2. Psychology of Love: Different Forms of Love Relationships | Consonance (Gleichklang)

Inhalt

Psychology of Love: Forms of Love Relationships | Consonance (Gleichklang)

The psychology of love has extensively studied these different forms of love relationships. We often think very little about the fact that there are various ways of shaping life and relationships. Often, people believe they quickly know who they are, what another person should be like, and how they imagine a relationship.

If we did, some would certainly conclude that they too quickly assumed a standard model, even though they could have been just as happy or even happier with an alternative model.

Many of our beliefs about how a relationship should be lived have no firm foundation. They are often based on unexamined assumptions, the adoption of social norms, or a lack of imagination, self‑reflection, and openness. Fears and inhibitions can also be a cause of premature commitments and the exclusion of alternative possibilities.

Thinking beyond the horizon can protect us from premature commitments and self‑imposed constraints.

So now it is about reflecting on your brainstorming once again, reviewing it, and correcting it if necessary.

Please read the following detailed information and suggestions carefully in order to gain new insights for the final review process.

While reading, continuously ask yourself whether what you have read also applies to you and whether it could be a possibility for a happy life and relationship design for you as well.

Pay attention to both your feelings and your reason, without prematurely discarding possibilities. Try to develop openness and, if necessary, even identify various constellations in which you could be happy.

Sometimes the mind may forbid things or make them seem impossible, which, upon closer reflection, turn out to be possible and desirable. Or feelings of rejection may arise that change when you reach a new intellectual‑cognitive evaluation.

Conversely, initially positive feelings may change when you reevaluate the foundations to which they refer in a process of self‑reflection.

Imagination exercises can be helpful, in which you close your eyes, relax, and in this relaxed state imagine the respective constellations, then ask yourself whether these would be conceivable for you.

Such imagination exercises can help dissolve mental blocks, check or change feelings, and discover new experiential possibilities for yourself. Likewise, it may of course become clear to you in this way that a particular constellation is certainly not an option for you.

People are multifaceted and can often become happy in various ways.

One example: Perhaps you currently think that professional recognition, prestige, and a high income are necessary for your happiness.

But are you sure you could not be just as happy if you lived simply, modestly, and close to nature?

Indeed, it is repeatedly described that people who orient themselves toward the principles of simplicity, self‑sufficiency, and minimalism and thus free themselves from baggage find greater lightness and more life happiness (Lloyd and Pennington, 2020). Would you have thought that?

Some people find unprecedented life happiness after dramatic biographical ruptures. Others continue a rather unfulfilling everyday life unchanged, without questioning it, so that they may end up asking themselves what they even lived for.

In other words: starting a partner search and wanting to enter into a relationship is also a good time to think again about your own values and consider possibilities for change.

If this reflection does not take place, there is a danger that you will too quickly and automatically bring expectations to relationship partners and relationships that may lead to a preservation of an unsatisfactory status quo.

Therefore, recognize your current singlehood as an opportunity and use the time of partner search as a significant phase in your development that can reveal potential for change.

When you were just noting down your keywords about yourself, the other person, and the desired relationship, had you already thought about all these matters and considered possible alternatives?

In the following section, it will be about the fact that there is no one true love. Also pay attention here to whether, while reading, you recognize aspects and topics that you have paid little or no attention to in the past and that you would now like to bring more to the forefront in a new relationship.

Various Forms of Love

There is no one single possible true love. Because: just as people differ from other people in what they wish for from a partnership and how they want to shape it, these differences also exist within oneself. Therefore, you too can become happy in very different ways.

Relationship happiness can be possible even if potential partners have completely different characteristics. Also, very different ways of shaping a relationship may lead to relationship happiness.

Let the following three different psychological models of love inspire you:

Six love styles according to Lee (1976)
33 dimensions of love according to Karandashev and Clapp (2014, 2016)
Passionate and companionate love according to Hatfield and Rapson (1993, 1996)

While reading, always ask yourself how strongly the aspects of love described shaped your past relationships for better or worse. Also ask yourself which models and characteristics you want to develop in a future love relationship, but also what you want to do without in the future and what is definitely not (or no longer) an option for you.

Do not view the following detailed presentations on love merely as information transfer, but pause again and again and relate what has been described to your own relationship experiences, wishes, and plans.

Love Styles According to Lee

As early as 1976, the Canadian sociologist John Alan Lee distinguished between the six love styles of romantic love, friendship love, possessive love, pragmatic love, playful love, and self‑sacrificing love.

Six styles, in their temporally fluctuating combination, can already lead to great individual diversity:

If we simplistically assume that a love style can only be present or not, the pure combination of six styles already yields 720 different possibilities. This is how great the theoretical diversity of possible partnership forms is that arise from such a seemingly simple model.

The six love styles according to Lee are defined as follows:

Romantic love: This is the love often described in novels. An intense sexual‑erotic and emotional attraction is characteristic. Romantic love is characterized by tenderness, eroticism, and intimacy.

Friendship love: Knowing each other very well, understanding each other, shaping life together, appreciating and truly liking each other, caring for each other – these are the components of friendship or companionate love.

Possessive love: Over the moon with joy when love is secure, deeply saddened when partners are not there or conflicts arise. High feelings on one side, no boredom, but also much suffering, jealousy, and love pain. Irrationality up to obsession can characterize this form of love.

Pragmatic love: Relationship as a cost‑benefit analysis. Feelings are less intense and erotic passion is not present or only limited. If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of a relationship, a partnership can nevertheless be continued and even experienced as valuable. Security, finances, children, but also basic satisfaction with everyday routine are factors that can lead to a pragmatic relationship decision.

Playful love: Enjoying love like a good meal and not being sad when it is over – that is playful love. Flirting, fun, and sex, but as far as possible without drama and love torment. If both see it that way, playful love can work. If other components are added, it may even endure, but usually it dissolves at some point.

Self‑sacrificing love: Doing everything for relationship partners and making one’s own happiness dependent on the other person’s happiness. Standing by partners and staying together, not only in good and difficult times but even in the hardest times.

Freudenfeld (2002) found in a study that particularly romantic love, but also self‑sacrificing love, was associated with increased relationship satisfaction. In contrast, playful love was associated with reduced relationship satisfaction. Possessive love also showed a lesser association with lower relationship satisfaction, and only in partial components. No associations regarding relationship satisfaction were found for pragmatic and friendship love.

However, in a comprehensive meta‑study, Acevedo and Aron (2009) found that not only romantic love but also friendship love is positively related to relationship satisfaction, and in longer relationships even more strongly than in shorter ones.

How can these findings be explained?

Romantic love is associated with deep affection and tenderness, which people experience positively.

Self‑sacrificing love conveys the feeling that you can rely on each other.

Friendship love enables a peaceful shared lifestyle with shared activities.

