S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

Objective  The concept of intimacy plays a vital role in the way people think and talk about romantic relationships. Extensive research has been conducted about intimacy in problematic situations. Little research however has been done about the way people in ‘normal’ relationships view intimacy. This study explored which actions people refer to when they speak about intimacy in the context of romantic relations – which actions contribute to the intimate character of a romantic relationship. S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

Design & Method  A literature review resulted in a temporary actiondefinition of intimacy in romantic relations. This action definition contained 2O actions that can occur in the context of a romantic partnerrelation

S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

Personal- or relational variable?  One of the difficulties we had to deal with early on, is the question whether intimacy as a variable was to be considered as a quality of the person or quality of the relationship. Is intimacy ultimate a personal or a relational variable? This project attempted to compose a valid action definition of intimacy, starting from the literature and secondly tried to validate this theoretical action definition by putting the question to the people. Every research project that defines intimacy in this way irrefutably places intimacy on the relational level. If intimacy can be defined by the possibility to experience certain actions, this points to the necessity of a relational context – a dyadic relation. S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

 Defining intimacy as a relational variable doesn’t have to mean that every conceptualization of intimacy as a personal quality is inherently mistaken. More so, in trying to define intimacy via a list of intimate actions, it is made clear that people experiencing intimacy have already gained certain qualities as human being, necessary to be able to perform certain intimate actions in their romantic relationship.

S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

 In this project intimacy was defined as an relational variable. However, this does not mean that intimacy can’t take many different forms according to the relational context. – friendship, engagement, marriage, etc…. Or that intimacy will spontaneously develop when two sexually literate individuals – people with sufficient sexual knowledge and skills - find each other in a relationship. Hence this research not only focuses on the action definition of intimacy but also on the necessary conditions to develop and sustain intimacy in a romantic partnerrelation.

S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

Holding hands

Anal penetration

Kissing each other on the cheek

Mutually complementing each other

Long and intens hugging

Scharing ambitions

Deep kissing

Sharing intellectual ideas

Caressing each others erogenous zones with exeption of the genitalia

Spending free time with your partner

Manually stimulating your partner

Mutually express very personal feelings

Being manually stimulated by your partner

Mutually express affection

Orally stimulating your partner

Mutually express the importance one places in the other

Being orally stimulated by your partner

Entrusting your partner with personal information

Vaginal penetration

Being entrusted with personal information by your partner

S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

 Using this theoretical action definition of intimacy as a starting point a semi constructed interview was devised to validate and possibly expand this temporary definition. Interviews were conducted with 20 young adults (ages 18 to 26), who had experience in romantic relationships of at least 6 months. Data was analyzed following the principles of Interpretative Phenomenological Analyses.

S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

Results  Initially people automatically associate the concept of intimacy with sex, sexuality and sexual activity. When asked to describe the last intimate moment they shared with their partner, 12 out of 20 participants immediately recounted a sexual experience.

S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

 Secondly the participants indicated that the way they view intimacy does not vary far from the temporary actiondefinition presented in the interview. Next to the 20 actions presented in the theoretical action definition of intimacy, 4 actions were prompted as necessary addition to the temporary definition namely ‘surprising each other, mutually express feelings of anger and frustration, sharing every day activities & sharing good times/having fun together. Also 5 contextual conditions were stipulated as necessary to reach and sustain intimacy in a romantic relation, namely reciprocity in feelings and actions, spending enough free time together, trust, fidelity and being able to mutually expose yourself towards your partner (literately / being naked) (figuratively / feelings). S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)

Conclusion  Intimacy in romantic relationships can be characterized by an action-definition containing 24 actions and 5 necessary contextual factors to allow feelings of intimacy to develop. Such an actiondefinition of intimacy can be useful to both other researchers and clinicians.

S. GEUENS & T. CLAES (Center For Ethics & Value Inquiry – Gent University); P. ENZLIN (Institute for Family &Sexuality Sciences – Catholic University Leuven)