Redefining the dating relationship

I am old. Though I am a Gen Xer, my generation (and most likely most people serving in the Legislature) have a different understanding of what the terms "dating" and "relationships" mean than my co-author, who is a Gen Zer. And because I am old, I will make old references, which will need no explanation for most of you. For those younger readers, you will have to ask your parents or Google.

Take, for example, Michael Corleone, yes of the Godfather films. In the original Godfather, Michael meets Apollonia Vitelli when living in Corleone. Their courtship entailed giant family gatherings where gifts and candy were exchanged with her family, time spent talking to her father, and walks around the village of Corleone where Apolonia and Michael were trailed by her family. Yet, you never see them alone until after the wedding. Are they dating? Is this a relationship? Is courtship the same as a relationship? In my grandparents' lifetime, probably.

Take another example: one of the most popular shows of my youth, Happy Days. It is roughly set ten years after the Godfather. You had Richie and Lori Beth, your traditional notion of dating. ("I found my thrill...." IYKYK.) This was a relationship. But then you had Fonzie, with his infamous "black book" of women (not counting Pinky, Leather and, later, Ashley.) With a snap of the fingers, multiple girls come running. Were most of Fonzie's interactions a date or even a relationship?

I am young, so let's turn to some examples from this millennium... Take the example of Derek and Meredith from Grey's Anatomy. In the show's first season, Derek and Meredith frequently hook up in the hospital, but they never go on a formal date. They don't start officially dating until later in the show. So, during this time period, when their relationship is confined to having sex in the hospital, they might be aptly described as friends with benefits. Does this count as dating? Are they in a relationship?

An even more casual example is Ted Lasso and Sassy from Ted Lasso. Ted and Sassy occasionally have sex, but they never pursue a traditional relationship beyond the bedroom. But they seem to be friends and are certainly a step above a one-night stand. Their relationship might also be described as friends with benefits - but is this a dating relationship?

Is it time we redefine our view of relationships and dating in light of the explosion of dating apps and sites? Dating services are not new. Remember the numerous dark comedic scenes from Harold and Maude (1971) where Harold rids himself of dates from a dating service arranged by his mother. But dating services since then have changed and, more importantly, have gone online. Giving easier and cheaper access to finding and meeting people. Websites include eHarmony, Silver Singles, Zoosk, Christian Mingle, Jdate, Match, Tinder, Grindr, Bumble, Hinge, Raya, and others. Not to mention apps for people looking for something different, like Ashley Madison, Fling, One Night Friend, Flirt, etc.

Take this hypothetical: A met B at a Fraternity party through mutual friends (for those wanting to be hip, just say "mutuals"). A few months later, A and B ran into each other at a local bar and spent the night dancing and kissing. They Snapped (aka following each other on Snapchat (just known as "Snap")), went their separate ways, and began to communicate through DMs (direct messages) via Snap.

Over the next few months, A and B would occasionally meet up and engage in different levels of sexual activity, but outside of these hookups, they would not see each other in person. Though they would invite each other to various social events and occasional invitations would be accepted, they did not generally socialize together nor introduce the other to their friend groups. Though they would DM fairly often, they had no expectation that the other would respond immediately. Though sometimes they would see each other a few times a week, they would go weeks or months without seeing each other. No labels were ever put on their relationship, and each continued to see other people as neither had discussed exclusivity.

During their last physical interaction, B became physically aggressive during their sexual encounter. In a series of DMs back and forth, B admits to the aggressiveness and apologizes if A was injured, as that was not B's intention. A filed for a domestic violence restraining order against B. B counters that they were never in any type of relationship covered under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) and, therefore, no domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) can be issued. So, was this a relationship covered by the DVPA? Should this be a relationship covered by the DVPA?

