Will you still love me when I'm no longer young and beautiful?
Mapping types of romantic commitment
So…
Yes?
I’d like for us to be in a relationship.
Oh?
What do you think?
Yea, of course!
Phew! I’m so glad!
Have you had “defining the relationship” (DTR) chats where you both agree “Yep, we’re in a relationship now” but then find out later down the line you have no clue what you’ve both agreed to? What did they mean by the word “relationship”?
Or perhaps you’ve not started these conversations because there’s just crickets in your head when you try. Maybe neither of you even know what you want, or how to put things into words.
I was in a situation like this recently. I thought we had agreed to a certain kind of commitment, but he thought that we agreed to something else. And it wasn’t hugely different - it was quite subtle. Yet it was still a significant variation. When I told him what I thought we had agreed to, he was surprised and confused - and then I was sad and frustrated, and I noticed I was repeating myself a lot and seeing that he wasn’t understanding.
Long story short, we had another very long chat after this, in where I mapped out what I considered to be possible arrangements of romantic commitment in general, based on what I had been hearing and reading from others, as well as my own experiences. He contributed what his own map looked like as well.
This mapping exercise ended up being very useful for us. It helped us build shared vocabulary and understanding. With a lot patience and curiosity, we were able to use our maps to arrive at a more precise agreement as to what kind of relational commitment we wanted to have with each other.
I thought I would share what my map looked like. It’s probably going to look a bit different to yours. I’m hoping that by seeing another person’s map, it might help with your own mapping and perhaps lead to having more productive conversations between yourself and your partner or partners down the line.
So this is the map
At the top of the map we have modes of zero commitment: general flirting and sexual tension, getting to know each other, early dating. From there we can journey south to one of many islands.
Towards the left I have clustered types of commitment focused more on life partnership, and towards the right I have clustered types of commitment focused more on flexibility.
Here are the main factors that I think characterise each type of commitment island:
Aimed length of commitment - this could be “short” (<1 year),“medium” (1-10 years), “long” (10+ years), or “open - whatever length it happens to last” (I get the impression quantitatively this could be similar to short/medium, but qualitatively this feels different to knowing if it is short or medium)
Levels of personal tolerance past which you would break up or transition the relationship, for example when the other makes a mistake, the other behaves in a way that irritates you, or the other’s drawing on you for physical or emotional support - this could be low, medium, or higher
The degree to which the arrangement is publicly registered or announced - this could range widely from “not announced, just known passively known by those who happen to know”, or “announced to friends +/ family with ceremony”, or “made known to friends +/ family AND registered with the government with legally binding terms”
Here’s how I define each type of commitment in the map
Casual situationship - The aimed length of commitment is generally around a few months, sometimes extending to six or so months. For example, a summer fling. Personal tolerance levels are generally low, sometimes quite deliberately restricted to be low. A focus on sex over building intimacy can aid with this. The arrangement is not usually announced or necessarily known by many people in your life. The other person may not have met any or many of your friends. Sometimes casual situationships slide into longer periods than initially expected, e.g. a year or so, but this is not usually intentional.
Longer situationship - Compared to a casual situationship, there may not have been any intention to have had a short length arrangement, but neither any intention around it being a medium or long length arrangement. The length is open, in the sense that it could be short, it could be medium, and it could end up long - the thing being prioritised is that it’s as long as both parties feel good enough about it. Not to say that feeling good about the arrangement is not a priority on other islands, but on this island the way this is assessed is done differently, for example perhaps more from a tolerance in the present moment perspective (i.e. are there enough good things about this right now such that I feel ok about the thing I don’t like?) and perhaps less likely from a growth perspective (i.e. does it look like we have the appetite to commit to learning over time and receiving influence from each other?)
In this sense, personal tolerance levels vary more than in a casual situationship - if this arrangement was the result of a casual situationship sliding into a longer situationship then perhaps tolerance levels may be on the lower end. If this was the result of a deliberate move from zero-commitment straight onto this island knowing that the relationship could possibly be medium length, then tolerance levels could be on the more medium end. The arrangement is not usually announced. It may be known by many people in your life eventually if the other person gets to know your friends over time. Dr. Alexandra from Reimagine Love has a good worksheet talking about who may be suited to situationships like this. Alain de Botton talks about the benefits of short term relationships here.
I have occasionally heard of longer situationships changing into life partnerships. From a practical and outsider viewpoint, a long situationship can seem really similar to trial partnership / other partnership-oriented islands. There can be a lot of things in common. I can see how it would make sense that if a couple liked each other and realised they serendipitously have happened to been able to enjoy each other’s company for a few years, that they may decide to formalise their commitment more. It could be argued that situationships with a more casual flavour on the other hand, have incentive structures that make it much less likely for a transition to partnership to happen.
One year marriage / hand-fasting - Hand-fasting refers to the making fast of a pledge by the shaking of hands or the symbolic joining of hands with ribbons. There are many stories floating around as to what the origins of hand-fasting are and what it originally meant. These days hand-fasting is a practice used widely for various meanings and special moments: some people use it to mark moving in together, others to celebrate their anniversary, and some use it at their weddings to symbolise lifelong commitment.