Playful love is unquestionably beautiful in the short term, but it lacks the commitment component, which makes it rarely sustainable, especially in long‑term relationships where crises and stress also come into play.

Possessive love may be perceived as passionate, but it can also be accompanied by negative feelings, jealousy, and conflict.

Pragmatic love is emotionally rather neutral, which may explain why it has neither a pronounced negative nor a pronounced positive effect on relationship satisfaction.

With different people and relationships, the same style can lead to different outcomes:

In some relationships, possessive love may have no or only limited negative effects on relationship quality or may even make the relationship more passionate. In other relationships, however, possessive love may lead to the breakdown of love, even to murder and manslaughter.

And some people may have already experienced so many unsettling crises in relationships that they clearly prefer a more security‑oriented, generally emotionally neutral, pragmatic relationship model and are very satisfied with it. Other people, in turn, will remain unfulfilled with pragmatic love and miss the intensity of feelings.

Moreover, a style may be rather unfavorable overall, but still lead to positive results temporarily or in partial aspects:

For example, couples may emerge from a heaviness in their relationship through playful components, even if playful love alone is generally associated with lower durability.

What is your position on the love styles?

Which love styles are conceivable for you? How fixed are you on one style or a particular combination? Have you already experienced different styles in your biography? Are there styles that you absolutely do not want to tolerate in yourself or in partners? Conversely, are there styles that you have missed? Can you benefit from individual style elements without them shaping the relationship?

Despite all individuality, the following rules of thumb will usually apply – although you should understand the recommendations mentioned as suggestions that do not always have to hold true:

Playfulness often remains a game

The more strongly you feel drawn to playful love, the more sensible it may be for you to refrain from searching for a committed partnership for now and instead initially look for shorter flirts or casual erotic contacts. If you are open about it, you can meet people who feel the same way.

You feel drawn to playful love, but equally have a need for a committed relationship in the romantic sense?

You could look for a relationship in which erotic openness prevails and you experience erotic‑playful forms of love with other people, separately or together.

Indeed, the enduring desire for playfulness may make it clear that a traditional monogamous relationship is not the right relationship model for you.

Reflect critically on possessiveness

Are you positively drawn to possessive love?

This is rare, but it may occur and indicate a particular constellation of needs. Perhaps you are missing something in your life that you want to compensate for through a very strong focus on another person. Take this as a starting point to think about changes in your everyday life.

Or was it the case in the past that intensely blissful experiences occurred repeatedly in possessive constellations? This may have led to a chance association in you between possessiveness and happiness that does not have to exist, since happiness is also possible without possessiveness.

You can unlearn this association by seeking blissful experiences without possessiveness in the future.

You do not seek possessive love, but you fear yourself because you know your own jealousy?

Work on a more stable self‑esteem and on overcoming fear of loss. Practice letting go in thought and imagination. Resolve firmly to refrain from control, restrictions, and jealousy scenes. Practice this mental trial action and thus work on your self‑management.

You could, in consultation with relationship partners, even experiment with open relationship constellations in order to overcome the tormenting jealousy.

Or is your tendency toward jealousy too strong and has it already destroyed previous relationships? In that case, seek psychotherapeutic help before you begin your partner search.

Conversely, are you worried about encountering a person who is possessive and jealous? Have you perhaps already had experiences with control, restrictions, stalking, or even physical violence?

Recognize the signals and distance yourself immediately when a similar constellation begins to develop.

All too often, people fall again and again into the same destructive relationship constellation of the past. Be aware of this and nip it in the bud.

Self‑sacrifice belongs to love

Do not be afraid of self‑sacrificing love when it is mutual. Devotion and self‑sacrifice are important components of love. We do not abandon those we love.

Sometimes we have to put our own needs on the back burner because the situation of our partner demands it. However, in a relationship carried by love, we will be rewarded for this in many ways.

But make sure that no one‑sidedness occurs. Because with one‑sidedness, self‑sacrifice can turn into exploitation, creating a toxic relationship constellation.

Therefore, do not enter into any relationship in which you soon find that everything comes from you, but little from the other person. However, if you pay attention to reciprocity, self‑sacrificing love strengthens relationship happiness.

Sometimes pragmatism helps

Few people long for a pragmatically shaped love relationship. But those who have already experienced many upheavals, turmoil, and pain in relationships may see things differently.

It can be helpful not to neglect pragmatic considerations and to include the rational analysis of relationship opportunities and risks in your deliberations. This can be done in addition and does not have to contradict other styles of love.

Beyond great feelings, there can be many reasons to stay together. Even habits or material circumstances can be legitimate reasons that make life together more satisfying than a separation. Be honest with each other, name the situation as it is, and give each other freedom for other experiences.

Friendship and companionship are central

Do not underestimate friendship love. Even if magical attraction and passion decline, friendship, companionship, appreciation, and togetherness can continue to grow.

Not all relationships begin with great feelings of attraction, infatuation, or sexual passion. Sympathy, encounter, and understanding can gradually deepen into love, care, and security. Give this process a chance.

For partner search, a friendship‑based constellation is quite a good starting point from which more can develop. Do not block your chances with too high emotional expectations that simultaneously devalue the value of friendship or companionship.

Longing for romance

Strong feelings, closeness, connection, intimacy, tenderness, sexuality, and passion are integrated in romantic love. Romantic love is what most people seek. It is often found, but that does not mean that its romantic character will remain in full strength forever.

From the outset, make sure that aspects of friendship, companionship, understanding, shared activities, life goals, and compatibility are not neglected, but develop together with the romantic bond.

When romantic love occurs, the feelings are so strong that you can hardly overlook them. This distinguishes it from friendship or pragmatic love, which do not necessarily have to be perceived immediately.

Realize again that not every relationship begins with romance. Especially in middle or older age, friendship‑companionate or pragmatic aspects take up more space.

So do not fixate on your idea of romance, but be open to another beginning that may be equally valuable.

33 Dimensions of Love According to Karandashev and Clapp

Victor Karandashev and Stuart Clapp (2014) identified 33 characteristics through extensive linguistic and statistical analyses that can be observed in different degrees in lovers and their relationships.

You will recognize a number of these characteristics from the presentation of the six love styles according to Lee, but there are also many additional individual characteristics and specifications.

If we assume that love relationships can differ more or less strongly in each of these 33 characteristics, it becomes clear once again how enormous the number of possible configurations in our love experience and the shaping of our partnerships is.

When you read through the list of characteristics, you will notice that many of them are associated with opportunities, but some also contain risks and dangers. It depends on your mindfulness and the openness of communication in the partnership whether the opportunities or the risks prevail.

In your partner search, you should make sure that there is a basic match in the aspects that are central to you in shaping your love relationship. However, even if this is the case, it does not mean that the match will remain forever.

No relationship is static. In every relationship, fluctuations and shifts in the expression of these characteristics will occur over time.

