The Downside of Casual Dating

Many singles are not in a rush to become couples. That is a positive attitude, because taking it slow produces quality, healthy relationships built on trust, honesty, and compatibility. But building healthy monogamous relationships does not involve dating more than one potential paramour at a time. Open relationships are open to interpretation, which produces problems. Research explains.

Boundary Ambiguity

Simone Schneider (2025) explored boundary transgressions within the context of open romantic relationships. She defines open relationships as a type of “consensual non-monogamy” form of intimacy, and acknowledges they often involve ambiguity or disagreements over boundaries, and boundary violations. This is particularly true among young adults. Studying a population from England of 19 participants with an average age of 25 years, all of whom had completed or pursued university education, she argues that infidelity serves as a cultural range of behavior that young adults use to navigate the ambiguity of open relationships and set moral and symbolic boundaries.

The value of exploring relational boundaries does not end with youth. Casual dating often implies non-serious relationships, which many people interpret to involve multiple dating partners. Schneider’s research included an examination of this issue, studying one of the most prevalent sources of misunderstanding among any adult relationships—the ambiguity of unsolidified boundaries. Practical examples might include a dating partner freely discussing other romantic relationships or being seen in public with different partners, making no effort to hide any of the relationships. Many daters would not accept this behavior, even when they initially “agreed” to be non-exclusive. Emotional responses within open relationships involve another point Schneider makes, which is that perceived boundary violations reflect uneven desires for monogamy.

Defining Terms of Endearment

Ideally, dating partners are on the same page regarding romantic intentions, values, and ideas about exploring romantic alternatives. This conversation should come up sooner rather than later within developing relationships, where potential paramours are navigating the anticipatory stage of romance. Boundaries are also formed implicitly, as both parties express their intentions regarding exclusivity with each other, and through public displays of affection and terminology—such as introducing each other as a “boyfriend,” “girlfriend,” or “better half.” Problems arise when symbols of growing intimacy are absent or only occur in private.

Defining terms also prevents misunderstanding. Schneider notes that within consensual non-monogamous relationships, couples defined infidelity as behavior that violates previously agreed-upon relational arrangements. She also found that within open relationships, infidelity was viewed as involving dishonesty, secrecy, and violations of trust. Yet labels matter too. Schneider’s study participants often referred to their partners as their “boyfriend” or “girlfriend,” although they had permission to date others. As a practical matter, we can anticipate this creates unrealistic role expectations because terms of exclusivity are usually reserved for exclusive relationships.

Meeting of the Hearts and Minds

The best relationships start slow but proceed along a steady path of mutual understanding. Among partners who agree they are permitted to date multiple people, imbalanced emotional investment results in an uneven playing field. This produces disappointment, disenchantment, and heartache—all of which reduce relational quality. The best pairings involve openness, chemistry, and good communication. A friends-first approach permits couples to get to know each other without the pressure of labeling their relationship, moving forward with a healthy bond, ready to blossom when the time is right.

References