Psychology Today

“I want to live a single life with you. For our couple life, would be the equivalent of our single lives today, but together.” Isabelle Tessier

Should lovers be fused to each other, or should they have personal space? Two popular relationships, living-apart-together and being single-with-someone, offer different answers.

Love as a perfect union

“I've got you so deep in my heart, that you're really a part of me.” Frank Sinatra

The desire to be with the beloved, which is so typical of romantic love, is sometimes taken to the extreme and becomes a desire for a complete fusion with the beloved. Such a union is often understood to involve a joint identity. The two lovers form a profound union (or fusion) as if they were two faces of the same coin.

One obvious problem of this model is that it does not make physical sense, as the two lovers remain two distinct individuals. Hence, we may say that the model merely refers to the psychological realm and expresses, in a metaphorical manner, a prevailing wish among lovers to be each other’s "soul-mates." It is doubtful, however, whether even psychological fusion is plausible or recommended in love. The two lovers may resonate with each other, but they are not fused into each other; autonomy is of a great value in romantic relationships. Lovers may give up a lot for their beloved, but they cannot and should not lose their unique identity.

The need for a romantic cartilage

"It takes a loose rein to keep a marriage tight." John Stevenson

The above notion of unity is dangerous to a loving relationship, as one lover’s every small movement can have an exaggerated impact upon the other, and hence upon the relationship itself. When some distance between two lovers exists, it can absorb certain shocks. Cartilage, which is a connective tissue found in many areas of the body, is important because it provides support and protects bones from the friction that would otherwise be caused by bones rubbing against each other at the joints.

Distance may be regarded as a kind of shock absorber that has a similar function to that of the cartilage adjoining our bones: it protects lovers from the friction caused by excessive proximity. There are various types of distances that people take in order to reduce such personal friction in their close relationships;  these include reducing sensitivity toward the partner, having affairs, or getting absorbed in work. I focus here on two increasingly prevalent kinds of romantic cartilage: (a) living apart together, and (b) being single with someone. Although the two kinds of “romantic cartilage” are related, their major concern is different: while the first kind consists of geographical distance, the second refers to behavioral freedom; the second kind involves greater personal space.

Living apart together

"What Robert [my lover] and I had, could not continue if we were together. What Richard [my husband] and I shared would vanish if we were apart." Francesca, in Robert James Waller, The Bridges of Madison County

Love includes the desire to be as close as possible to the person we love. Nevertheless, there are now increasing numbers of romantic couples who live at a geographical distance from each other. Commuter marriage is one such example. A commuter marriage is a relationship between people who are married and intend to remain so, but nevertheless live apart, usually because of the locations of their jobs, educational demands, or dual-career pursuits.

An increasing body of research indicates that Living-Apart-Together relationships often have equal or greater value in maintaining and promoting romantic relationships. Compared to close-proximity relationships, distant relationships are characterized by higher levels of relationship quality. The commitment level among distant couples is similar to that of geographically close couples; hence, distant relationships enjoy a higher rate of survival. These couples enjoy greater personal space, which enhances their personal flourishing as well as the flourishing of their togetherness. Commitment and trust are important in all romantic relationships, but in long-distance relationships they have greater significance as there are more opportunities for events to occur that could threaten the commitment. Indeed, long-distance romantic couples generally enjoy equal or even higher levels of stability, satisfaction, commitment, and trust than do comparable geographically closer couples. Accordingly the percentage of extramarital affairs is similar, or even lower, of that in standard marriages (e.g., Jiang & Hancock, 2013; Kelmer et al., 2013; Stafford, 2005).

In this regard, Laura, a divorcee in her early forties, said that when she and her former husband lived in a commuting marriage, “I felt good about having my own personal space so I did not have extramarital affairs. After eleven years of marriage, when we moved with our three girls to a house of our own and I stayed in the house every day, I felt that my personal space and freedom were being violated by my husband and as if I was in captivity; at that time I began to have affairs.”