Therefore, even after the successful completion of the partner search, relationship work will continue to involve maintaining, restoring, or further developing the fit and compatibility in your relationship.

However inclined we may be to classify characteristics immediately as good or bad in a black‑and‑white manner, it actually depends on the individual life situation and the people involved whether opportunities, dangers, or both arise from a characteristic or configuration.

Likewise, a lack of balance in one or more characteristics may well be compensated by important matches in other characteristics.

The goal of partner search and relationship maintenance and development is therefore not to ensure a perfect match in all characteristics, but to achieve a high overall balance.

By engaging with the various forms of love, you can clarify your own needs and fears even before finding a partner, and thus more easily initiate the right steps for partner selection and relationship building.

When you read through the list of the 33 dimensions of love according to Karandashev and Clapp, let your relationships pass in review and always consider to what extent these characteristics were present or not in your previous relationships.

Was there too much or too little of some of the characteristics? Were the characteristics balanced between you and your partners, or was there a lack of balance? How did that affect things? How can you recognize such a lack of balance in time? And which characteristics do you want to pay particular attention to in a future relationship?

These are the 33 characteristics or forms of love according to Karandashev and Clapp:

Acceptance: Differences and irritations can be accepted.
Desire: Physical‑sexual attraction, desire for tenderness and touch.
Obsession: Fixation on a person with permanent focus of thoughts, feelings, and fantasies.
Possessiveness: Jealous monitoring, restriction of contact with other people.
Admiration: Being impressed, enchantment, and fascination.
Commitment: Lasting inner obligation to stay together and stand by the other person.
Fear of abandonment: Constant fear of loss with clingy behavior.
Gratitude: Gratitude and appreciation for the relationship and shared time.
Empathy: Compassion, emotionally significant experiences of the other person are shared.
Uniqueness: The person is experienced as unique and remarkable.
Shared activities: Common interests and everyday activities.
Faith: Conviction of being with the right person, faith in their honesty and sincerity.
Devotion: Commitment to the other person up to self‑sacrifice.
Elation: Euphoria and lightness when together.
Idealization: Selective positive focusing of perception and evaluation processes, seeing only the good in everything.
Interest: Being curious and interested in the other person.
Intimacy: Deep feelings of connection and familiarity toward the other person. No fear of one’s own vulnerability, self‑disclosure, exchange of all private information and feelings.
Irrationality: Loving against common sense.
Communion: Experiencing oneself as a symbiotic unit with the person and wanting to share ideal and material goods.
Compatibility: The person is perceived as fitting.
Reciprocity: A balanced, fair give‑and‑take for mutual “benefit.” Equality and fairness characterize the relationship.
Wanting to protect: Doing something to preserve the well‑being of the person. Taking responsibility and care for all physical or mental impairments. Advocating for the other person’s well‑being and wishing them no harm or causing none.
Longing: Strong desire for closeness and close connection. Missing the other person when absent.
Self‑improvement: Experiencing strength, meaning, and self‑optimization through the other person.
Concern for well‑being: Being concerned when the other person’s well‑being is impaired. Being upset when the person is attacked or threatened by others.
Comfort and strengthening: Feeling of relief from physical and mental discomfort through the other person. Being together reduces fears and physical closeness strengthens well‑being.
Taking responsibility: Giving advice, solving problems, fulfilling wishes, and supporting the other person in all areas.
Connectedness: Ecstatic feeling of connectedness and togetherness.
Forgiveness: Accepting the other person with their mistakes. This includes being able to accept weaknesses, not holding grudges, and forgiving even genuine injustice.
Being able to rely on: Being able to rely on someone, feeling protected, feeling understood.
Understanding: Appreciative understanding of the other person’s feelings, thoughts, actions, and needs.
Trust: Having trust in the person, believing what they report, being able to ask them for help, expressing one’s own feelings openly and authentically, feeling safe in doing so.
Affection: Stable feeling of affection toward the person.

When you relate these 33 dimensions of love to the six love styles according to Lee, you will find a number of overlaps. Both models have basically arrived at similar results using different methods:

Possessiveness in the Karandashev and Clapp model corresponds most closely to the possessive love style according to Lee, although this style additionally includes fear of loss, low trust, longing, irrationality, and possibly obsession. With Karandashev and Clapp, the love styles are examined in a more finely differentiated way, so to speak.
Romantic love according to Lee is represented in Karandashev and Clapp, for example, in desire, intimacy, affection, elation, the ecstatic impression of shared life.
Friendship love manifests itself in Karandashev and Clapp in empathy, shared activities, interest, comfort and strengthening, trust, but also – together with the romantic style – in intimacy and affection.
The pragmatic love style manifests itself in compatibility and acceptance, although compatibility can also be perceived less rationally but rather emotionally and ecstatically.
The self‑sacrificing love style converges with the dimension of devotion, with wanting to protect, comfort and strength, concern for well‑being, and commitment added.

The playful love style, on the other hand, is hardly represented in the dimensions of Karandashev and Clapp. Basically, this style refers more to flirting and eroticism and not to a partnership in the narrower sense. On the other hand, playful elements can certainly be present in relationships. They are missing in the Karandashev and Clapp model.

Conversely, a number of dimensions according to Karandashev and Clapp, such as admiration, uniqueness, faith, forgiveness, or self‑improvement, are barely or only rudimentarily represented in Lee’s love styles model.

Both models share the conception of love as a highly complex construct composed of a multitude of characteristics and thus having countless individual forms of expression.

Because there is no one kind of love, it is up to you to find out what kind of love you aspire to and want to find in your partner search.

Perhaps there are various alternatives with which you could be happy. It is worth knowing what we are looking for, because otherwise we may not recognize it when we have found it. Many people suffer for a long time from not having taken advantage of an opportunity for love and relationship that presented itself in the past.

Passionate and Companionate Love

While Lee’s model focuses on six love styles and Karandashev and Clapp’s multidimensional model on 33 dimensions of love, Hatfield and Rapson (1993, 1996) distinguish in their theory of passionate and companionate love between two broad basic types of love.

Hatfield and Rapson regard passionate love and companionate love as macro‑forms of love that can be found in all cultures and that are largely responsible for the emotional‑intellectual and behavioral expressive processes of human love life.

Passionate and companionate love are defined as follows:

Passionate love is accompanied by high intensity of feelings and strong activation. At its center is the intense desire for ecstatically experienced connection, togetherness, physical closeness, tenderness, and sexuality. In the case of separation or lack of reciprocation, passionate love can quickly turn into tormenting longing, jealousy, fear of loss, and despair. There can be strong ups and downs of feelings, but Hatfield and Rapson (1993) emphasize that with secure attachment and reciprocity, passionate love can be an extremely powerful positive experience that results in extreme stress only when reciprocation is lacking and separation occurs.

