Archives 2025

Double Standards in Relationships: What Do They Mean?

In relationships, fairness and equality are crucial for fostering trust and mutual respect. However, the concept of double standards often challenges these principles, creating friction and misunderstandings. A double standard in a relationship occurs when one partner applies different rules, expectations, or judgments to themselves compared to their partner. This imbalance can undermine the relationship’s foundation, leading to dissatisfaction and conflict.

Understanding Double Standards in Relationships

Double standards often manifest in expectations regarding behavior, roles, or responsibilities. These discrepancies can emerge from cultural norms, personal biases, or ingrained beliefs. For example:

  • Gender Roles: Traditional gender roles may result in expectations that men should provide financially while women handle household duties. If a partner criticizes the other for not fulfilling their “role” while not meeting their own responsibilities, it creates an imbalance (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
  • Infidelity and Jealousy: One partner may expect forgiveness for flirting or infidelity but become intolerant if the other exhibits similar behavior (Buss, 2017).
  • Freedom and Autonomy: A partner may demand personal space and freedom while controlling or monitoring the other’s activities, reflecting an inequitable power dynamic.

Causes of Double Standards

  1. Cultural Norms and Socialization: Society often reinforces unequal expectations, especially along gender lines. These norms can seep into personal relationships, perpetuating unfair expectations.
  2. Insecurity and Control: Double standards may arise from one partner’s insecurities, leading them to impose stricter rules on the other to feel more secure.
  3. Power Imbalance: When one partner holds more emotional or financial power, they might impose double standards to maintain control (Finkel et al., 2017).

Consequences of Double Standards

  • Erosion of Trust: When one partner perceives an imbalance in expectations, trust is often compromised.
  • Emotional Resentment: The partner subjected to the double standard may feel undervalued or disrespected, fostering resentment.
  • Inequality and Conflict: Unequal standards can lead to arguments, perpetuating a cycle of blame and dissatisfaction.

Addressing Double Standards in Relationships

  1. Open Communication: Partners should discuss their expectations and address perceived inequities.
  2. Mutual Accountability: Both partners must agree to hold themselves to the same standards they expect from each other.
  3. Therapeutic Interventions: Counseling can help identify and address ingrained patterns contributing to double standards (Gottman & Silver, 2015).
  4. Cultural Awareness: Recognizing how societal norms influence personal beliefs can empower individuals to challenge unfair expectations.

Conclusion

Double standards in relationships reflect deeper issues of inequality, insecurity, or societal influence. Addressing these imbalances requires self-awareness, open dialogue, and a commitment to mutual respect. By fostering equality and understanding, couples can create a foundation of fairness and trust, strengthening their bond.

John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW, is a seasoned clinical social worker with over 25 years of experience, serving the London, Kentucky area through Southeast Kentucky Behavioral Health, LLC. Known for his compassionate approach and commitment to quality care, Mr. Collier supports individuals and families with a focus on mental health and well-being. He is available for professional inquiries at (606) 657–0532, extension 101, or by email at [email protected].

References

Buss, D. M. (2017). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. Basic Books.

Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2017). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 28(1), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1256692

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles for making marriage work. Harmony Books.

Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on cultural beliefs in social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265269

What is a Situationship? Exploring the Pros and Cons

In modern relationship dynamics, the term “situationship” has become increasingly popular. Though not officially recognized in traditional psychological or sociological terms, a situationship is generally defined as a romantic or sexual relationship that exists without clear, established boundaries or long-term commitment. Unlike casual dating, situationships often involve a level of emotional connection that blurs the lines between a formal relationship and something more casual.

A situationship typically arises when two individuals engage in a relationship-like dynamic without defining their intentions. Unlike a committed relationship, a situationship often lacks labels and exclusivity. It can involve spending time together, sharing emotional intimacy, or even acting like a couple in public, but without the explicit commitment of being “official.”

Characteristics of a Situationship

  • Lack of Definition: Neither party defines the relationship.
  • Inconsistent Communication: There may be regular interaction at times, followed by periods of distance.
  • Emotional Ambiguity: Both individuals may feel uncertain about where they stand.
  • Physical Intimacy Without Exclusivity: Sexual involvement may occur without an agreement to be monogamous.

The Pros of a Situationship

  1. Flexibility and Freedom: A situationship allows individuals to explore a connection without the pressures of long-term commitment. For those focusing on careers, education, or personal growth, it can provide companionship without demanding a structured relationship.
    • Source: Kaplan, H. (2020). “Modern Relationship Dynamics.” Journal of Social Psychology.
  2. Low Pressure: Situationships often lack the formal expectations tied to traditional relationships, reducing stress related to meeting familial or societal norms.
  3. Exploration of Compatibility: It can serve as a testing ground to evaluate compatibility before entering a committed relationship.
  4. Autonomy: Both individuals retain their independence, allowing for personal freedom and decision-making.

The Cons of a Situationship

  1. Emotional Uncertainty: The lack of clarity can lead to confusion, anxiety, or unmet expectations. People involved in situationships often report feelings of insecurity about the other person’s intentions.
    • Source: Miller, R. S. (2018). “Emotional Costs of Ambiguous Relationships.” Relationship Studies Quarterly.
  2. Uneven Investment: One party may develop deeper feelings, leading to a mismatch in emotional investment and potential heartbreak.
  3. Lack of Growth: Without clear direction, a situationship may stagnate, leaving individuals in a limbo that prevents them from pursuing more meaningful relationships.
  4. Social Challenges: Explaining a situationship to friends or family can be challenging, often leading to judgment or misunderstanding.

Navigating a Situationship

To navigate a situationship successfully, open communication is essential. Discussing intentions and boundaries early on can help both parties align their expectations. If the relationship becomes unfulfilling or one person desires a more formal commitment, addressing these concerns is crucial to avoid prolonged emotional strain.

A situationship can provide a casual and flexible connection for individuals who are not ready for a formal commitment. However, it carries the risk of emotional ambiguity and unmet expectations. Understanding the pros and cons can help individuals decide whether a situationship aligns with their personal goals and emotional well-being.

John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW-S

This article has been written by John S Collier, MSW, LCSW-S. collier has over 25 years of experience in the social work field. he currently serves as the Executive Director and outpatient provider at Southeast Kentucky Behavioral Health based out of London Kentucky. He may be reached by phone at (606) 657-0532, extension 101 or by email at [email protected]

John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW-S

References

  • Kaplan, H. (2020). “Modern Relationship Dynamics.” Journal of Social Psychology.
  • Miller, R. S. (2018). “Emotional Costs of Ambiguous Relationships.” Relationship Studies Quarterly.
  • Carter, P. (2019). The New Rules of Love: Understanding Modern Relationships. HarperCollins.
  • Johnson, T. A. (2021). “Navigating Emotional Ambiguity in Situationships.” Psychology Today.