he ability to create and maintain intimacy in relationships--particularly in a primary relationship--is essential for the completion of self and meeting the deepest needs of the soul. Achieving intimacy is probably foundational to one's ability to find real happiness and contentment over the period of a lifetime. This paper will attempt to define intimacy in a holistic way and further present a theory that among other limiting factors, conservative institutional religion, as commonly experienced in the Mormon culture, may inhibit the capacity to achieve real intimacy with self and others.

Intimacy

Intimacy capacity has been linked to lower incidence of psychiatric disorders,[1] lower mortality rates,[2] improved physiological functioning (in this study the prediction of angina pectoris),[3] lower rates of depression,[4] and successful bereavement with reduced risk of illness and mortality.[5] Intimacy dysfunction (the inability to achieve intimacy) has been shown to be a primary etiological factor in sex offending behaviors and other expressions of intimate violence (e.g. domestic violence).[6] Such evidence affirms that not only is the experience of intimacy critical to healthy functioning, but the lack of intimacy can lead to very destructive behaviors in some. To understand this construct an accurate perception of intimacy is important.

It is easy to define intimacy on a surface level. A more complete understanding of the experience of intimacy is difficult due to the subjective or phenomenal nature of it. A popular misconception of intimacy reduces its meaning to parallel that of sexual expression. When one hears the phrase "they were intimate," the obvious connotation is one of mere sexual behavior. Such expressions or common beliefs discount the importance of intimacy. It is possible to be sexual with someone and not know their name! For this reason some theorists have actually conceptualized sex as a separate issue from intimacy.[7] Perhaps such distortions or minimizations of intimacy are both foundational to, and represent much of the intimacy dysfunction that exists in individuals.

Erikson identified the capacity to be intimate as a critical developmental task one achieves in the transition from adolescence to adulthood.[8] Sullivan theorized that intimacy was associated with the phases of life beginning in adolescence, describing it as the need "for collaboration with at least one other person" and characterized in the relationship by sensitivity to the other's needs and validation of personal worth.[9]

Intimacy may be compartmentalized into various components. Some researchers have identified as many as 11 facets of intimacy including: sexual, emotional, aesthetic, creative, recreational, work, crisis, conflict, commitment, spiritual, and communication intimacy. [10] I will attempt to conceptualize intimacy more holistically. However, I will identify and combine two essential elements of intimacy--the emotional and physical components-- as being critical in the experience of intimacy. I will also identify three basic types or levels of intimacy with others: social intimacy, familial intimacy and primary partner intimacy, and discuss the unique qualities of each. Further, I will introduce and discuss an essential ingredient in attaining intimacy with others, a foundational element I term self-intimacy.

A simple definition of intimacy is a state of closeness or the ability to be close to another. This is similar (perhaps just a different conceptualization) to the foundational and universal need we have to love and be loved.[11] Closeness to another would normally include both a physical and emotional closeness. Physical closeness or proximity to another includes physical touch as demonstrated by non-genital, non-sexual touching, hugging, caressing etc. Physical intimacy would of course also include sexual touch and expression in appropriate relationships. Emotional closeness or intimacy with another includes an affective state that is characterized or demonstrated by self-disclosure of affect, thoughts, and experiences. Emotional attunement with another is at the core of intimacy. This capacity necessitates that the individual is first aware of their own thoughts and feelings, and then can communicate the real feelings, without covering or substituting a more acceptable or less vulnerable feeling. This might be termed emotional honesty.

A more holistic and perhaps subjective definition of intimacy would be the complete sharing of the self with another. This refers to a state of being between individuals wherein "intimates" are completely known. In other words, the intimates share themselves completely. All thoughts, experiences and feelings, including fears, hurts, joys, hopes, etc., are shared with the other. Emotional honesty is foundational to such a state.

The condition of being fully known negates a condition of any level of secret life by the intimate partner. Such a state of intimacy necessitates that both intimates are genuine. The degree to which intimate partners respond genuinely is the corresponding degree to which complete intimacy is potential. Likewise, the degree that either partner is less than genuine represents the limiting capacity of intimacy in the relationship. When both partners have evolved to a state of genuineness and can respond with emotional honesty, a complete level of intimacy is potential. This state represents the greatest level of vulnerability and also allows the intimate to be fully accepted based on who they really are.

