Rethinking Couple’s Intimacy in Contemporary Society
Introduction
In contemporary society, intimacy between couples has undergone significant transformation, shaped by evolving cultural norms, digital technology, changing gender roles, and shifting expectations around emotional and sexual connection. While traditionally understood in terms of physical closeness and romantic bonding, intimacy today has expanded into a multidimensional concept encompassing emotional vulnerability, digital connection, and personal autonomy. With rising rates of cohabitation without marriage, declining sexual frequency among younger adults, and the increasing normalization of non-monogamous relationships, the framework within which intimacy is understood must be re-evaluated. This blog explores the changing contours of intimacy among couples, identifying how societal changes, technology, and personal identity are reshaping what it means to be close to another person in the 21st century—drawing from historical, anthropological, and psychotherapeutic perspectives.
The Shift in Cultural Norms and Relationship Models
Historically, intimacy – in some cultures – was strongly associated with marriage and family structure, where physical proximity and emotional dependence were central to coupledom. However, the very notion of intimacy in intimate partnerships was not universally conceptualized as it is today. In ancient Greek society, for instance, the ideal of intimacy in heterosexual marriage was relatively limited. Marriages were primarily seen as economic and social arrangements. Emotional and intellectual intimacy were often sought outside the marital relationship, particularly in homoerotic relationships between older and younger men (pederasty), which were highly ritualized and culturally sanctioned.
Similarly, in ancient Rome, marital intimacy was rarely romantic. Roman elites viewed marriage as a civic duty, often arranged for political alliances or inheritance concerns. The Roman poet Ovid, in his Ars Amatoria, highlighted the strategies of seduction and pleasure, but within a framework that often separated love and duty. Romantic or sexual desire, especially for elite men, was frequently satisfied through extramarital affairs, concubines, or courtesans, suggesting that the modern ideal of romantic partnership built on mutual emotional and sexual intimacy is historically recent and culturally specific.
Contemporary relationships, in contrast, often emphasize emotional compatibility, shared values, and personal growth. A growing openness to diverse relationship models—such as long-distance partnerships, polyamory, and consensual non-monogamy—reflects this shift. These arrangements challenge the assumption that intimacy requires exclusivity or physical closeness. Many couples now define their relationships on their own terms, crafting unique arrangements that accommodate both emotional security and individual freedom.
Anthropological studies support this view of intimacy as a culturally constructed phenomenon. Among the Mosuo people of China, often referred to as one of the last matrilineal societies, the concept of “walking marriages” allows women to choose their lovers without cohabitation or economic dependency. Relationships are based on mutual affection, but the emphasis is on personal autonomy rather than co-residence or long-term obligation. In Trobriand Islander society, as studied by Bronisław Malinowski, premarital sex and casual romantic liaisons were culturally accepted and even celebrated, though marriage was tied to kinship and clan alliances more than romantic intimacy. The Na people of China are a non-monogamous, non-cohabiting kinship structure. Within this group there is no expectation of monogamy or exclusive emotional bonds in partnerships. The Na people (closely related to the Mosuo) practice a kinship system in which sexual relationships are casual and non-exclusive, and partners do not cohabit. Maternal uncles, not fathers, raise children. This ethnic group defies the Western emphasis on fatherhood, emotional exclusivity, and the household as the unit of family.
These examples demonstrate that the Western nuclear model of emotionally exclusive, cohabiting, monogamous couples is neither universal nor timeless. Western model is historically recent. Before industrialization, European households often included extended kin, servants, apprentices, and non-relatives. Romantic love and emotional exclusivity were not primary criteria for marriage, which was often an economic or social arrangement. In the West, the emotionally exclusive, romantic, nuclear family model is a relatively modern invention, solidified during the 19th and 20th centuries.
The Impact of Technology on Intimacy
One of the most significant forces reshaping intimacy today is digital technology. While technology enables couples to stay connected across distances through messaging, video calls, and social media, it also introduces new challenges. Digital communication can enhance connection, but it can also lead to superficial interactions, reduced face-to-face engagement, and a paradoxical sense of isolation even within relationships.
Historically, intimacy had to be cultivated through physical proximity or handwritten correspondence over long distances. In earlier societies, time and space imposed natural limits on communication, which often lent a different rhythm to relational development. In contrast, modern digital culture allows for constant contact, which can blur the boundaries between emotional presence and physical absence.
Dating apps and social media platforms have contributed to the commodification of romantic relationships. The availability of endless options can foster a “grass is greener” mindset, undermining long-term commitment and deep emotional intimacy. Moreover, constant exposure to curated depictions of other relationships on platforms and or social media can lead to unrealistic expectations and dissatisfaction within one’s own partnership.
At the same time, technology offers opportunities for novel forms of intimacy. Couples can share playlists, play games together online, or co-watch shows virtually. For long-distance partners, such digital rituals can become meaningful expressions of closeness. Additionally, technology has enabled more open communication about sex, mental health, and emotions, particularly through platforms that offer educational resources, therapy access, and anonymous forums.
Emotional Intimacy and the Rise of Therapeutic Culture
The rise of mental health awareness and therapeutic culture has significantly influenced how couples engage with emotional intimacy. Emotional expression, once stigmatized or constrained by gender norms, is now seen as essential to healthy relationships. Therapy, both individual and couples-based, has become more normalized, encouraging people to explore attachment styles, communication patterns, and emotional needs.
This emphasis on emotional literacy is a relatively modern development. In many pre-modern societies, emotional intimacy was neither expected nor prioritized within marriage. Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, in his structuralist analyses, noted that in many kinship-based societies, marriage was a system for exchanging women between groups to forge alliances—not to satisfy individual romantic desires or emotional needs.