Companionate love is not primarily characterized by a compulsive‑ecstatic moment, but by a much calmer yet deep emotional‑intellectual affection and connection that involves trust, experienced inner closeness, community, and standing by each other. Companionate love also includes commitment and stability as well as orientation toward the long‑term well‑being of partners.

Hatfield and Rapson (2013) developed questionnaires for measuring passionate love and companionate love.

This excerpt of two questions each makes both types of love understandable in their essence once again:

Questionnaire excerpt “Passionate Love”

I would feel deep despair if _____ left me.
Sometimes I feel that I cannot control my thoughts; they are compulsively focused on _____.

Questionnaire excerpt “Companionate Love”

I expect my love for _____ to last for the rest of my life.
I feel emotionally close to _____.

Passion and companionship in the Karandashev and Clapp model

How can passionate and companionate love be connected with the 33 dimensions of love according to Karandashev and Clapp?

To this end, Karandashev and Clapp (2016) examined the connections between passionate and companionate love in a sample of 413 people, all of whom were in a love relationship.

Using a statistical classification procedure (cluster analysis), the participants could be divided into two groups that could be identified as passionately loving and companionately loving:

Those who loved passionately were primarily characterized by the dimensions of longing, admiration, uniqueness, immediately experienced gratitude, and a subjectively felt, almost magical experience of reciprocity and fit. However, irrationality and obsession were also more strongly associated with passionate love.

Those who loved companionately, conversely, were primarily characterized by a stronger expression in the dimensions of togetherness, care, protection, and interest in the other person. Components of commitment and reliability were also more strongly pronounced.

The very high weight assigned to uniqueness and fit among the passionately loving individuals is explained by the authors as a “fantastic perception” of the passionately loving.

Accordingly, uniqueness and fit in passionate love are less derived objectively from observational facts, but arise almost automatically from the dominance of feelings, which without further cognitive processing create the impression of uniqueness, fit, and reciprocity.

The authors’ statistical analyses also showed an inverse relationship between friendly interest in the person and romantic aspects of joyful affection and immediate presence among the passionately loving. This means that in passionate love, increased joyful, romantic affection was on average associated with reduced friendly interest in the person. In companionate love, by contrast, romantic‑joyful affection and friendly interest went hand in hand.

The authors conclude from this that passionately loving people cannot integrate romantic and friendly aspects well. This marks another difference from companionate love, which can better link friendship and romance, present and future, desire and commitment.

While in passionate love a dynamic and contradictory nature is apparent, in companionate love a much more balanced participation of the 33 dimensions can be seen. Companionate love thus appears like an intellectual‑emotional anchor of calm, while passionate love is at risk of storms at any time.

However, in the analyses by Karandashev and Clapp, companionate love is not only shown in relationship investment and care, but also contains a distinct factor characterized by elation, affection, and desire.

Romance is thus very much included in companionate love as well. Only the obsession and irrationality are missing.

Thus, companionate love actually turns out to be a companionate‑romantic love in which aspects of passion have their place, even if they are less dominant and are not characterized by obsession and irrationality.

Who loves more?

Karandashev and Clapp (2016) asked all participants to indicate the strength of their love.

The result was clear:

Those who loved companionately‑romantically reported higher experienced love than those who loved passionately.

Companionate‑romantic love thus appears as the ultimately more complete love, based on a firm foundation of affection, commitment, reliability, togetherness, understanding, forgiveness, and compatibility, to which – in individually varying degrees – desire, ecstasy, and passion can be added.

This also fits the result of a meta‑study by Acevedo and Aron (2009), who distinguished between romantic love without compulsive‑obsessive components and passionate love with compulsive‑obsessive components. It was found that romantic love without obsession was associated with increased relationship satisfaction both in shorter and already longer‑lasting relationships. For passionate love with compulsive‑obsessive components, by contrast, there was also a positive effect in shorter‑lasting relationships, but a negative effect in longer‑lasting ones.

Which kind of love are you looking for?

Many people think of butterflies in the stomach, falling in love, and big feelings when it comes to partner search. Some think of consuming longing, euphoric highs, jealousy, and obsession.

With love, we associate above all the romantic love style according to Lee (1976), the component of desire, uniqueness, or overwhelming fit in Karandashev and Clapp (2014, 2016), passionate love according to Hatfield and Rapson (1993, 1996), or even jealousy and possessiveness.

The literature is full of stories of longing, passionate, romantic, but also jealous, tragic, or even violent love.

Much less, by contrast, do we think of companionate aspects when we think of love. Yet it is precisely companionate aspects in combination with romantic affection that make love relationships stable and happy.

As singles in middle or older age, people often remember their first great love, which was usually particularly passionate. Singles of middle and older generations often implicitly want to relive their youth once more. Some other singles may want to catch up on something because they look back on a life story in which they missed passion. Singles frequently feel bored in a routine‑dominated everyday life and wish for variety and adventure from love.

So many people intuitively think of passion, intense happiness, and bliss when it comes to partner search.

In fact, the neural pathways of infatuation overlap with those of euphoric drugs:

Bartels and Zeki (2000) observed using imaging techniques that feelings of love were associated with the activation of the same brain regions as the consumption of opiates or cocaine. So it is quite literal when people want to intoxicate themselves with love.

There is nothing against indulging in the wonderful feeling of passionate love and enjoying it when it arises.

However, it is important to avoid possible unfavorable side effects and also not to block other relationship opportunities that can achieve great depth and sustainability through a fixation on necessarily striving for passion.

So do not believe that it is only or predominantly passion, desire, or uniqueness that will carry you through in the long run.

Pay attention to the development of the components that truly preserve love – understanding, togetherness, care, protection, and commitment – so that ecstatic happiness is not followed by grief, despair, and pain.

Also allow yourself pragmatic considerations so that love gets onto and stays on the right track. This includes acceptance of differences, weaknesses, and mistakes in partners, since perfect people do not exist in reality. It also includes deciding for a relationship when it is advantageous overall, even if it has some deficits, such as a lack of passion.

If you have a strongly passionate model of love, supplement it with other important components such as understanding, shared activities, also more rationally defined compatibility, interest, future planning, reliability, and commitment. Recognize the value of friendship and companionship, which also play an important role in a romantic relationship.

Keep in mind that passion can be at the beginning of a relationship, but does not have to be. Relationships can start more quietly and still lead to great love, stability, and happiness over time.

For partner search, it can therefore be helpful to flexibilize your own model of love in such a way that greater space is allocated especially to friendship and companionship. Without this expansion, it may happen that you reject precisely the person with whom you could have been very happy, even if passion did not ignite immediately at the beginning.

Spatial Arrangement of Relationships

We often approach partner search with a very clear idea. However, it can happen that we overlook other options for a satisfying relationship constellation.

The following is about the relationship models of living together, living apart together (LAT) at the same location, and long‑distance relationships. All these relationship forms can lead to a balanced and satisfied relationship.