Being single with someone

“I want to talk in bed in the morning about all sorts of things, but sometimes, in the afternoon, I want us to decide to take different paths for the day.” Isabelle Tessier

In her excellent, thought-provoking article, in Huffington Post “I Want To Be Single -- But With You,” Isabelle Tessier vividly describes another option for romantic connections: being single with someone else. Tessier writes:

 “I want to be afraid with you. To do things I would not do with anyone else, because with you I am confident! ... I want you to have your life, for you decide on a whim to travel for a few weeks. … I don't always want to be invited for your evenings out and I don't always want to invite you to mine. Then I can tell you about it and hear you tell me about yours the next day. I want something that will be both simple and at the same time not so simple. Something that will make sure that I often ask myself questions, but the minute I'm in the same room as you, I know. I want you to think I'm beautiful, for you to be proud to say that we're together. I want to hear you say you love me and I especially want to tell you in return …”

The togetherness described by Tessier is sometimes described as quirkyalone, that is, “someone who enjoys being single (but is not opposed to being in a relationship) and generally prefers to be alone rather than dating for the sake of being in a couple” (Wiktionary). This type of relationship provides much greater personal space than exists in living-apart-together. Thus, sexual freedom is not constitutive of living-apart-together, though as in conventional relationships, the partners might agree to it; in being-single-with-someone, sexual freedom is part and parcel of the package deal. It should be noted that greater personal space does not necessarily mean either chaotic or limitless space.

The connection in being-single-with-someone involves a greater respect for the other; as in other cases of respect, it allows the partner to live as she wishes and values her for who she is. Respect accords the partner her personal space, which has its own intrinsic merits. Respect has been found to be closely connected with marital satisfaction, while contempt, which is the opposite of respect, is one of the major predicators of divorce. Respect implies our right to be treated in a way that enhances our self-esteem (Gottman, 1995; Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006).

The being-single-with-someone approach may succeed in preventing many conflicts due to each lover’s short-term, and often superficial, wants; it will be much less beneficial in nurturing (or promoting) long-term romantic profundity (Ben-Ze’ev & Goussinsky, 2008). Profound love is indeed not so much about what each lover is prohibited from doing on his own, but more about what both of them can do together. This involves constantly coordinated interactions, concessions, and dialogue between the two (Krebs, 2015), all interactions that are considerably reduced in the being-single-with-someone approach. This approach may be more suitable for the initial stages of the relationship, when the two lovers do not know each other so well and excitement is central to their relationship. Developing and deepening the romantic relationship requires much more than the policy of “live and let live” that underlies this approach. It is interesting to note that cartilage is also found more extensively in the infant skeleton, being replaced by bone during growth. Similarly, it is the profound bones of joint interactions that support long-term romantic love.

Concluding remarks

“You can dance every dance with the guy who gives you the eye, but don't forget who's taking you home, so darling save the last dance for me.” The Drifters

In contrast to the romantic ideal of unity, spending too much time with the beloved may decrease love. Some kind of distance, providing a greater personal space, is important for a romantic relationship. Distance may focus the partners’ attention on the profound aspects of their relationships and help them to disregard the superficial ones. Significant and temporally extended physical distance can harm a relationship, but a more limited distance may be beneficial. Distance, which is a kind of romantic cartilage preventing lovers from excessive mutual friction, may have its own costs, but an appropriate distance can minimize the costs and increase the benefits. Determining the appropriate distance is not an easy task, but it is crucial in intimate relationships. Alas, there is no perfect formula for love.

References

Ben-Ze'ev, A. & Goussinsky, R. (2008). In the name of love: Romantic Ideology and its victims. Oxford University Press.

Gottman, J. (1995). Why marriages succeed or fail: And how you can make yours last. Bloomsbury.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 881–899.

Jiang, L. C. & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication, 63, 556–577.

Kelmer, G., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Relationship quality, commitment, and stability in long-distance relationships. Family Process, 52, 257-270.

Krebs, A. (2015). Zwischen Ich und Du. Eine dialogische Philosophie der Liebe. Suhrkamp.

Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships. Erlbaum.