Levels of Intimacy and Relationships - A Guide from Terry Gorski

In general, the following information comes from Terry Gorski's book, Getting Love Right: Learning the Choices of Healthy Intimacy. In this book he shares his point of view on the different types of relationships that people can have with varying levels of intimacy. (Some of it I have paraphrased from a lecture he gave on the same topic that I had the opportunity to listen to many years ago.) As Gorski explains: It is one of the hallmarks of dysfunctional (unhealthy) relating to believe you either have to be totally, intimately involved with someone, from the beginning, and it has to be seen as a serious or potentially long-term relationship, from the beginning, or you have no relationships at all. In other words, there is no "middle ground" - it's "All or Nothing".

One of the things I have come to appreciate about Terry Gorski is that he pretty much sees the realities of relationships for what they are and he addresses those realities as they are rather than making a lot of moral/value judgments about the people having various types of relationships. He basically says, "Look: It's obvious not every relationship is meant to be a serious long-term, committed relationship. People actually relate at a lot of different levels and for different reasons, and for different periods of time, which includes different expectations and different levels of intimacy."

In the original lecture I heard of Terry Gorski speaking on intimacy, he outlined several different levels of relationship as follows:

a) Casual - the type of relationship you have with the cleaning people at your workplace; in this case you'd have a very low level of intimacy, you may or may not even know each other's names, but you may say "Hi" to each other and interact in a very superficial way.

b) Acquaintance – someone you know a little better than a casual relation, but still with very little regular interaction. Maybe you know each other through other closer friends and relationships.

c) Functional Association - this form of relationship includes people that you work with and possibly people that you share housing with, clubs or social organizations of which you are a member. These are "functional associations" in that the individuals share responsibilities to maintain a given circumstance or to accomplish specific goals. Interactions are more task-oriented. Again this usually involves little or no intimacy in the sense of their being discussions about personal matters; although, it is common (though maybe not necessarily healthy) for those lines to be crossed.

d) Companionship - In a companionship, "the activity is more important than the person". In other words, the reason two people get together is to share an activity that they both enjoy. However, if Joe doesn't want to go see the latest Leonardo DiCaprio movie then you call up Steve and see if he wants to go instead since he also likes Leo. If Steve can't go, you move on to Alan, etc. For heterosexuals, it is probably easier to negotiate "companioning" activities with the same sex; however, negotiating motives and expectations can get a little trickier when companioning with the opposite sex. Same goes for homosexuals only in reverse, i.e. it's easier to companion with the opposite sex than it is to companion with the same sex. It is possible, however, in all cases as long as all parties involved understand at what level they are relating. In terms of intimacy, there may be a little more personal interaction between companions, but again, the focus is usually on the activity rather than the person with whom you are sharing the activity.

e) Friendship - Friendship is basically the opposite of companionship. In a friendship, spending time with the person becomes most important and the shared activity becomes secondary. Friendships involve much more focus on interpersonal communication, sharing of feelings, wants, hopes, dreams, desires, fears, etc. Friendships include emotional and psychological intimacy, but not necessarily physical intimacy. I think it is worthwhile noting that I have already discussed three other levels of relationships and we are just now getting to a level where intimacy becomes a more defining element.

f) Although at this point Terry Gorski would have defined the next level of relationship as a "Romantic Relationship" which would be further defined as "having a sexy friend"; I'd rather define this relationship as a Physically Intimate Friendship (especially given the info I shared in these blogs: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I and Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part II). I'm beginning to feel whenever you throw "romance" into the mix, you open the "Big Romantic Myth Box" (not unlike Pandora's) and the relationship will be undone by all the cultural and archetypal expectations that come spewing forth as a result. For me, at least, at this point in my life, I would rather have a lover who was first and foremost a good friend than anything mythically "more" than that (which would actually end up being less, as far as I have experienced it).

In further consideration of what it means to be a good friend; I would say it involves being able to maintain a balance of giving and receiving of energy and attention and a mutual meeting of love needs (See Also:Understanding Basic Human Love Needs). You can have friends who meet your love needs for togetherness or companionship, and you can have other friends who meet your love needs for communication or talking, and you can have still other friends who meet your love needs for physical intimacy and/or caring. If you happen to find a relationship where one other person can satisfy many or all of your most important love needs and you can satisfy all or most of their most important love needs, then I'd say that is a good basis for a longer-term, committed, relationship; if practical circumstances support that as well.

In Getting Love Right..., Gorski divides "love relationships" into four types: experimental dating, transitional and committed relationships, and intimate encounters. He says:

"Experimental dating, transitional relationships, and intimate encounters are all short-term relationships that last from several days to several months and are generally not expected to grow into long-term committed relationships. These short-term involvements each meet particular relationship needs. Experimental dating relationships give us new experiences that allow us to gain the knowledge we need to make sound relationship choices in the future. Transitional relationships provide valuable support during the difficult period after the end of a long-term committed relationship. Intimate encounters are unique relationships outside the normal context of our lives that meet our here-and-now needs for intimacy." (p. 91)

(This last statement is one that has sold me on Terry Gorski - the fact that he acknowledges a functional, relational place for "one night stands"! Granted, they're not what I'm really "into" anymore, but I've definitely had my share and I think I would have been able to truly enjoy them for what they were if overriding "romantic/all or nothing" expectations had not already been programmed into my brain by both religious and secular elements of society!)