Therefore, read this section with the perspective of discovering new relationship possibilities for yourself that you might otherwise have excluded. Conversely, if your relationship ideas are confirmed, this affirmation is naturally still a good outcome.

Traditionally, most people want to live together as partners. But there are also models with separate apartments, which some couples experience as a compromise between being alone and losing freedom. There are also long‑distance relationships, which can even extend to intercontinental relationships, where partners live on different continents and usually meet very rarely outside of phone calls and the internet.

However, most long‑distance relationships are not intercontinental; the distance is usually at most a few hundred kilometers. Typically, such couples meet on weekends.

Many people view long‑distance relationships negatively. They suspect that relationship satisfaction and stability are lower in long‑distance relationships.

Is this reality or just a prejudice?

The view may also turn against living apart together (LAT) at the same location, arguing that separate apartments are a suitable model for the initial phase of a relationship when those involved are not yet sure whether they really want to stay together.

Is this view convincing, or can a model with separate apartments also make people happy in the long term?

Living together is the standard model of partnership. The advantages are seen in closeness and togetherness. But are there also possible disadvantages?

The following section will provide answers to these questions.

What is your own view?

Take a piece of paper and a pen and write it down before you continue reading.

Satisfaction in long‑distance relationships

Psychologists Goldsmith and Byers (2018) compared the satisfaction of couples who lived together or were in long‑distance relationships:

It was found that relationship satisfaction and relationship quality did not differ between cohabiting couples and couples in long‑distance relationships. No differences were observed between cohabiting couples and long‑distance couples in the characteristics of stress, emotional closeness, commitment, communication quality, sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction.

A study by Dargie et al. (2014) comes to a very similar result:

A total of 474 women and 243 men in long‑distance relationships and 314 women and 111 men living with their partners were surveyed. When comparing the two relationship models, comparable levels of relationship satisfaction, commitment, communication, and sexual satisfaction were found. This finding was observed in both men and women.

These results may seem surprising at first glance to many, because most people do not wish for a long‑distance relationship. A long‑distance relationship is at most accepted for lack of alternatives; it is only rarely the desired model.

So long‑distance relationships are obviously viewed rather critically. However, this is contrasted by psychological findings showing that couples in long‑distance relationships are just as satisfied with their relationships as couples living together.

Thus, long‑distance relationships are experienced as particularly stressful only in the imagination of those not affected. The life reality of couples who practice long‑distance relationships is different. Many couples in long‑distance relationships manage to compensate for the distance between them and stabilize their bond with other forms of communication and relationship maintenance.

Some couples in long‑distance relationships can even deliberately use the distance between them to focus more strongly on what is essential and connecting in their relationships, rather than getting annoyed about minor everyday stress.

Of course, the price of long‑distance relationships is less shared time. But relationship time should not be viewed only quantitatively; it is the quality of the time spent together that matters. Certainly, the opportunity to spend the entirety of everyday life together is lost in long‑distance relationships. But that does not necessarily have to be a burden; it can also be a valuable experience.

Thus, possible gains and losses are balanced, and the net sum appears to be zero. Long‑distance relationships and living together in one household are on average no different in terms of relationship quality.

What is the basis for the widespread skepticism about long‑distance relationships?

Probably the causes lie in our tendency to evaluate what occurs most frequently as self‑evident, normal, and good. What we see or hear more often, we experience as more likeable than what is rare or deviates.

Another factor may be that many people lack direct experience, or conversely, that the failure of a long‑distance relationship is attributed to the fact of it being a long‑distance relationship because it is particularly recognizable and rather unusual. In contrast, very few people attribute the failure of a classic cohabiting relationship to the living arrangement.

Ultimately, many people tend to underestimate the possible positive sides of long‑distance relationships and overestimate their possible negative effects, while at the same time underestimating the possible problems of cohabiting relationships and overestimating their possible advantages.

Advantages and disadvantages of living together

When couples live together, they have direct daily contact. Partners are immediately available to each other in everyday life. Frequent shared activities, maintaining shared social contacts and interests, as well as physical‑sexual closeness are easily and frequently possible.
When a couple has children, both parents are present in parenting in terms of location and daily life.

However, daily contact is also associated with disadvantages:

Not infrequently, couples complain about routine and boredom. Conflicts often arise in everyday life that actually only relate to small things, but are nevertheless stressful and can escalate quickly.
Living together alone does not protect against a loss of intimacy, tenderness, and sexuality over the course of a relationship. Saturation and boredom may, on the contrary, occur more quickly when partners are together every day.

Couples in long‑distance relationships

Couples in long‑distance relationships often describe that the direct encounters remain something special that they looked forward to. Less frequent encounters can be experienced as more romantic and contribute to maintaining sexual attractiveness.
Couples in long‑distance relationships also frequently describe that they argue less about small everyday problems and focus more on what is emotionally and thematically essential. Moreover, shared vacations in long‑distance relationships are experienced as particular highlights.

However, there are also disadvantages of long‑distance relationships:

Many couples in long‑distance relationships miss the daily togetherness, the immediate support from partners, and the shared everyday life.
The frequent travel to meet partners and the planning required can be experienced as exhausting and costly. A gain in freedom and independence is set against a loss of directly shared togetherness in everyday life.

Relationships with shared living quarters and long‑distance relationships are thus both associated with possible advantages and disadvantages.

Ultimately, it is up to the partners themselves what they make of their relationships and what they do to maintain relationship happiness. Lastingly happy relationships are possible both when couples live together and in long‑distance relationships.

Certainly, personality traits, mental flexibility, and one’s own attitudes toward relationships also play an important role in whether a long‑distance relationship is an option or not.

What becomes of long‑distance relationships

Many couples in long‑distance relationships eventually move in together at a later point in time. This is undoubtedly also because for most couples, the long‑distance relationship model was not a choice of love but rather a choice born of necessity or the force of circumstances.

Education, jobs, family obligations, and minor children from previous relationships are common reasons why couples decide to have a long‑distance relationship. When these factors disappear, they decide to move in together.

Moving in together after a long long‑distance relationship, even if couples have looked forward to it for a long time, can be quite challenging. While the disadvantages of the long‑distance relationship disappear and the advantages of living together become available, the advantages of the long‑distance relationship also disappear and the disadvantages of living together appear.

By the way, the opposite can also happen: changing life situations, but also relationship stress, everyday problems, and a perceived constriction can cause couples who have lived together for many years to move toward a long‑distance relationship.

Many couples can manage such changes, activate the advantages of the respective relationship model, and limit or cope with its disadvantages. However, some relationships break down because of the changes. Yet even a separation can be a positive outcome when relationships develop without prospects and both sides lack the motivation for new momentum and relationship work.

Online dating and long‑distance relationships

There is a reason why so much space is devoted to the topic of long‑distance relationships in this guide to online dating:

Through online dating, partners can meet who would never have met outside the internet. Even long distances are no obstacle for people to meet each other and become happy together.

