9.2: Intimate Relationships
- Page ID
- 167212
Intimate relationships have the capacity to make us feel happy, healthy, and fulfilled. We experience higher self-efficacy, self-esteem, and positivity when we believe that our friends and partners are responding to us supportively, and with a concern for our needs and our own welfare. Our relationships with others help us buffer the negative effects of stress, avoid unhealthy behaviors, and cope with serious physical illness. And our close relationships allow us to express our fundamental desires to reach out and respond to other people.
Often, people point to a monogamous (having a sexual relationship with only one partner at a time), heterosexual, married couple to exemplify a loving and committed relationship. In most cultures around the world, heterosexuality, monogamy and marriage are perceived to be the standard type of relationship that all others are held in contrast to. However, there is far greater diversity in the types of loving and committed relationships. In this chapter, we will discuss a number of different relationships with differing views on monogamy, in terms of sexual orientation, and different views on whether to get married or to cohabit.
A recent film on the concept of monogamy explores the ways in which culture drives the types of relationships we consider. This film also delves into the ways in which we blame ourselves if we don’t thrive in a monogamous relationship. Monogamish | Official Trailer - Directed by Tao Ruspoli (Abramorama Films)
Same Sex Relationships
Social acceptance of same-sex relationships varies substantially throughout cultures and societies. Over the last few decades, same-sex relationships have changed more than heterosexual relationships. Some cultures became more tolerant and legally recognize same-sex unions. In the US marriage equality (same-sex marriage) was recognized and legalized nationwide in 2015. Research shows that same-sex and different-sex relationships operate in similar ways (Kurdek, 2004), and these couples tend to be as committed to each other and contented as different-sex couples, and the quality of their relationship is similar too.
Some Relationship Styles
Monogamous relationships are viewed positively in the modern Western world as relationships that promote strong commitment and health. Non-monogamy is often stigmatized and viewed as illegitimate. Half the states in the United States have laws against sex outside of marriage, although these laws are rarely enforced (Sex and the Law | Nolo). One study found that 75% of Americans believe that extramarital sex was unacceptable and should not be tolerated. However, the research on the incidence of extramarital affairs varies greatly. Many people think that sexual desire drives an extramarital affair; however, research has found that over 90% of extramarital affairs occur because the current relationship does not meet person’s emotional needs. Men are approximately three times more likely than women to say that a partner’s sexual intercourse with another person was more upsetting than a partner’s emotional attachment to that person (Shackelford, et al.). Men also find it more difficult than women to forgive sexual vs. emotional infidelity, and are more likely to say they would break up in response to sexual vs. emotional infidelity (Shackelford, et al.).
Some couples in committed relationships open up their relationship, and encourage their partners to have an extra-relationship affairs or to bring other partners into their bed, believing that sexual variety and experience may enhance their own sexual life. In an online survey (Rubin et al., 2014), 5% of participants said that they have an explicit agreement with their partner that they accept sexual or romantic pursuit outside of their relationship, and are practicing some form of consensual non-monogamy. According to a national US survey, about 21% reported that they were in some kind of open relationship at some point in their life. Consensual non-monogamy is also called ethical non-monogamy when involved parties strongly advocate for being honest with each other. Some people believe that consensual non-monogamy is one way to fight the habituation of desire, because introducing new sexual partners helps to keep sex interesting.
Open relationships generally have a “home base,” but partners are free to have other relationships at the same time. Some open relationships adopt a policy of non-disclosure, and some require full disclosure of their outside sexual experiences. Co-marital sex refers to the consenting of married couples to sexually exchange partners who are often referred to as swinging or polyamory. Polyamory is the idea that it is possible to love multiple people simultaneously. It is different from polygamy because a polyamorous person may or not be married, but the emphasis is mostly on building intimate relationships and not on recreational sex. Most couples who engage in co-marital sex have strict rules to protect their “home base” relationship, and see sex as separate from their loving long-term relationship.
Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse at a time. There are two types of polygamy arrangements: polygyny, when one man has multiple wives and polyandry, when one woman has multiple husbands. Both polygyny and polyandry are believed to be adaptive practices. Polygyny is rarely practiced in the United States. There are some small Mormon fundamentalist groups that practice it; however, they are not officially recognized by the Mormon Church. Polygyny was believed to have been developed in order to increase fertility to increase a greater number of offspring carrying a man’s gene. However, it is likely that polygyny developed as a strategy for men to gain prestige and power by having several wives, and for women to gain the protection of a wealthy and powerful man. Polyandry is a practice of having more than one husband at a time and it is less common that polygyny. It usually happens for a reason of keeping inheritance together, and to be protected from a scenario when just one partner may potentially have a gene defect.