Various types/levels of intimacy exist based on the nature of the relationship involved. Although more may be identified, three main levels of intimacy with others exists in ascending order. By ascending order I refer to a deepening level of closeness that is appropriate for the type of relationship. In addition, and foundational to intimacy with others, is the experience of self intimacy, which I will discuss later. The three levels of intimacy with others include: social intimacy--the ability to be interpersonally close to others such as friends; familial intimacy--intimacy with family members other than spouse, e.g. parents, children, siblings, etc. Familial intimacy is similar to social intimacy, but in a healthy state probably represents a deeper level of closeness. Primary partner intimacy-- intimacy with a spouse or lover. This intimacy represents the deepest level of closeness, and includes romantic or sexual intimacy. Primary partner or spouse intimacy is probably most important to healthy functioning in individuals, although the achievement of each type or level of intimacy is probably foundational to overall wellness. Interestingly, as one ascends the hierarchy of intimate relationships from social to primary partner intimacy, a corollary of increasing vulnerability exists which makes the capacity for intimacy more difficult. In other words, social intimacy embodies the lowest level of vulnerability, and as such is easiest to achieve. Intimacy with a primary partner comprises the greatest level of vulnerability, and as such is most difficult to achieve and maintain over time . More risk exists in relationships with greater vulnerability and therefore the difficulty in sharing the self completely is proportionately more difficult. Likewise, the benefits or blessing of intimacy is probably also proportionately greater with increased risk and deeper intimacy. Total genuineness and a complete state of sharing of the real self then brings about the state of intimacy that when reciprocated with the primary partner meets the deepest needs of the soul.

It is also important to note that in order to be complete over time, intimacy with another must include a reciprocity between intimates or partners. One-way intimacy with another eventually leads to a lack of intimacy altogether.

I believe the capacity to be intimate with another begins or is conditional upon the individual's capacity to be intimate with self.[12] Self-intimacy means an individual can be close to themselves in both a physical and emotional sense. Physical self-intimacy is conceptualized by the individual's ability to experience themselves physically in a pleasing or acceptable way. Discomfort with one's body, the way one looks, or any inhibition to experience self in a physical way ultimately limits an individual's intimacy capacity with another. Emotional self-intimacy is defined by the individual's capacity to be close to themselves on an affective level. Self- awareness and acceptance is foundational to such capacity. This means an individual has learned to be aware of what they are thinking and feeling. Further, the individual has progressed sufficiently in their own evolution to feel a sense of their own uniqueness and individual worth. Self-alienation and insecurity (shame) is the antithesis of this state. Limitations in one's self-emotional intimacy capability likewise seriously limits the capacity for intimacy with another.

Intimacy Limitations

Various social, cultural and personal issues limit individuals' capacity for intimacy. It won't be surprising that some research has validated that men have greater intimacy limitations (and consequent dysfunction) than women.[13] Male socialization is unfortunately a training ground for intimacy dysfunction. Such issues like competition, homophobia, aversion to vulnerability and openness, dissonance to feelings, and lack of role models are identified social and personal features that especially, although not exclusively, limit a male's intimacy capacity.[14]

Shame is an affective state characterized by a deep feeling of inadequacy. A shame-bound individual will always experience intimacy dysfunction due to their fear of being fully known. The shamed individual purposely keeps themselves unknown at some level fearing another will discover their perceived state of inferiority. Interestingly, a shamed individual even keeps the self unknown to themselves due to the fear of facing their own inadequacy. In other words, there is diminished self-intimacy. The shamed individual presents images or personas to mask this core feeling of inadequacy. The images or personas preclude intimacy. The irony is that the shamed individual fears the very thing that will allow the shame to be released--that is being image-free or genuine. Only through the risk of being genuine can the individual begin to experience intimacy. Then, because the intimate is fully known, the opportunity to have all shame expunged presents itself through having others accept the person based on a genuine presentation of the self.

A myriad of etiological factors are believed to be potential producers of the state of shame in an individual. One researcher has suggested that 90% of individuals grow up shame-based.[15] I believe institutional religion can provide an especially powerful foundation for shame in individuals and therefore can significantly contribute to intimacy incapacity. Some examples of diminished intimacy capacity resulting from religious shame will be presented later.

Family conditions obviously profoundly influence a person's intimacy capacity. The attachment or bonding process essential in infancy and throughout an individual's fundamental growth years are the beginning building blocks of intimacy capacity.[16] Family modeling is also probably one of the greatest influences on an individual's developing intimacy potential. The family environment that fails to model physical and emotional intimacy will most likely inhibit family members' ability to be intimate with others. Family environments where appropriate physical touch is experienced model physical intimacy. Family environments that encourage an awareness and expression of a full range of affective material model emotional intimacy.

Physiological factors probably also influence an individual's intimacy capacity. Although it would be difficult to isolate any real biological factors that inhibit or promote intimacy potential, such things as the way one looks and personality features that have their roots in biological or genetic factors, probably impact intimacy capacity significantly.