Through online dating and the associated expansion of the geographic search space, the chances increase that you can base your partner search entirely on the fit of values and the truly essential characteristics and dispense with superficial characteristics, such as the initial spatial distance.

Keep in mind that the right person for a long‑term relationship does not necessarily have to live in your immediate vicinity. Through online dating, you can still meet this person. In such a case, however, a relationship will usually begin at least initially as a long‑distance relationship.

The decision is yours, but the psychological recommendation is to open yourself to the possibility of a long‑distance relationship, because long‑distance relationships have the same prospects for high relationship satisfaction as relationships in which a couple lives together. Moreover, the long‑distance relationship does not have to last forever, since couples from long‑distance relationships usually move in together later.

Living apart together (LAT) at the same location

The model of living apart together at the same location lies between living together and long‑distance relationships in terms of spatial proximity.

The days are over when separate apartments were practiced only as a trial period and transitional period before moving in together. Sociological studies (Ayuso, 2018) show that there are an increasing number of couples in middle and older age who choose the model of separate apartments at the same location.

The background for this is also that the topic of starting a family typically falls away from a certain age, which otherwise often provides a strong incentive to move in together.

According to the findings of Ayuso (2018), the vast majority of couples living in separate apartments are still younger. However, these young couples almost always see this only as a transitional model, while in older age the number of couples who wish to live permanently in separate apartments increases.

Why do couples prefer to live in separate apartments?

A main psychological factor for the desire for separate apartments is that closeness can become too much. This applies especially to people who place great value on independence and autonomy.

Would you perhaps feel constrained by living together in the same household every day?

In that case, the model with separate apartments could be a good solution for you.

Qualitative studies (Funk and Kobayashi, 2014; Bawin‑Legros and Gauthier, 2001) with couples in separate apartments have brought out much about the experiences of those concerned:

Couples living in separate apartments describe as an advantage that through separate living they could better maintain and appreciate the specialness of the relationship – an experience that many people also have in long‑distance relationships.
Couples also report that by living separately they can escape the stressful aspects of everyday routine and reserve their relationship for special moments.
When everyday life is shared selectively, this happens for couples living in separate apartments not out of compulsion or necessity, but out of the desire to experience everyday life together. High emotional closeness is also possible. At the same time, opportunities for retreat are always available.

In the study by Ayuso (2018), however, it was shown that some couples who previously lived in separate apartments later moved in together because they could not withstand the social pressure from family and friends.

Therefore, make sure from the outset to immunize yourself against normative pressure from outside the relationship. The only yardstick for the relationship model you choose should be your life satisfaction and mutual relationship satisfaction.

Relationship satisfaction with separate living

In which relationship model are couples typically happier or less happy?

A psychological study by Hagemeyer et al. (2015) comes to the conclusion that there is no universally binding answer to this. Rather, the following categorizations emerge:

Typically, couples who live together report higher relationship satisfaction than couples who do not live together. The traditional model of living together is by no means a dying model. It continues to be associated with high relationship satisfaction for many couples.

However, the higher average satisfaction of these couples does not necessarily have to be due to living together. A plausible alternative explanation is that this is already a positive selection, as dissatisfied couples are less likely to move in together than couples who are satisfied with their relationship.

Probably both explanations are correct:

Living together can thus increase satisfaction for some couples, while on the other hand, couples who are already satisfied with their relationship are more likely to move in together.

Above all, however, the findings of Hagemeyer et al. (2015) show that the influence of living together on relationship satisfaction depends on personality traits:

With increasing autonomy motives, the positive influence of living together on relationship satisfaction decreases in the study by Hagemeyer et al. (2015). This can even go so far that some couples experience shared living as a burden and relationship satisfaction decreases as a result.

Whether couples live together or apart certainly intervenes extensively in everyday life. It is therefore worthwhile to think about this topic in good time so as not to slide into a constellation that may not be compatible with your own needs.

Which Spatial Relationship Model Is Right for Me?

Use imagination to find the right form of being together for you:

Imaginatively envision different forms of relationship arrangement – shared apartment, separate apartments at the same location, long‑distance relationship. Try to find positive aspects for each relationship form, but also pay attention to negative reactions you perceive in yourself.

If, during this exercise, you find that several models are conceivable for you, this increases your flexibility in partner search and relationship building and may thus facilitate finding a partner.

Conversely, if it is perfectly clear to you that only shared living or only separate apartments come into question for you, you should make this clarity the benchmark for your partner search in order to create good conditions for your relationship happiness from the outset.

Clear communication about your goals is recommended here even in the early phases of getting to know each other, so that a constellation in which the design wishes of the relationship become incompatible does not arise in the first place.

However, even if only one model is right for you, you should consider whether a compromise is possible for a transitional period. The desired constellation would not have to be present immediately in a compromise; agreement on the goal would suffice: for example, you might accept a long‑distance relationship that you actually reject as a transition, provided that there is agreement from the outset that you will move in together later.

Now, at the conclusion of this section, look once more at the piece of paper on which you wrote down what is right for you – shared living, separate apartments, or a long‑distance relationship.

After everything you have read since then, have there been changes in your perspective? If so, add them to the paper.

Sexuality and Relationship

For most couples, sexuality and partnership belong together. It is important to talk about this topic with each other:

Roels and Janssen (2020) observed that among young heterosexual couples, there was a close relationship between open conversations about sexuality and relationship satisfaction.

Shyness can, however, block open conversations between partners about sexuality and lead to low sexual satisfaction:

Marcinechová and Záhorcová (2020) observed a negative effect of feelings of shame on sexual satisfaction, with feelings of shame in this study being associated with religious beliefs linked to prohibitions and sex‑negative attitudes.

Sexuality of couples is not only oriented toward satisfying one’s own needs but is embedded in romance, affection, and emotional expression:

Pascoal et al. (2013) came to the conclusion in a survey of several hundred women and men that mutual satisfaction is at the center of partnership sexuality. Sexuality in a partnership is therefore not a predominantly individual‑egocentric but a shared experiential process.

Sexuality can even play a role in reconciliation processes, as a study by Dailey et al. (2020) found, comparing couples in on‑off relationships (relationships with frequent separations and reconciliations) and other couples immediately after a separation with regard to the frequency of subsequent sexuality. [1] Couples from such on‑off relationships had sex again four times more often after a separation than couples who had not had an on‑off relationship. Moreover, this sexuality after reconciliation was experienced as particularly satisfying.

This suggests that it is also the sexual encounter that repeatedly brings couples in on‑off relationships back together. At the same time, this finding makes it clear that sexuality alone is not sufficient as a basis for a stable relationship. There is even a danger of a self‑perpetuating vicious circle in which conflicts and separations are repeatedly rewarded with sex and thus become a pattern.

Reconciliation with sex alone is therefore not enough; it should be supplemented with solution‑oriented clarification of conflicts and the development of compromises acceptable to both sides.

