Intimacy in a marriage* is not something that is present or absent any more than autism in an individual is either present or absent. Just as a person can be described in terms of being somewhere on the continuum of Autism Spectrum Disorder, a marriage can be described in terms of where it is on a spectrum of intimacy.
Describing the level of intimacy in a marriage is much more complex and nuanced than simply noting the frequency of sexual encounters. Even the way one chooses to label such encounters—e.g. “having sex” or “making love”—says something about the level of intimacy involved. Of course there are many other patterns of interaction in a couple, from holding hands to making deep eye contact to talking deeply about the joys and heartbreaks in their lives, that determine the level of intimacy and where that couple would be placed on the spectrum of intimacy.
The level of intimacy in a long-term relationship can be expected to move over time toward the deeper end of the spectrum of intimacy if all goes well. However the rate at which it deepens is a very delicate matter that involves a careful blending of three factors in the personality of each partner: desire for intimacy, ability to tolerate intimacy, and preferred modes of experiencing intimacy. Most marital infidelity is a result of the failure of the couple to find a way to blend or integrate their differences on these three factors.
When one person wants more intimacy than the other seems willing or able to provide there is a tendency to seek it in an affair outside the marriage, whether or emotional or sexual. This desire for intimacy, or for a particular mode of experiencing intimacy, is the usual explanation for marital infidelity.
However, I think most infidelity is actually a function of the inability to tolerate intimacy rather than the desire for more intimacy or for a particular mode of experiencing intimacy. Keeping the secret of an affair puts a huge constraint on the extent to which one can be spontaneous with one’s spouse since there is a need to always be vigilant about guarding the secret. Spontaneity is a vital component to any deepening of intimacy, since it allows one to reveal aspects of one’s inner world without editing or censorship. When the secret of the affair is being guarded the intimacy in the marriage is therefore being greatly diluted, and this dilution can be a great relief to a person whose spouse is asking for more intimacy than he or she can comfortably tolerate. The one who is unfaithful may paradoxically claim that a desire for more intimacy has driven him or her to look outside the marriage for it, but the deeper—and often entirely unconscious–motivation is the desire to dilute the intimacy already present in the marriage. Of course if there is still more intimacy than can be comfortably tolerated then the affair can somehow be allowed to be revealed, seemingly unintentionally. In this case the destruction of trust in the spouse can usually be counted on to further dilute, if not destroy, the intimacy in the marriage.
Most of us enter into marriage with very little idea of how deep the intimacy can get, how little we know about how to live in such intimacy, and the profound payoff such intimacy can bring. Few of us realize at the outset that being more deeply intimate with another allows us to be more deeply intimate with ourselves. If we can be sufficiently intimate with ourselves, come to know more deeply who we really are, we open up the possibility of knowing very important things about ourselves. Included in these is knowing something about that which calls to us most deeply and can, if we answer the call, give our lives a sense of purpose. If we can then find the courage to live that purpose, another task that our mate can help us accomplish, we can live our lives with joy and meaning.
In addition to being supported by a mate, some of us are lucky enough to get help from wise elders, psychotherapists, clergy, or close friends before we do great damage to our relationships through infidelity. Others have to turn to such resources to try to repair the damage once it is done.
*Although I use the term “marriage” these ideas apply to any long-term committed relationship.
John Rhead
10-29-12
rev 8-14-13
Addendum 12-19-12
After reading Harriet Lerner’s book, Marriage Rules, it occurred to me that the idea of tolerance for intimacy may have something to do with the honeymoon period in a marriage. This early period of falling in love and living in love is usually attributed to a process of projection in which one projects onto one’s new love all kinds of positive attributes, making him or her seem almost divine. It is assumed that the honeymoon ends when the projections are withdrawn, presumably because they are overwhelmed by the reality of a quite imperfect person who can be very disappointing at times. An alternative to the projection hypothesis of the honeymoon arises when one takes into account the ability of each person to tolerate intimacy. This alternative hypothesis would hold that the perception of the other during the honeymoon is in fact unique because it is particularly accurate, rather than something that is distorted by projection. One may actually see something of the divinity in the other when one falls in love. In fact it may be this perception of the divinity in the other that causes one to fall in love. Now the question becomes whether one can tolerate the intimacy that arises in such a circumstance. If not, then one ends the honeymoon by focusing in all the disappointing. aspects of the partner’s personality, and ignoring the inner divinity that was glimpsed in the beginning of the relationship.