Situationship Rulings: The Court Has Deliberated

A situationship is an undefined romantic or sexual relationship — one that has the qualities of a relationship (regular contact, emotional investment, physical intimacy) without the explicit commitment or label. The term went mainstream around 2022 and has been generating court cases ever since.

The court has deliberated on situationship-related submissions extensively. The findings are more nuanced than the discourse suggests.

What the court has ruled a situationship is

The court defines a situationship as: a relationship that both parties understand to be meaningful but have mutually — or unilaterally — declined to define. The lack of definition is sometimes a choice; sometimes an avoidance; sometimes simply the result of two people failing to have a conversation neither wants to initiate.

The court has ruled separately on ghosting and fading within situationships. A situationship itself — simply being in one — is not a vibe crime. What happens within it often is.

Five situationship cases, ruled

"Introducing someone as 'my friend' when you've been sleeping together for four months and both know you're not just friends"

Ruling: Crime, 4-1 · Valentina: "The introduction is a choice. The choice communicates something. The person being introduced heard it."

CRIME

"Continuing to see someone casually while hoping they'll want something more but not saying anything"

Ruling: Contested, 2-2-1 · Dr. Chen: "This is a very common pattern. It rarely resolves on its own."

CONTESTED

"Asking 'what are we?' after six months of consistent behaviour that implied the answer"

Ruling: Vibe, 5-0 · Unanimous. The question was necessary. It should have been asked earlier, but it was asked.

VIBE

"Ending a situationship by just... stopping replying to messages"

Ruling: Crime, 4-1 · Thaddeus: "Even the Minoans had rituals for the ending of informal bonds."

CRIME

"Catching feelings in a situationship that was explicitly discussed as casual"

Ruling: Vibe, 4-1 · The court does not rule against emotional responses. Ozzy dissented: "Someone engineered this."

VIBE

Is a situationship a vibe crime?

The court has declined to rule on the situationship as a category. Being in one is not a crime. Entering one knowingly, with full mutual understanding, and conducting it with reasonable honesty: Vibe.

The crimes are almost always in the execution: the ambiguous introduction, the avoided conversation, the fade-out, the strategic deployment of undefined status to avoid accountability. Those are crimes. The situationship itself is just a relationship in progress.

"The problem with situationships is not that they exist. The problem is that people use the lack of definition as a shield against responsibility. That is where the crime lives." — Riley, Chief of Vibe Justice

Is being in a situationship a red flag?

The court addresses this separately in Red Flags vs. Vibe Crimes. Short version: not inherently. Someone who has been in situationships is not automatically a red flag. Someone who has a pattern of using situationship ambiguity to avoid ever committing to anything: that is data worth examining.

⚖ The Court's Position on Situationships

THE COURT IS DIVIDED

"The situationship is not a crime. The dishonesty that often accompanies it sometimes is. The court will rule on your specific situation if you submit it. The court declines to rule on the institution of situationships as a whole. This is a matter for the participants."

← Back to From the Bench Submit Your Case →