Grøntvedt et al. (2020) examined the relationship between frequency of sexuality, passion, desire for sex outside the relationship, and relationship duration among 92 Norwegian couples.

Their observations made it clear that the frequency of sexual activity correlated strongly with passion, and passion experienced with partners in turn reduced the desire for sex outside the relationship. However, with relationship duration, the frequency of sexual activity typically decreased.

The importance of sexuality as an essential driving force makes it obvious that one should think about how sexuality is to be handled in a partnership. It is advisable to engage with this question – especially since many relationships fail due to sexual disagreements and infidelity:

For example, an observational study of married couples over a period of 17 years (Previti and Amato, 2004) found that extramarital sex lowered marital satisfaction and increased the likelihood of divorce, although prior thoughts of divorce also increased the likelihood of extramarital sex.

If this result is connected with the finding of Grøntvedt et al. (2020) that passion in a relationship diminishes interest in sex outside the partnership, it is likely that in the affected couples, passion had already suffered before the infidelity. This in turn fits well with the finding of a decrease in sexuality over the course of a relationship.

In many relationships, sexual passion undoubtedly declines over time. This can create dissatisfaction and an incentive for sex outside the relationship, which in turn can endanger the existence of a relationship.

One strategy to counteract this development could be the choice of a non‑traditional relationship model beyond the monogamous couple relationship.

As natural and unquestioned as the traditional monogamous couple relationship is for most people seeking partners, couples, and indeed most societies, it may still be worthwhile to think about alternatives in the area of consensual non‑monogamy and polyamory.

Monogamous and Non‑Monogamous Relationships

The traditional relationship model is a monogamous relationship between two people with agreed sexual fidelity. This remains the model of romantic relationship that the vast majority of people who desire a relationship are looking for.

This model is also actually or supposedly lived by the vast majority of couples.

The high popularity of the monogamous couple relationship persists despite all social changes and the 1968 movement:

On the major well‑known online matchmaking services in the German‑speaking region, alternative relationship models are not even offered for searching. Everything revolves around the monogamous couple relationship.

At Consonance (Gleichklang), you can also search for non‑monogamous and polyamorous relationships. An evaluation from 2020 showed that 86 % of the female singles and 71 % of the male singles participating at Consonance were looking for a monogamous couple relationship with sexual fidelity.

The preferences of non‑binary singles were quite different, with only 35 % preferring a monogamous relationship. Non‑binary persons are people who do not experience their gender identity as clearly female or male.

It becomes clear from this that the monogamous couple relationship continues to be the dominant partnership model, but that there is also a desire for alternatives to the majority model of the monogamous couple relationship.

Due to the human tendency to automatically fulfill social expectations, it is possible that some singles and couples choose the model of sexual fidelity not out of their own need but follow it unreflectively.

So do not let yourself be tempted to simply act socially normatively, but observe your own needs, wishes, and longings so that you can bring them to bear in partner selection and relationship design. As you read the following text, ask yourself in which relationship constellation you are most likely to be happy.

What design options are there?

Hangen et al. (2019) have comprehensively addressed the topic of sexual monogamy and sexual non‑monogamy and were able to identify five relationship models using statistical structure analyses that can be distinguished with regard to monogamy versus openness, consent, and relationship satisfaction:

Consensual stable monogamy: These couples are actually monogamous, and this monogamy is so natural for both sides that possible other sexual contacts play almost no role in mutual communication.

Consensual dynamic monogamy: These couples are largely monogamous, but the naturalness and stability of monogamy are somewhat lower. Accordingly, there were more frequent, albeit rather minor, sexual contacts outside the monogamous relationship in the past. Therefore, this topic is also discussed more often with each other.

Consensual non‑monogamy: These couples report openly consensual sexual contacts with other people outside the relationship. Typically, partners do not express a desire for monogamy.

Ambivalent‑contradictory monogamy: These couples show a superficially ambivalent attitude toward monogamy. Although they typically affirm that they live in a monogamous relationship, there are less clear agreements between them, and in the analyses, sexual contacts outside the relationship are frequently reported. Partners communicate only limitedly with each other about these external sexual contacts.

Infidelity by one person in agreed monogamy: These couples report that partners do not adhere to the agreed monogamy and frequently maintain sexual contacts with other people outside the relationship.

With regard to relationship quality, the authors observed very clear associations depending on the transparency and honesty with which couples dealt with their sexuality:

Both people in consensually stable monogamy and people in consensual non‑monogamy reported an average high relationship quality with high general and sexual satisfaction and low psychological distress.

People in dynamically consensual monogamous relationships had similar relationship satisfaction to those in stable monogamy but were younger in age and more often reported alcohol or drug use on weekends. In this respect, these were less established relationships that were still at the beginning of their relationship development.

Interestingly, among consensual non‑monogamous relationships, there were particularly many long‑term partnerships and a higher proportion of bisexual and heteroflexible persons – i.e., people who basically consider themselves heterosexual but have increased openness to sexuality with other genders.

The lowest relationship satisfaction, significantly more distress and instability, and the shortest relationship duration were found in people who lived more or less covertly non‑monogamous or in relationships with one‑sided infidelity. Such people also more often showed attachment avoidance and loneliness.

Dishonesty and lack of transparency make unhappy

From these results, it can be concluded that both monogamous and non‑monogamous relationships can become happy.

In contrast, a lack of transparency and dishonesty are detrimental to relationship happiness. Relationships that conceal frequent or systematic non‑monogamous behavior under the cloak of monogamy typically achieve only low relationship quality.

A clear distinction must therefore be made between infidelity and non‑monogamous behavior:

Infidelity undermines the foundation of trust and harms relationship quality.

Consensual non‑monogamous behavior is not a breach of trust and does not lead to any loss of relationship quality.

The finding that there were particularly many long‑term relationships among consensually non‑monogamous relationships also refutes a frequently expressed assumption that sexually open relationships tend to have lower durability.

Types of consensual non‑monogamy

Rubel and Bogaert (2014) addressed different variants of consensually non‑monogamous relationships and their effects on psychological well‑being and relationship quality in a review article.

The article differentiates between three types of consensual non‑monogamous partnerships:

Swinging couples, who have sex with other couples or individuals at designated venues (e.g., swingers’ clubs).

Open relationships, in which couples together or as individuals mutually have sexual contacts with other people, without this being tied to designated venues or events.

Polyamory, in which more than two people have a love relationship with each other, thus involving not only sex but also other romantic feelings and dimensions of relationship design.

With regard to relationship quality and well‑being, Rubel and Bogaert (2014) come to a similar result as Hangen et al. (2019):

People in non‑monogamous relationships can achieve comparable relationship quality and psychological well‑being to people living in traditionally monogamous relationships.

In the areas of excitement and activation, non‑monogamous relationships may even lead to higher satisfaction, for which there were indications specifically in swinging relationships.