Cohabitation and Marriage
In recent years the institution of marriage, the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship, has declined worldwide, but cohabitation has increased dramatically. (Cohn, Passel, Wang, & Livingston, 2011). Cohabitation is when a couple are living together in a sexual relationship when the partners are not legally married. Cohabitation has become so common that sociologists regard it as a stage of courtship. Cohabitation is sometimes, but not always, a precursor to marriage. It allows couples to learn more about each other’s habits and practices without being legally tied together. Cohabitation allows couples to mature together and create a partnership, regardless of if they decide to marry. Research shows that different-sex couples who cohabit are less likely to subscribe to traditional gender roles, and tend to have more equality in their relationships. (Blackwell & Lichter, 2000). However, at this point society as a whole does not legally recognize the cohabitation union for the purpose of health care, taxes, inheritance, etc. If a legal relationship is desired by people in cohabiting relationships, they can become domestic partners. Domestic Partnership, a legal relationship between couples, allows them to obtain many of the same benefits as a marriage, formalizing cohabitation. In the US, thirteen states recognize common-law marriage, which means that if a couple lives together for a certain number of years, they are automatically considered as married in the eyes of the law.
The meaning and purpose of marriage, and the manner in which spouses are selected, varies across cultures. For instance, in some cultures, like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, and South Korea, the practice of arranged marriage, a marriage planned and agreed upon by the families of the couple to be married, is common, although the details differ depending on the cultural practices so not all arranged marriages look alike. These cultures tend to be collectivistic, where the needs of the family and community are placed above the needs of the individual. In contrast, Western cultures are considered to be more individualistic, and marriage is viewed as a matter of individual choice. Although many cultures have a tradition of arranged marriage, Western researchers interested in marital dynamics generally have focused on love-based marriages. A 2012 study entitled Relationship Outcomes in Indian-American Love-Based and Arranged Marriages by Regan et. al. compared relationship outcomes in love-based and arranged marriages contracted in the U.S. A community sample of 58 Indian participants living in the U.S. (28 arranged marriages, 30 love-based marriages) completed measures of marital satisfaction, commitment, companionate love, and passionate love. Men reported greater amounts of commitment, passionate love, and companionate love than women. Unexpectedly, no differences were found between participants in arranged and love-based marriages; high ratings of love, satisfaction, and commitment were observed in both marriage types. The overall affective experiences of partners in arranged and love marriages appear to be similar, at least among Indian adults living in contemporary U.S. society (Regan, Lakhanpal, Anguiano, 2012). According a 2012 study Reexamining the case for marriage: Union Formation and Changes in Wellbeing by Relationship by Musick, K. and Bampass, L. an advantage of a long-term relationship is better physical and psychological health than those who remain single, and these benefits extend to married and cohabitating partners as well (Musick & Bumpass, 2012). However, the study noted that being partnered provides more health benefits to men in heterosexual partnerships than women. The authors conclude that it is likely that those women studied tended to have more sources of social and emotional support outside of their primary relationships.
What is a relationship? As we learn, grow and inhabit (or discard) multiple intersectional identities, we have a variety of them throughout our lives. Relationships are important to most people as they help shape and determine both how we see and navigate through the world. How does bias and cultural norms dictate, implicitly and explicitly, the boundaries of these connections and roles. As individuals we can recognize that the types of relationships we might have are as fluid as other identities we are assigned or adopt through life; for example, spouse, partner, sibling, child, teenager, adult, parental guardian, friend, colleague, mentor, boss, teacher as well as gender and sexual identities. However, the most rigid normative relationship identity that is enforced through societal status is one of monogamy.
Monogamy in both heteronormative and queer relationships are often defined as a one-to-one partnership that is typically intimate and exclusionary of any other partner. This is the relationship style that is reinforced and held up as the only available option throughout most of western culture, society and media. To its credit, even considering the massive divorce rate, monogamy works great for a lot of people. Maybe it even works for you or someone you know but what about the folkx that it doesn’t work for? Equally fulfilling relationship styles and formations do exist but they are not the default. Polyamory is one such relationship identity that provides for romantic fulfillment similar to monogamy.
As monogamy is the default in most relationships, we have absorbed and internalized most of the unwritten and codified rules and boundaries that define a monogamous relationship. However, misconceptions abound when defining polyamory due to the bias and stereotypes imposed on it as the non-dominant style. Polyamory with its fluid construction is often wrongly portrayed in modern media as a replacement or in competition to monogamy when in fact it operates in parallel with it. Imagine both types as railroad tracks headed in the same direction rather than greater than/less than signs angrily pointed at each other.