Other factors like abuse or trauma can likewise obviously limit a person's developing capacity for intimacy. Sexual trauma or abuse conflicts an individual's self-intimacy and consequently influences their ability to be physically or emotionally close to others. Sexual abuse especially confounds a person's physical intimacy capacity more severely than other types of abuse. Other forms of abuse likewise inhibit self-intimacy in an individual and therefore have a consequent intimacy dysfunction potential.

In view of the many influences on intimacy potential the question addressed herein is how might an individual's experience with institutional religion--especially conservative ones like that of the Mormon Church--limit an individual's capacity for intimacy?

As stated, I believe the capacity for intimacy depends on a person's capability of self-intimacy. Self-intimacy means the individual's ability for complete self-awareness and acceptance. Foundational to self-awareness/acceptance is the individual's capacity for wholeness; in other words, the person's ability to be aware of and embrace the totality of their thoughts, feelings and experiences--both those perceived as good as well as bad. Incidentally, acceptance of "bad" thoughts, feelings, and behaviors doesn't necessarily mean approval, but rather awareness of such.

Inherent in the human experience is the splitting or repression of undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors into a component of the psyche Jung identified as the shadow.[17] In a vernacular understanding, it is possible on an individual level to "sweep under the carpet" of our own psyches undesirable thoughts, feelings and behaviors that are alien to self. In effect, to become very non self-aware. Conservative religions, such as Mormonism, with its tremendous pressures on perfection, have a consequent and corollary potential of increasing an individual's repression of ego-dystonic (alien to self) material,[18] thus exacerbating the shadow phenomenon. In religious cultures with strong influences towards rejection or inhibition of "bad" feelings, thoughts, and experiences, the propensity is to deny or repress such material on a personal basis. Further, with the great emphasis placed on "righteousness" amidst a culture with immense expectations in many areas, an effect of appearance, or image is predominant. This is the effect of the repression of "unrighteous" material into the shadow, with no encouragement or ability, in view of the religious culture, to assimilate it into the experience of being imperfect people. The persona of goodness is outwardly projected, with the consequent repression of any perceived "badness" that is an inevitable component of the human experience. This state of being inhibits the individual's self-intimacy, by encouraging a false or incomplete presentation of the self.

This has a strong potential of limiting intimacy with others based on the need for an image of righteousness. As an illustration, if we were to mine to the core conflict issues that exist between many parents and their children, how much of the conflict rests with the parent's need for their children to appear righteous or acceptable to others? A basic intimacy dysfunction emerges based on the parent's need for appearance or image to others. This same intimacy limiting dynamic can of course be involved in primary and social relationships as well. Institutional religion can obviously play a significant role in exacerbating this phenomenon.

Guilt is a tool used by institutional religion to motivate, coerce and ultimately control its membership. Guilt can be used subtly, often, with no awareness that it is being used. Guilt may at times be a useful affective state motivating someone to improve or change in a healthy way. Perhaps more often, guilt is a contribution and subsidy of the deeper affective state of shame. Guilt inflicted from a Godly perspective (a by-product of institutional religion) becomes potentially most shaming. As such, the accumulation of guilt and shame inflicted from religion ultimately contributes to an individual's self-intimacy incapacity in a potent way. Some arbitrary examples of the subtle use of guilt I remember from my Mormon experience are: "Jesus loves us when we are reverent," with the unspoken message of I am bad when I am not reverent (as a child I was routinely and perhaps naturally irreverent); "lusting is evil," with the unspoken reality of I am bad when I have a sexual thought or feeling (I routinely experience sexual thoughts and feelings); standing roll calls at 7 am (I routinely slept in!). Again, because such experiences profoundly contribute to a person's potential of self-rejection, they can seriously limit the experience of self-intimacy and consequently intimacy with others.

The expectations placed on individuals involved in conservative institutional religions not only potentially inhibit self-intimacy, but can likewise preclude the capacity of being intimate with others by another related means, that of projection. When an individual has relegated material to his/her personal shadow, and then lacks the ability to honestly face those components of self, oftentimes, the psychic defense mechanism used to protect against this spilt in self is projection. The individual projects onto others those perceived "weaknesses" they cannot face in themselves. Often, such projection is accompanied with substantial scorn and/or contempt. This tends to surface as self-righteousness. A classic example of this mechanism in action occurred some time ago when a man assaulted a judge he felt had given a light sentence to an individual convicted of a child pornography offense. The man was himself later guilty of a similar offense with child pornography!

