In Bates v. State, Op. No. 2310, 258 P.3d 851, 2011 WL 2177298, at 12 (Alaska App. June 3, 2011) the Court concluded that the traditional vagueness test does not apply to the definitions used in this evidence rule. The evidence rule does not restrict anyone's freedom of choice or freedom of association. The alleged ambiguity in this definition does not deprive anyone of fair notice of what conduct the law requires or forbids; it only determines what evidence will be admissible at trial. And any ambiguity in the term "dating" presents no danger of discriminatory enforcement since the term has no bearing on the elements of the crime of assault.