However, when I refer to hand-fasting in the context of this commitment type, I am specifically referring to the practice of people committing to each other for “a year and a day”, with the intention of creating a container for being with each other, not necessarily with any specific aspirations in mind beyond the one year. Hinterlander kindly shares their own example here.
Tolerance levels are probably on the higher end, possibly higher than in a trial partnership because the committed length of time is on the shorter side and there is an open-endedness to how it may continue or evolve beyond the one year container. Unlike the previous two situationship commitment types, there may a higher degree of announcement to friends +/ family - at the very least, there’s a ceremonial moment of tying your hands together.
Trial partnership - This is an exploratory period, perhaps roughly around 1-3ish years long, to figure out if this is someone you would like to commit to for a longer time, and vice versa. There is an aspiration to find someone you feel confident that you would like move to one of the life partnership islands with. As you’re sort of trying to simulate what life partnership may be like with the person, personal tolerance is not low, however it could be medium rather than high, especially towards the start, because you’re testing for compatibility. There’s a balance to strike between commitment facilitating higher likelihood to further commit, versus keeping some mental distance and gathering data in order to evaluate if this relationship is a good fit.
The most obvious deal breakers were probably sussed out in the early dating stage, and both of you seem promising enough to each other, otherwise you wouldn’t have decided to be on this island in the first place. There’s not necessarily much announcement about this island. At some point it could be significant to your family to meet the other person because they understand that both of you are in a trial partnership.
It may depend on the culture you’re in as to whether you agree to be on this island through deliberate conversation, or through default sliding. In my circles, the dominant culture is to assume the default of casual situationship if there is no deliberate conversation to define the relationship. I get the impression that at a time when contraception was less available, people around my grandparents age and older swam in a relationship culture where the default leaned more towards sliding into trial partnership.
Relational marriage / life partnership - This is when you are aiming for a long length of relationship (10+ years or a lifetime) with this person. There is a high level of tolerance, ideally built on the experience of knowing the person well after the limerence period and knowing there is at least a good enough level of compatibility for long-term partnership.
The main difference between “relational marriage” and “legal marriage” to me is whether or not it is registered with the government. Why would people decide to not be legally married? Legal marriage comes with many default legal rights and stuff that a couple may or may not agree with. I touch on this a bit more below in the legal marriage section, but really you’ll have to look this up. Leena Norms shares some thoughts on this in her video here.
In both relational and legal marriage there is some degree of deliberate announcement or ceremony with friends +/ family because the social accountability is an important element of this type of commitment. Alain de Botton writes about how the embarrassment of deciding to separate is one of things that makes up marriage as a tool for impulse control, in recognition of the benefits of marriage.
If I were to expand the map in order to reflect the importance of of the announcement element, there would probably another island called “unannounced relational life partnership” further left of this one somewhere where people decide they are long-long term partnered but don’t show or tell anyone. One thing that can happen among couples is that one of them thinks they’re on this island (unannounced relational life partnership), however the other thinks that they’re on the trial partnership island. It’s hard to tell at first, because both islands can feel very similar and don’t really have any degree of announcement involved. I also define relationships that began as trial partnerships that extended into the 7-10 year mark with quiet assumption of life partnership or perhaps without any discussion of longer term aspirations somewhat also on this extra island of “unannounced relational life partnership”.
Legal marriage / life partnership - This is the same in aimed length, personal tolerance, and degree of announcement to the relational marriage, but there is the added step of getting the government involved. Why get the government involved? Well, In the UK (it may be different in your country), without legal marriage, cohabiting couples don’t have as many automatic legal protections around things like property, financial support upon separation, inheritance, and children. So if you’re cohabiting and raising children with someone without some kind of legal documentation (e.g. a cohabitation agreement) detailing how things would work out if you separated, then there could be a higher potential for things to significantly disadvantage one or both partners in the case of separation.
Other dimensions of relationships not included in the map
There are other set up dimensions to any given relationship that I think are somewhat independent of the agreed commitment type of a relationship.
For example, you could be in an open, poly, or monogamous set up regardless of the commitment dimension. You could be polyamorous and casual (although you may want to clarify if you’re actually polyamorous or simply non-exclusive at the moment), or polyamorous and legally married, or polyamorous and handfast married, etc etc.
Similarly, regardless of the commitment type of the relationship:
You could have kids or not have kids
You could be co-living, or just be on the same street, or the same town, or long distance
You could see each other for only three months out of year, or all months of the year
You could optimise more for companionship, or optimise more for passion
Etc, etc. See if you can think of more?
Naturally certain set ups can match more conveniently with certain types of commitment, but nobody’s enforcing these as rules! I wanted to point this out to make it clearer what it is I’ve tried to map, to decouple it from certain fixed associations and societal tropes, and to encourage creativity in problem solving between couples.
Considering and communicating what types may work for you
No type of commitment is universally better than the other - every type comes with it’s own potential rewards and tradeoffs. To me what’s ideal is that couples communicate and agree on a type that makes sense for the both of them.