As institutional religion places expectations on people, and they respond to such expectations in a less than healthy way, a common offspring is an abundance of projection. Again, this surfaces most commonly with the "feel" of self-righteousness. Religion simply contributes to this phenomena by presenting perhaps unrealistic expectations with inherent guilt mechanisms to enforce conformity. Matthew chapter 23 is one example where Jesus is critical of such functioning within the religious institution of his day. The diminished intimacy corollary emerges as individuals elevate themselves over others using projection. As one projects self-inadequacy onto others there is immediate and significant intimacy limitations created. This incapacity is found in social, family and spouse relationships.

The function of sexual expression necessitates first the formation of sexual ideas and images in the person's mind. Individual's who have been indoctrinated in religious paradigms and cultures that present an overall sinful or negative image of sexuality have the sexual mental processes undermined by the years of reinforcing the sinfulness of sexual expression, with little in comparison that encourages the positive. This is probably a prominent influence involved in the sexual problems Mormon couples experience as identified by influential Mormon church leader Spencer W. Kimball when he stated:

If you study the divorces, as we have had to do in these past years, you will find there are one, two, three, four reasons. Generally sex is the first. They did not get along sexually. They may not say that in court. They may not even tell that to their attorney, but that is the reason...[19]

How can couples experience a freedom to explore sexual intimacy together when years of conditioning regarding the sinfulness of sexual expression has been reinforced in the context of a Godly perspective?

Mormonism can significantly contribute to intimacy incapacity between primary spouses in a way quite exclusive from any other religions. While many conservative religions potentially socialize their membership with a residue of shame surrounding sexual intimacy as Mormonism can,[20] the Mormon Church is unique in requiring its membership to wear a proscribed underwear. Faithful members of the Mormon Church are required to wear the special underwear or "garments" both day and night. Faithful adherents are taught concerning the sacredness of the underwear and in yearly interviews with authorities of the church they must declare if they are wearing the garments both day and night!

The special garments have a potentially powerful inhibiting factor in the capacity of sexual thought and consequently sexual intimacy. Although the underwear has changed over the years, becoming less obtrusive, still the officially worn undergarments cover the body like an undershirt and semi-long underwear. Because members are taught that the garments have a protective quality to them, one might ask what the members are protecting themselves from in the requirement to wear them at night? How much sexual thought can one produce or allow when wearing the holy underwear? A shame of the body, through the need to cover it at all times, even when sleeping with your spouse is a potential. The constant reminder that lustfulness, or allowing a state of general nakedness with one's partner is wrong, assuredly inhibits the overall quality of physical or sexual responsiveness between many couples. This is of course a condition that can inhibit, in a significant way, through the mechanism of God-infused shame, the physical or sexual component of intimacy between spouses.

Another pervasive quality within the Mormon Church is its strong emphasis on families. The roles of men and women within the organization become imbued with strong marital and parental expectations. I believe this is a positive quality, but one that presents an interesting and potentially powerful intimacy inhibiting factor between spouses in the organization. When expectations between spouses or with children are not sufficient to meet the rigid standards of normal church membership, powerful inadequacy feelings preclude individuals from feeling close to others not meeting such expectations. In situations where parents or spouses would normally have no potential for resentments due to unmet expectations, in Mormon couples and families such situations are pervasive. Examples with children include: children not being active in church; children not achieving certain achievements of membership; children not following proscribed church policies; children being involved in normal activities that transgress church expectations, e.g. tatoos, multiple piercings etc. Similar expectation exist between couples.

Patriarchy, with it's inherent male privilege is pervasive in Mormonism and has intrinsic intimacy dysfunction qualities. Rigid role expectations within couples in a patriarchal paradigm with the inherent power inequality presents obvious intimacy problems. Subservience in either partner will always preclude a condition that allows a fullness of intimacy. When one partner is expected to subjugate their will to the other due to gender, a condition of inequality of will automatically disrupts the state necessary for real intimacy.

Building Intimacy Capacity

The work of building intimacy capacity obviously begins with nurturing self-intimacy.[21] This might be termed "self-work," and requires confronting the self genuinely. Shadow material must be made conscious and examined honestly. Areas of self-inadequacy must be addressed and self-empowerment attained. Areas of shame must be confronted and the process of healing enacted. The capacity for emotional honesty must be understood and practiced. Individuals may do this self-work alone or utilize a professional in the process of psychotherapy. Self-awareness and emotional honesty is both the by-product and the journey of self-work. Self-awareness, and emotional honesty are foundational pieces of intimacy capacity. Those areas of intimacy incapacity that religion has contributed to are resolved using the same processes.