Family Code, Section 6210, defines a "dating relationship" as "frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations." Penal Code, Section 243(f)(10) has an identical definition for a "dating relationship." In Phillips v. Campbell, 2 Cal.App.5th 844, 849-850, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 492, 497 (2016), Campbell claimed "that the trial court erroneously found that the parties had a dating relationship. He characterizes their former relationship as 'BEST FRIENDS.' Appellant says, '... [a]ny reference to Appellant's 'love' for [respondent] is ... a platonic love of caring and concern for his BEST FRIEND.' '[T]he parties engaged in social activities just like [appellant] does with all of his friends.'" However, the Court found that "[s]ubstantial evidence supports the trial court's express finding that a dating relationship existed because a reasonable trier of fact could find that the parties had 'frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection....'" The Court also found that "although there is no evidence that the parties had sexual relations, appellant admitted that in December 2012 he had sent nude photographs of himself to respondent. The nude photographs are evidence of 'intimate associations' and an 'expectation of ... sexual involvement'" within the meaning of section 6210.

In the recent case of M.A. v. B.F., 99 Cal.App.5th 559, 317 Cal.Rptr. 909 (2024), the Court found that a relationship described as "friends with benefits" was not a "dating relationship" as defined by Section 6210, relying on the Webster Dictionary definition of the word "intimate." (Id. at 917). In M.A., the Court relies heavily on People v. Rucker, 126 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1117, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 62 (2005) and People v. Upsher, 155 Cal.App.4th 1311, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 481 (2007). The M.A. Court found that "' [t]he Legislature was entitled to conclude the domestic violence statutes should apply to a range of dating relationships,' it also held the statutory definition did not encompass a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization ... in a business or social context'" (Citing to Rucker, 126 Cal.App.4th at 1117). The Court found that a distinction existed between "'casual relationship[s]' and dating relationships that exhibit "unique emotional or privacy aspects" (Id. at p. 1116).

In People v. Upsher, 155 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1323, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 481, 490 (2007), the Court allowed a jury conviction of battery where the Defendant contested whether the parties were in a dating relationship. The Court acknowledged that the exact nature of the relationship "depends largely upon inferences." The Court found that at the time the incident occurred (4:30 a.m.), the Defendant warning third persons not to get involved, the highly emotional state of both parties, calling each other by nicknames, and the Defendant referring to the victim as "' my lady friend' and 'my girl,' throughout his testimony" would lead to the conclusion that their relationship was more than a casual social relationship. (Id.)

In Rucker, the trial court found the defendant, Rucker, and the victim she shot, Watson, had been in a dating relationship. The parties met through an Internet dating service and had their first date in July 2001. They went out to dinner, ate dinner at Watson's home, attended Rucker's office Christmas party together, and attended the wedding of one of Watson's friends. (Id.) "They became sexually intimate within their first two or three dates." (Id.) Watson traveled three or four weeks at a time for his job; when out of town he sometimes called Rucker or sent her e-mails saying he missed her and looked forward to seeing her. (Ibid.) Their last date was in April 2002, and Watson's previous e-mail to Rucker was sent on April 30. (Id.) In early May, Rucker placed a personal advertisement in a local newspaper and met two of the men who answered her ad. (Id.)

Rucker admitted she and Watson " 'obviously' " had some sort of dating relationship but argued it was too casual to come within the meaning of the domestic violence statutes. (Id. at p. 1114, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 62.) The Appellate Court, however, concluded, "There is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding [Rucker's] relationship with Watson was a 'dating relationship' within the meaning of the statutory definition and not merely a casual business or social relationship. Rucker and Watson had frequent, intimate associations when Watson was in town over a period of approximately nine months and he communicated his affection to her when he was out of town. The relationship was characterized by the expectation of affection and sexual involvement. Watson testified it was a 'dating relationship.' Rucker believed it was a serious relationship, possibly leading to marriage." (Id. at p. 1117, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 62.)

