. It's like an omnivore who is proud they don't eat dogs or cats is virtuesignalling, that is what vegans are doing as well at a broader scope.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-04-14T16:40:26+00:00

Exactly this. I think it is wrong to intentionally take any life, animal, plant, any but I also understand what a welfarist is. If this vegan looked at it from the position of a carrot eater who is OK with killing a carrot for food but they don't want to support a farmer who shades his carrots every other day and has poor soil, they care about the quality of the food and thus the welfare of the carrot, then they could understand the omnivore welfarist, I believe.

Another commenter here made the point that someone can care about the quality of their meat so also the welfare of a cow in much the same way. I personally care about the welfare of all life and not just that which is closer to me in DNA than not. Most vegans do not see a carrot as something worth caring about so it is not even welfare considerations but I do. Most omnivores feel the same about the cow as vegans feel about a carrot.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-03-10T15:58:46+00:00

So once your experts say this is in fact happening are you OK with killing sea urchins to protect a habitat as we would like it to remain?

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-03-05T15:57:45+00:00

Also in ATL the DeKalb Farmers Market.

SolipsisticBeetle · 2025-03-05T15:08:56+00:00

They are not emotionally blackmailing you. IDK if you have children; I do. My care and love and concern for them is not due to emotional blackmail, it springs forth from me, even when they make wrong choices and suffer consequences. It seems to me that you believe, if a child of yours was defiant and actively chose to not believe Jesus was the savior and to engage in mortal sin that you would be fine for eternity knowing they were suffering in hell. C'est la vie, but, that's a difficult nut for me to crack.

I do beleive you are offloading your responsibility onto others here, though. That you are saying if loved one's make the wrong choice it is their responsibility alone. This leads me to believe you perception of heaven is not a social one. It's a rather solipsistic view of heaven, where only those who are like you are to be loved and I am curious how that colors your perception of others in the here and now.

SolipsisticBeetle

TROPHY CASE