Continuing the previous Essay, relationships today involves two types of experience: psychical and virtual contact. They are two dimensions of the same reality. It means new forms of communication, consumption, expression, self-expression, everything enhanced by a great deal of personal exposure. Today’s society, as in other cultural and subjective transition times, slowly adapts itself to new ways of life and moral scripts. Instability in relationships, which has grown considerably in the last decades, is also more exposed in the “web world”. Casual relationships and lacking intimacy have always happened. But intimacy has discretely turned into a central topic in the debate concerning the legitimacy of virtual relationships. Would a relationship without physical contact be legitimate? Would it ever be possible to think of intimacy without physical contact? And does a relationship need intimacy to be legitimate? Any kind of relationship is legitimate. From a clinical perspective, the “legitimacy” of different kinds/formats of virtual relationship doesn’t seem to be the central conflicting point nowadays. Intimacy, however, is a complex concept. Therefore, instead of defining it, we will consider three of its aspects :1) Affinities- affinities are an important level in intimacy’s construal. They come from common interests and or/complementary aspects of peoples’ identities. Affinities may occur in esthetical, sexual/erotic and/or in moral values and they could be, in principle, developed regardless of physical contact. 2) Sexual intimacy-sexual and erotic intimacy is constituted by the sexual instinctive part and fantasy. The latter gives direction and brings brightness to what we call sexual desire. Although fantasies may be going well in web relationships, the instinctive part of sexuality is missing. 3) Loving intimacy- entails the previous ones and shared life project. Relationships have been lacking intimacy for a long time. Lack of intimacy is not a product of virtual life. Relationships, with more or less commitment (with a prospect of sharing lives), might lack affinities and/or erotic intimacy. And relationships built on sexual tuning, might lack intimacy if they do not aim at a shared life. They may be long term relationships but not a shared life project. According to PA[1], intimacy means the “whole package’ that derives from a process that starts with falling in love and goes until “deenchantment” (“deidealization”), which is a necessary stage for intimacy. Idealization shapes passion [2][3]. Intimacy, on the other hand, requires that one seeks to overcome the difficulties of a life together (getting to know one's partner in depth). Intimacy comes with maturity. The phenomenon that may be a reflection of instability on web relationships is the higher level of idealized expectations[4], especially considering that a few of them are not even meant to be verified in a shared life. One’s exposition on internet may have helped to expose difficulties each one has in identity’s development and in sexuality.
To be continued in the next Post
[1] Psychodramatic Analysis is the name of our methodology. [2] Dias, V.S. Conjugal Bond., in: Conjugal Bond in Psychodramatic Analysis p.13-42. (2000) Ágora . São Paulo. [3] See also Dias, V.S, in: Structural diagnosis of conjugal crisis. In:www.ceciliapsicologa.org/blog [4] For more details about couples in digital era see: Sardinha, A.& Philligret, Ingrid. Comunicação entre casais na era digital. In: Loving Relationships in digital era (2019). Editora dos Editores. São Paulo.
Commentaires