Dr. Marie Bergström, a researcher at the French Institute for Demographic Studies in Paris for the past decade, is the author of "The New Law of Love. Online Dating and the Privatization of Intimacy. (Polity Press, 2022). In an interview about her book with the Guardian, Bergstrom stated "online dating is changing the way we think about love. One idea that has been really strong in the past - certainly in Hollywood movies - is that love is something you can bump into, unexpectedly, during a random encounter. Another strong narrative is the idea that 'love is blind, that a princess can fall in love with a peasant and love can cross social boundaries. But that is seriously challenged when you're online dating, because it's so obvious to everyone that you have search criteria. You're not bumping into love - you're searching for it.'" "She argues that the nature of dating has been fundamentally transformed by online platforms. In the western world, courtship has always been tied up and very closely associated with ordinary social activities, like leisure, work, school or parties. There has never been a specifically dedicated place for dating." (Donna Ferguson, February 13, 2022, "How online dating has changed the way we fall in love," www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/feb/13/how-online-dating-has-changed-the-way-we-fall-in-love). Turning back to our original premise, is it time to re-examine both how we view "dating" and what is a "relationship"?

In an article published by the Pew Research Center in February 2023, the study found that "online dating is more common among younger adults than among older people. About half of those under 30 (53%) report having ever used a dating site or app, compared with 37% of those ages 30 to 49, 20% of those 50 to 64 and 13% of those 65 and older." The research found that "adults who have never been married are much more likely than married adults to report having used online dating sites or apps (52% vs. 16%). Adults who are currently living with a partner (46%) or who are divorced, separated, or widowed (36%) are also more likely to have tried online dating than married adults." When trying to normalize for race or ethnicity, the "similar shares of White, Black, Hispanic and Asian adults report ever having done so." However, there was a significant difference when reviewing for sexual orientation with "lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) adults. They are more likely than their straight counterparts to say they have ever used a dating site or app (51% vs. 28%)." However, when looking at gender "men are somewhat more likely than women to have tried online dating (34% vs. 27%), as are those with at least some college education when compared with those with a high school education or less." The Pew researchers also found that "one-in-five partnered adults under 30 say they met their current spouse or partner on a dating site or app, as do about a quarter of partnered LGB adults (24%)." What is most relevant for our discussion is that "44% of users say a major reason was to meet a long-term partner and 40% say a major reason was to date casually" and "42% say online dating has made the search for a long-term partner easier." (Emily Vogels and Colleen McClain, Key findings about online dating in the U.S., Feb. 2, 2023, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/)

In September 2023, Business Insider published an article titled "Gen Z has a new type of relationship called a 'situationship,' and it could be the future of dating." The article quotes Elizabeth Armstrong, the University of Michigan Department of Sociology chair, who defines a situationship "as an ongoing sexual or romantic liaison that lasts six months or more that one or both parties don't see as going anywhere... It's something that has stepped off the relationship escalator in terms of progress, like moving towards cohabitation, marriage, or some kind of greater seriousness." The term situationship seems to have gained popularity with the rise of TikTok. As of September 2023, when the article was published, the #situationship hashtag on TikTok had collectively amassed more than 5.5 billion views. The article also cites a report conducted by Tinder in 2022, which "indicated the top dating trend among singles from age 18 to 25 was that they were 'owning the situationship as a valid relationship status.'" (Amanda Goh, Sept. 20, 2023, Gen Z has a new type of relationship called a 'situationship' and it could be the future of dating, https://www.businessinsider.com/situationship-dating-trend-young-singles-relationship-status-gen-z-2023-9)

With the rise of online dating and more casual approaches to dating, it is more difficult now to discern what counts as a dating relationship. In M.A. v. B.F., the Court found that particular friends-with-benefit relationship did not meet the statutory definition of a "dating relationship." (99 Cal.App.5th 559, 562.) However, the Dissent believed the definition of a "dating relationship" should be interpreted more broadly: "Family Code section 6210 should be interpreted to encompass many types of modern relationships, which are continuously evolving due to the influence of various factors, including social media, and to provide greater protection to victims of domestic violence, not less." (Id. at 577-78.)

So, what is a dating relationship these days? Would you grant the restraining order for A against B? It depends...