Finding your own model

So it is not necessary to orient yourself toward traditional ideas in your own relationship model in order to find and maintain a happy and stable relationship.

Rather, psychological studies show that the model of consensual non‑monogamy offers a sustainable and potentially relationship‑promoting alternative to the model of the monogamous couple relationship.

In contrast, infidelity is a breach of trust that arises from agreements about monogamy that are not kept.

Of course, consensual non‑monogamy is not the right relationship model for everyone. And normative pressure toward monogamy should not simply be replaced by normative pressure toward non‑monogamy.

Some members of the 1968 generation and participants in various alternative lifestyles and communities have already had the bitter experience that non‑monogamous relationship models can lead to new coercion and constraints when imposed by group pressure.

Therefore, only you can decide whether you would rather live in a consensually monogamous or a consensually non‑monogamous relationship, by becoming aware of your sexual and romantic needs and imagining various relationship constellations on this basis.

In any case, a relationship constellation in which monogamy serves only as a formal cover and in reality you, the other person, or both lead a sexual double life is to be advised against. Here, the state of research clearly shows that such a life does not make you happy.

This gives rise to a number of questions that you can ask yourself in order to find the right relationship model for you:

How much can you personally imagine relationship happiness in the various models of a consensual monogamous or non‑monogamous relationship?

Are your preferences reflected and free from social pressure?

How honest can you be with yourself and the other person in a consensual monogamous or non‑monogamous relationship? Are you willing and able to live a monogamous relationship in sincerity and without deception?

How sexually satisfied are you likely to become in a monogamous or in a non‑monogamous relationship? In which relationship form will you achieve sexual fulfillment?

What about your jealousy? How will it affect monogamous and non‑monogamous relationships, and how well can you regulate it?

How would you evaluate a sexually open relationship in which the agreement is that sexuality outside the relationship remains limited to sexual adventures?

How do you compare the options sex only monogamously within the relationship, sex with other people only together, sex with other people only separately, sex with other people together or separately depending on the situation?

Do you find the model of a polyamorous love relationship with more than two participants attractive for yourself?

Do you have past experiences with one or the other relationship form that tell you something about your own experience in the various constellations?

Do you hold moral or religious values that you do not want to change or expand and that exclude a non‑monogamous relationship?

Depending on the constellation and the people involved, do you consider both a consensual monogamous and a consensual non‑monogamous relationship possible for yourself?

Now define your relationship model for your partner search:

Your answers speak exclusively for a monogamous relationship? In your partner search, look for another person who values monogamy as much as you do.

You prefer a non‑monogamous relationship? In your partner search, look for another person who feels similarly.

Both monogamy and non‑monogamy are possible? Keep the relationship form open in your partner search depending on the other person.

You cannot be monogamous? Do not even try and look for a sexually non‑monogamous relationship from the start. Learn to be honest with yourself and others and look for a relationship model in which you can live this honesty.

You prefer non‑monogamy but fear your jealousy? In your imagination, let go of the loved person. Learn to distance yourself from possessive thinking and allow the other person and yourself sexual experiences. Dare to try it, but be open from the outset and practice together to curb jealousy.

Non‑Sexual Partnerships

As important as sexuality is for most couples, there are also people who do not wish for any sexual interaction at all.

Asexuality refers to the absence of sexual desire, which explains the lack of desire for sexuality. Asexuality is a scientifically still little‑studied phenomenon, with a study by Bogaert (2004) indicating that approximately one percent of the adult population is asexual.

The absence of sexual desire does not necessarily contradict a desire for a relationship. The desire for physical tenderness and closeness can still be present even if sexual desire is lacking. Against this background, the question of partner search arises for asexual people fundamentally just as for other people.

There may also be reasons other than asexuality why people seek a relationship without sexuality:

There are people who separate sexuality and love. While some people experience close intimacy with a person as sexually arousing, in others sexual arousal decreases with familiarity and they lose interest in sexuality with familiar persons.

Some people have very strong sexual preference fixations, for which finding partners may seem difficult or even impossible. One example would be the exclusive interest in sexuality with people who are very attractive to them but whom they can hardly or not at all reach as partners. There may still be a desire for a partnership with another person that is decoupled from sexuality.

Some people may not be asexual, but their interest in sexuality is so low or has declined so much that they can very well imagine a relationship without sexuality or would even prefer one.

Finally, there are people with sexual dysfunctions or sexual trauma who do not (no longer) wish to work on overcoming these impairments for various possible reasons and therefore seek a relationship without sexuality.

Equally conceivable is the case that two people simply fit very well together but mutually lack erotic interest in each other. This can extend to special constellations where people with unrelated or opposite sexual orientations lead life partnerships – for example, a love relationship between heterosexual and homosexual persons.

Would you like a relationship but no sexuality?

In that case, you should make this a topic immediately in your partner search. Otherwise, contacts will break off at the moment you address it, or an unfavorable relationship will develop in which sexuality is in the way.

In principle, asexual people can have sustainable relationships with both asexual and non‑asexual people, provided that a renunciation of shared sexuality is agreed upon and can be accepted by both.

If a person in such a relationship is not asexual, it should be discussed how to deal with this, if necessary, in the context of sexual contacts with third parties.

Often, however, asexual people will have the need to share their asexual orientation with partners. Because of the small number of asexual people, this will of course usually mean having to make compromises in other characteristics, such as distance, and also preparing for a longer search time.

Are you not asexual, but do not want sex because of sexual dysfunctions or trauma?

Often, seeking psychotherapeutic help is helpful and indicated in such cases. But even with or after psychotherapeutic treatment, the desire for a sex‑free relationship may persist and is completely legitimate.

There are numerous long‑term couples who no longer have sex with each other but whose love still remains. There is no reason to assume that a relationship with such a state could not also begin.

As important as sexuality is for most couples, there are a large number of dimensions and functions of love that can fully develop even without sexuality. Recalling the 33 dimensions of love according to Karandashev and Clapp, the following may be mentioned:

Acceptance, commitment, admiration, gratitude, idealization, empathy, uniqueness, shared activities, connectedness, faith, devotion, elation, intimacy, interest, self‑improvement, communion, compatibility, reciprocity, wanting to protect, longing, concern for well‑being, comfort and strengthening, forgiveness, being able to rely on, taking responsibility, trust, understanding, and affection.

Partnerships are thus possible without sexuality and can, when a supportive and caring foundation is built, be associated with high relationship satisfaction.

With this in mind, new perspectives for partner search and relationship design may emerge for you if you find that you have no interest in sexuality in a partnership, no longer have it, or its importance for you is so low that sex in a relationship is dispensable for you.

The clearer this is to you, the better you can shape your partner search and find the right person.

← Back: Preparation for Partner Search | Table of Contents of the Book | Next: Attractiveness and Partner Selection →