Depending on what you personally value, your personality, what you’re looking for, how you feel about the other person, and where you’re at in your life at the moment, certain types of commitment may make more sense or less sense to you, and similarly for your partner.
Communicating about this stuff can go a long way to reducing the more avoidable elements of heartbreak and resentment. If you guys agree on something wholeheartedly, it can even increase the confidence and joy that both of you may feel about the relationship. I’m aware this can be easier said than done, especially if one or both parties may be finding it hard to introspect or be honest with themselves, or if someone’s anticipating that there’s going to a mismatch between desires. Still, it’s better to do this sooner rather than later. “But I thought we were aiming for marriage” is a lot tougher to experience realising three years down the line rather than three months down the line.
Further distinguishing the “longer situationship”
If you're thinking "I enjoy and appreciate this relationship as it is going, but I can't see myself getting married in general" or " I enjoy this relationship but I can't see myself staying in a romantic relationship with this particular person for more than another 1-3+ years" then by my definitions, it's a situationship.
There’s a huge variety of valid reasons that could be behind these assessments, for example:
You prefer the idea of having a series of different romantic relationships across your life rather than aiming for one main relationship till old age
You're actually very happy not being in any romantic relationships at all, and this one is an interesting experiment
You plan to move away from your current location or vice versa, and a distance relationship is just not an option
They're not what you're looking for in terms of a longer term commitment, and the both of you recognise this arrangement may end or fade within the next months or years
You like the person but you're not very into them, and both of you have communicated to each other and understood that the relationship is more "for now" and isn’t aiming for longevity
What about "I feel unsure if I want to stay with this person in a romantic relationship for more than 1-3+ years" ? Where does that land? That depends on what you are aspiring for in life in general - if you're leaning towards a series of different relationships than I would say it's a situationship. If you're leaning towards wanting a long-time collaborator then it sounds more like a trial partnership.
The role of beliefs, and why it could be helpful to examine them
My journey with these islands started more on the east side of the map, ventured a bit to the west side, went back to the east side, and now I find more curious about the west side again. It’s from this experience of seeking and being in different types of commitment that has lead me to believe that cultivating a balanced view of each type can lead to a greater sense of active choice and agency when deciding on what you’re looking for.
I think many people can have unexamined assumptions about each of the commitment types - I know I had many of my own, and I continue to discover more about them. Some simple examples of assumptions: life partnerships are like being in jail, or situationships are a cheap trick.
Most assumptions likely point to some sort of truth - but if these assumptions haven’t been looked at more closely, for example…Where has this assumption come from? Was it because of my parents, the media, religion, a book I read, a relationship I had, stories I’ve heard from friends, what my friends are doing and encourage me to do… then I think there’s a missed opportunity to find out if there’s a bigger picture, and perhaps if you had this bigger picture, you could more likely find the things you may be looking for.
Every commitment type can have something to show us. I have a theory that heartbreak is not inherently greater because of any commitment type itself, but more due to things like: misalignment between what the people involved are looking for, or either person lacking self-understanding or self-honesty to realise this (this being inevitably correlated with youth), or that heartbreak can come from the culture created between the people involved (is there a culture of respect, humility, honesty, and mutual appreciation? or a culture of nagging, defending, hiding difficult truths, and a superior-inferior dynamic? Heidi Priebe has a great video on what a healthy culture can looks like from an attachment theory perspective).
In addition, there are many unhelpful stories floating around in wider culture around the different commitment types. Partnerships can be plagued by unrealistic expectations encouraged by Disney and Romanticism (for example, the thought that my partner should understand me completely and effortlessly, and if this is not the case then I’m with the wrong person). Casual situationships can feel like disrespectful experiences, influenced by popular depictions of it being acceptable and powerful to think “he or she is an object that I use and then ghost or throw away” for example in contrast to thoughts more akin to “although we agree this is going a brief encounter, it is still highly intimate, and in that way sacred. This person is another human being like I am, and I appreciate this window into their lives”.
Concluding thoughts
Ok, aunty time. A summary to my past self:
There are different types of commitment characterised by approximate length of time, sense of tolerance, degree of public recognition, and aspiration.
Be honest with yourself and your partners about what kind of commitment you want, or at least want to try for now.
More casual commitments have their place. They could be a stage you go through to explore yourself and others, or more of a chosen long term lifestyle. Just don’t be a fuckboi (say you want one of the longer term commitments in order to get into someone’s pants while knowing in your heart you’d prefer shorter commitments).
Learn to check for discrepancy, be open minded as to if there is none or some, as this is often only revealed after really getting to know the person over some time. Discrepancy examples: people can unknowingly say they want one while their behaviour shows they want another, people can have subtly different ideas from your own, and people can change their aims over time.
If you have your own map of types or other related maps, please feel free to share! I’m open to to collecting more research and expanding my understanding in this area.
If you liked this post, you may also like this list my favourite links/resources on romantic collaboration.
Thank you to feedback and encouragement from Tasshin, Mary, Christin, and a few friends who don’t have webpages I can link to lol.
If you liked this post, consider subscribing to this substack or following me on twitter.