Let’s talk about what a polyamorous relationship is and isn’t. Two major misconceptions are that it is strictly physical and it is just an excuse to cheat. Poly is often conflated with open relationships and/or swinging. These are not polyamorous relationships. Polyamorous relationships are defined by transparent communication and boundary setting as well as the consent of all parties. Considering that relationships types under the polygamous umbrella are mutually self-defined and fluid, it is challenging to strictly define all the variations that exist but in general they fall into a few loosely defined categories.
The most common types of polyamory are partner-plus; egalitarian network partnerships sometimes referred to as relationship anarchy (RA) and solo or centered polyamory. All of these might also have attributes and agreements that can include terms like ethical non-monogamy, poly-secure and poly-fidelity. Partner-plus is typically additive and hierarchical; for example, this is when two partners (who are typically married or in a long-term relationship) add a third or fourth individual partner but the activities that those additive partners engage in are well-defined and secondary. Imagine that Alex and Jaiden are the primary partners in a relationship, a third partner, Dylan who is dating Alex share some relationship characteristics and intimacy like going on dates and engaging in shared interests. However, Dylan isn’t included in making large primary relationship decisions for Alex and Jaiden like where to live, career advancement and child-rearing. Egalitarian network partnerships or relationship anarchy polyamory, in contrast and as the name suggests operate in a non-hierarchical fashion. Imagine Billy, Dakota and Kai are in this type of poly relationship: No one partner is the primary partner, all partners have an equitable share in making long-term relationship decisions. This is perhaps the most common type of polyamorous relationship making up the majority of the twenty or so percent of folkx in the United States and Canada who are poly and is commonly called a thruple. Thruples are also often characterized as having poly-fidelity or being a closed intimate relationship between the three partners. Solo polyamory is less common but is growing in popularity especially among individuals who identify as asexual, aero or ace. Individuals who engage in these types of relationships often never marry or live with their partners and can be described colloquially as “living together, apart”.
A common reaction to these types of relationships is one of, “I can never do that, I would get jealous.” Jealousy is, of course, not unique to either monogamous or polyamorous relationships. Surprisingly, most long-term poly relationships have a lower reporting rate of jealousy as the reason for breaking up and ending. The research suggests that this is due to the increased focus on transparent communication and consent, emotional literacy and the purposeful development of compersion within the relationship. Compersion -the joy of seeing others experience joy- isn’t often an emotion that is explicitly discussed within monogamous relationships as it is intertwined with its opposites, namely jealousy and shame. Individuals who practice polyamory cultivate and recognize compersion for their partner by acknowledging that jealousy is inevitable in all relationships: Instead of burying those feelings of jealousy in shame and hurt, they celebrate the joys of their partners even if they aren’t the direct source of that joy.
Obviously, successful long-term polyamorous relationships exist and these relationships often share the same goals as monogamous relationships using the definitions above. Why then are they impacted by bias and discrimination when viewed through a western lens. One answer might be found by examining both the historical and economic pressures of long-term relationships as well as the sociological construction of the individualistic family unit. Historically, many marriages were seen as transactional often for financial or political security. Highlighting and following this trend from the 18th and 19th century well into the explosive growth of corporate capitalism in 1940’s and 50’s America, it aligns with the most successful marketing campaign of the last century. The diamond is forever campaign by DeBeers is synonymous with equating monetary worth, winning and competitive success with values like monogamy, love and the normative family unit. It is also synonymous with conflict diamonds, monopolization of both the supply and demand side of a natural resource as well as the creation and perpetuation of what is today’s exploitative wedding industry. These norms often work in concert with imagery found throughout media like the Disneyfication of relationship roles which infantize both parties as well as movies and music that capitalize on the idea that one (and only one) special partner should be able to fulfill all the needs in a relationship and that partner must be “won” and “possessed” forever. This seems to mirror and reinforce the idea that the only relationship of value and worth is one that holds the shape of monogamy. This stands in opposition with a more communal pooling of resources for duties like family planning or child rearing common in more non-western facing cultures.
Why is monogamy the default while long-term polyamorous relationships are frequently looked upon with bias and derision? Perhaps, it is only a coincidence that the type of monogamy that is continually reinforced via media, cultural norms and government practices often benefit those that sell the idea of the one and only relationship model often to the financial detriment of the individual couple.