Gorski continues:

"Two essential factors in all healthy relationships are awareness of your own and your partner's expectations and your honesty of motive. You must first be aware of the type of relationship you are or are not looking for and then be willing to discuss your expectations with your partner in the early stages of the relationship. If you are unsure of exactly what type of relationship you want, you can communicate that, too. Your partner also must talk about his or her expectations. This will give both of you an opportunity to decide if involvement, under those terms, will meet your relationship needs. This is especially important in transitional relationships and intimate encounters, when a misunderstanding of expectations and motive can be emotionally devastating." (pp. 91-92).

I can only say - how true, how true?! And here's some more:

"Although you think you know what type of relationship you are ready for, your relationship goals may change when you become involved with a particular person and your feelings toward him or her evolve. You can never be certain at the outset how a relationship will turn out. Don't be afraid to change your expectations as your feelings change, but realize that if they do, you need to let your partner know and renegotiate the terms of the relationship. Remember, just because you change your expectations doesn't mean your partner will change his or hers.

"These relationship categories are not absolute. They are important primarily to help you clarify the essential nature of the short-term relationships so that you can have a way of determining what you are seeking in a particular relationship and talk about it with your partner. There are times these categories will overlap, and you may find they are less definite in practice than in theory." (p. 92)

Okay - that's probably enough to digest for this blog.

My motives in writing: a) reinforcing these definitions/concepts with myself, and b) offering to my friends and "subscribers" what I consider to be some very practical understanding for healthy intimate relationships. My hope is that they will learn from this information as well, thus increasing the chances for them to also have healthy, functional relationships if they are not experiencing them already. And if they realize that what they have is/are already healthy, functional relationship/s - then this will help to reinforce and validate their experience in a way that all our media propaganda about the "romantic myth of love" cannot.

A "Bill of Rights" for Interpersonal Relationships

In contrast to seeking "romantic love" (as I discuss in this blog: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love - Part I) I am dedicated to keeping my heart and soul grounded in the real world of ordinary human beings who have more or less ordinary love needs that can only be satisfied by rather simple and ordinary loving.  One has to wonder though, if it were so simple to love this way that any ordinary human being could do it, then why is it so few of us actually do?

My current understanding is that our "ego 'I's" tend to get in the way - they want to be "special," or they want to see their love interest as "special". It may be that people are seeking the "unconditional love" they did not receive as a child, something I address in my TEDx talk here: Get Ready - The World is Waiting. Where there is a biochemical pattern to "Instant Intimacy", we can get psychologically and physiologically addicted to it, so we move from one "Instantly Intimate" relationship to another. Being addicted in this way, we tend to look for "drama" in all of our experiencing in relationship (both positive and negative), and "ordinary loving" just doesn't measure up.

In effect, the "ego 'I'" distracts itself from real loving by pursuing the much more dramatic, Romantic Illusion of Love. And, as fairly recent experience has taught me, it seems as soon as the relationship actually starts to be about Love Itself, and not merely about "ego-gratification", then egoically possessed people will walk (or run) away from those relationships, seeking instead to repeat the dysfunctional/dramatic/romantic, pseudo-loving, relationships with which they are already familiar, and to which they are (mostly unconsciously) addicted.

So what's involved in Real Loving - human to human?  Here is something I've read in "Getting Love Right: Learning the Choices of Healthy Intimacy" by Terrence (Terry) Gorski:  It's called "The Relationship Bill of Rights" and it goes like this:

1.  I have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.
2.  I have the right to be free from psychological or physical abuse.
3.  I have the right to proper notice and negotiation prior to the relationship being terminated.
4.  I have the right to experience my own thoughts and feelings.
5.  I have the right to tell my partner honestly and responsibly what I am thinking and feeling - even if my partner does not agree - without being condemned for it.
6.  I have the right to have my own life outside of the relationship.
7.  I have the right to continue to learn and to grow.
8.  I have the right to talk openly about and seek to resolve relationship problems.
9.  I have the right to end the relationship if it is not meeting my needs.
10.  I recognize that my partner has the same rights I do.  (Pages 334 and 335.)

(Why do I think these seem like potential lyrics for a rap song? : ))

Although the focus of Gorski's book  is on intimate relationships, I think many of these "rights" are just as important in other types of relationships, with different levels of intimacy.  In other words, these are Fundamental to healthy, functional relationships where there is a commitment to mutual love and respect that takes priority over mere ego-gratification.

If I look back at my relationship with my mother (my first example/experience of a "loving relationship"), I'd have to say there were many of the fundamental rights listed above that she violated.  Granted she was mentally ill, but that did not change the impact of her actions on me especially as a young child. I strongly suspect now that, just like physical abuse, her emotional/psychological patterning with me predisposed me to allow others to violate those same rights in my adult life in other (supposedly) "loving" relationships.  However, in one particular relationship I experienced shortly after reading Gorski's book, I did find the courage and justification to stand up for myself especially with respect to Right Number 5 from the list above. And, ultimately I ended the relationship (exercising Right Number 9) when the other party was not willing to recognize or end those violations.

Since then I have also learned to be much more discerning about what it Feels like to be loved - in effect, to have these basic rights recognized and honored in my relationships with others.  I am also taking even more conscious responsibility for how I relate to others with respect to these rights as they apply to them.  Although I had some intuition of the importance of these rights before reading Gorski's book, reading it definitely served to solidify and reawaken my awareness relative to these issues, and I feel much more capable now of not only standing up for my own rights, but also respecting these rights in my relationships with others.

I hope this offers the same insight and encouragement to others who read this blog. : )