Productos del género Capsicum

Intimacy is a fundamental aspect of love (Rubin, 1970, Sternberg, 1996). ‘Satisfying intimate relationships were one of the most important sources of delight and purpose in life’ (Thelen et al., 2000, p.223). However, there continues to be debate surrounding what defines intimacy. Jamieson (1999) attempted to define what intimacy meant to individuals and suggested that couples were searching for a ‘pure relationship’, defined as ‘opening out to each other, enjoying each other’s unique qualities and sustaining trust through mutual exposure’ (p. 477). Other researchers such as Love and Robinson (1994) argued that no definitive definition of intimacy is possible. Intimacy was not explicitly discussed in Maslow’s theory (1943), however his description of B Love (1954) contained elements relating to intimacy such as non-possessiveness and giving. My review of the literature suggests intimacy involves elements of equality, commitment and closeness between two individuals.

Holt et al. (2009) stated that intimacy was made up of components which together form a ‘closeness’ through a combination of intellectual, physical or emotional elements. They devised the Holt Relationship Intimacy Questionnaire in an attempt to establish what intimacy is and what it means to couples. The questions focused on mutual sharing of ideals, beliefs, feelings, values, goals, physical affection, reciprocity and openness. Holt et al. (2009) established three types of intimacy: intellectual intimacy that centred on shared goals and problem solving; physical intimacy that focused on

26

the physical and sexual aspects of a relationship; and emotional intimacy that centred on ‘mutual accessibility, naturalness, non-possessiveness and a commitment to the relationship’ (p.149). Holt et al.’s (2009) questionnaire could be criticised for its attempt to use a numerical rating scale to quantify something as subjective as emotions and feelings, but this was not acknowledged in their report. There were, however, questions for couples that facilitated a discussion to broaden their understanding and the focus was not solely on the questionnaire. Sprecher and Regan (2002) demonstrated how individuals moved between different levels of intimacy and this was not static. They claimed that individuals selected attributes dependent on the level of intimacy required from the relationship. However, the sample limited the applicability of this research as it only included students and the attributes valued as a young person may be very different to someone in middle/old age.

Within the research literature it is widely acknowledged that it is possible to have intimacy without a sexual relationship but not all sexual relationships were intimate (Rasmussen and Kilborne, 2007, Purnell, 2008). Research has suggested that

emotional rather than physical closeness leads to intimacy within relationships. Rogge and Bradbury (2006) advocated that effective communication enables the development of intimacy. Lerner (1990) proposed that a shared history and experiences increase intimacy. Both Rogge and Bradbury’s (2006) and Lerner’s research (1990) implied that a shared sense of language, understanding and history increase emotional intimacy among couples. Jamieson (1999) supports this but also argued that physical activity between partners could increase intimacy as long as they have strong emotional bonds.

Relationships with high levels of intimacy are happier, more fulfilling and stable (Eckstein and Goldman, 2001). There were, however, couples who were unable to reach this level of intimacy due to a fear of intimacy. Thelen et al. (2000) explored how this fear affected relationships by using a ‘Fear of Intimacy Scale’ and a ‘Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships’ to explore levels of intimacy in a couple’s relationship and their desired level of intimacy. They concluded that although men were more likely to have a fear of intimacy, women with a fear of intimacy were more likely to end the relationship because of it. The research did not identify why individuals feared intimacy. Thelen et al.’s (2000) research linked a fear of intimacy to poor attachment in childhood but they did not explore this, possibly due to a methodology that did not allow that type of exploration.

27

disabilities define intimacy in the same way as non-disabled adults. Numerous

questions on the Holt et al. (2009) questionnaire centred on discussion between partners regarding shared goals and aspirations. Many people with learning disabilities have issues surrounding verbal communication and expression of abstract concepts (McCarthy, 1999). Considering this, it is unclear if they would be able to reach the same level of mutual disclosure required for intellectual intimacy as adults without a learning disability. It is possible that, where verbal communication is an issue, other aspects of intimacy such as physical and emotional intimacy become more important to couples with a learning disability as an indication of having intimacy in the relationship.

In conclusion, intimacy is a key component of love, defined as ‘closeness’ between two individuals that was reciprocal and equal. Arguably, without intimacy in a relationship, love could not develop. Intimacy presents itself in different forms, such as emotional, physical or intellectual intimacy, and most relationships involve a combination of these. Sexual relationships do not necessarily lead to intimacy but could increase intimacy if an existing emotional connection was present. Couples with high levels of intimacy experience happier and more successful relationships, however, poor attachment in childhood (discussed in Section 2.3.5) suggests that relationships which develop in adulthood from this basis are likely to lack intimacy.

In document INFORME ANUAL2010 DESENVOLVIMIENTO DEL COMERCIO EXTERIOR AGROEXPORTADOR (página 57-100)