Today’s emphasis on emotional labour—the ability to recognize and respond to a partner’s emotional states—is part of a broader shift toward psychological individualism. This is particularly salient in an age of increasing psychological stress, where partners are often expected to be each other’s primary source of emotional support. While this can deepen connection, it can also place strain on relationships, especially if one or both partners lack the tools or energy to consistently provide this level of support.
Moreover, the language of therapy—terms like “boundaries,” “trauma,” “gaslighting,” and “attachment styles”—has entered everyday discourse, reshaping how people perceive and navigate intimacy. On the one hand, this vocabulary can empower couples to understand and articulate their experiences more effectively. On the other, it can pathologize normal relational tensions or be misused to avoid vulnerability.
Sexual Intimacy in the Age of Anxiety and Liberation
Sexual intimacy, long regarded as a cornerstone of romantic relationships, is also undergoing re-examination. Studies suggest that despite growing sexual openness and access to sexual content, many couples are having less sex than previous generations. Contributing factors include stress, busy lifestyles, mental health issues, and overexposure to digital media.
Looking back, sexual norms across cultures have varied widely. In classical Greece, sexuality was often not restricted by binary ideas of heterosexuality or monogamy. Symposia, or elite male gatherings, frequently included sexual relationships between older and younger men, framed within pedagogical and philosophical traditions. In pre-colonial African societies, such as the Nuer of Sudan, marriage often included sexual expectations, but romantic love was not necessarily a precondition for sexual intimacy or marriage.
At the same time, contemporary society is increasingly inclusive in its understanding of sexual identity and desire. A growing number of individuals identify as asexual, demisexual, or on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum, expanding traditional notions of what sexual intimacy looks like. Couples are more likely to discuss desires, boundaries, and consent openly, leading to more fulfilling and respectful sexual relationships.
Some couples are also re-evaluating the centrality of sex in their relationship, placing more emphasis on non-sexual touch, emotional attunement, and shared experiences. This reflects a broader cultural recognition that intimacy is multifaceted and not limited to sexual expression.
Gestalt Therapy and the Reconstruction of Intimacy
Given the profound shifts in how intimacy is conceptualized and practiced, psychotherapy offers important tools for navigating these transitions. Among the many therapeutic modalities, Gestalt therapy provides a particularly relevant framework for addressing modern relational challenges. Rooted in existential philosophy and phenomenology, Gestalt therapy emphasizes awareness, presence, and the integration of experience—elements central to cultivating authentic intimacy.
A Gestalt therapist working with couples focuses on helping each partner increase awareness of their present-moment experiences—emotional, cognitive, and bodily—and explores how unresolved patterns from the past may be interfering with connection in the present. This is especially useful in modern relationships, where emotional language may be abundant, but embodied relational presence is often lacking.
Rather than analysing the relationship abstractly, as Gestalt therapist, I would invite partners into direct, real-time dialogue, exploring how they interrupt closeness, avoid vulnerability, or project unmet needs onto each other. For example, one partner may complain about emotional distance, but as their therapist I may help them notice how they themselves withdraw or close off in moments of potential connection.
Key strategies include:
- Here-and-Now Processing: Staying with what is happening between partners in the moment, using tools like sentence completions (“When you said that, I felt…”) to deepen awareness.
- Awareness of Contact and Withdrawal: Helping partners notice how they move toward or away from intimacy—through posture, tone, or silence.
- Working with Polarities: Exploring inner conflicts, such as the desire for independence versus closeness, and integrating these parts rather than acting them out in the relationship.
- Dialogical Relationship: Modeling authentic, two-way engagement, which mirrors the mutual respect needed for modern intimacy.
- Body Awareness: Reconnecting with somatic cues—breath, tension, energy—can help partners move from conceptual understanding to embodied presence.
In a culture where intimacy is often idealized but difficult to sustain, Gestalt therapy offers couples a way to experience one another more fully.
Conclusion: Finding Our Own Paths to Intimacy & Eroticism
At its core, intimacy is not a one‑size‑fits‑all project. Mainstream ideals—monogamy, constant passion, perfect emotional expressiveness—are powerful, but they’re also shaped by culture, media, tradition. For many of us, they can feel inspiring; for others, they feel oppressive or mismatched to our personalities or situations.
Intimacy is not a static achievement—it is a continuous, evolving practice. It asks us to stay curious, to risk vulnerability, to choose connection even when it’s hard. It invites eroticism not as a permanent blaze, but as a vital flame we tend with care, imagination, and freedom.
Your path can be one you build, and rebuild, in ways that feel alive. Your relationship can become not just a refuge—but a space where you grow, explore, surprise one another, and choose love freely.
What seems essential is finding your own way—what feels deeply real, nourishing, erotic, honest.
Simone de Beauvoir affirmed that: “Authentic love must be founded on reciprocal recognition of two freedoms.”
This reminds us that love thrives when both partners retain and respect each other’s autonomy, rather than one subsuming the other.
A relationship grounded in respect and genuine knowledge of the other helps avoid the trap of using love as possession or control.
“If intimacy grows through repetition and familiarity, eroticism is numbed by repetition. It thrives on the mysterious, the novel, and the unexpected. Love is about having; desire is about wanting”, affirms Esther Perel.
Eroticism requires ongoing renewal—curiosity, surprise, mystery—not just comfort and sameness.
What seems important is to define your own values around intimacy and eroticism. What forms of closeness matter to you? What feels dangerous but alive? Talking with your partner about what feels good, what feels missing, what boundaries you need. Negotiate terms that suit both your needs. Keep mystery and novelty alive: surprise, unpredictability, play, small rituals that break routine. Honour both togetherness and separateness. Intimacy often needs space. Recognize that intimacy ebbs and flows: there will be times of closeness and times of distance. Last but not least, the key is willingness to repair, reconnect, and adjust.
This blog has been edited with the support of AI.