A simple recipe for building emotional intimacy with others includes:

1. An awareness of what one thinks, feels and experiences.

2. A willingness to share with another the inner content of the self.

3. Utilizing skills that communicate the real presentation of self to another. Generally, this means assertiveness skills. This encompasses communication skills that encourage openness in the other, and discourages the creation of defenses or lack of openness in the other.

4. Reciprocity in intimates.

5. Intimates are safe for each other. This means the intimate is attempting to understand the other's position from their point of view not their own. Safety includes active listening. It usually precludes the intimate attempting to "solve" the others' concerns. Safety is a skill an intimate utilizes that allows the partner to genuinely present the real self without fear of judgement or rejection on any level.

Discussion

As a therapist with specialty in the treatment of intimate disorders (especially sexual abuse) working in a predominantly LDS area, and through my own experience in the culture of Mormonism, the realities of intimacy dysfunction have became glaring. Many sexual offenders I have worked with over the years have disclosed that they would have never committed sexual sin, although they committed some type of incest or other forms of sexual abuse. One married offender told me he would have never had an affair, but molested three of his daughters. One younger offender responded to the shame from his family's tremendous pressure to be perfect by secretly raping his younger sister.

Couples settle for an image of connection rather than pursuing the deeper inner self-work that could lead to real levels of intimacy. In this intimacy-limited condition various levels of dysfunction can arise, with abuse situations being the more extreme. However, less traumatic, but perhaps equally damaging effects can emerge where intimacy dysfunction exists. States of emotional distance and sexual inhibition often go "unreported" but seriously limit the capacity for real joy and contentment in individual's lives.

Often, the image of closeness, with the need to appear "okay" precludes outsiders from perceiving/knowing the real level of intimacy dysfunction operational in couples and families. As presented, conservative religion is but one of many influences that can limit intimacy capacity. However, due to its God-based context, with the inherent eternal implications for the faithful, religion's contribution to intimacy incapacity represents a serious subsidy to the problem. Awareness of the conditions that limit intimacy is an important first step in ameliorating the problem.


[1] W. Gove, "Sex, Marital Status and Mortality," American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 79, 45-67.

[2] J. Lynch, The Broken Heart (New York: Basic Books, 1977); L. F. Berkman & S. L. Syme, "Social Networks, Host Resistance and Mortality," American Journal of Epidemiology, 1979, 109, 186-204.

[3] J. H. Medalie & U. Goldbourt, "Angina Pectoris Among 10,000 men," American Journal of Medicine, 1976, 60, 910-921.

[4] G. W. Brown & T. Harris, Social Origins of Depression (London: Tavistock Publications, 1978).

[5] Lynch; T. Jacobs & E. Charles, "Life Events and the Occurrence of Cancer in Children," Psychosomatic Medicine, 1980, 42, 22-23.

[6] W. L. Marshall, "Intimacy, Loneliness and Sexual Offenders" Behavioral..., 27(1989), 491-503; J. V.P. Check, D. Perlman, & N. M. Malamuth, "Loneliness and Aggressive Behaviour," Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2 (1985), 243-252; E. Erez, "Intimacy, Violence, and the Police," Human Relations 39 (1986), 265-281.

[7] G. W. Goethals, "The Evolution of Sexual and Genital Intimacy: A Comparison of the Views of Erik H. Erikson and Harry Stack Sullivan," Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis 4 (1976), 529-544.

[8] E. Erikson, Childhood and Society (New York: W. W. Norton, 1950).

[9] H. S. Sullivan, The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry (New York: W. W. Norton, 1953).

[10] H. J. Clinebell, & C. H. Clinebell, The Intimate Marriage (New York: Harper and Row, 1970).

[11] W. Glasser, Reality Therapy: A New Approach to Psychiatry (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 7-9

[12] See M. F. Schwartz, "Reenactments Related to Bonding and Hypersexuality," Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity 3, (1996), 195.

[13] R. A. Lewis, "Emotional Intimacy among Men," Journal of Social Issues 34, (1978), 108-121.

[14] Ibid., 110-114.

[15] Whitlock, Healing the Inner Child

[16] Schwartz, 195.

[17] See C. Zweig & J. Abrams, eds., Meeting the Shadow: The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Human Nature. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1991), 3.

[18] See my earlier treatment of the shadow effect of plural marriage in the Mormon experience which argues for the notion that Jesus' injunction to be perfect was more accurately a call for wholeness. This is ironically an invitation to be more self-aware of good as well as "bad" thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. In...

[19] Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, eds. Edward L. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 312.

[20] See R. Mackelprang

[21] S. B. Levine, "Psychological Intimacy," Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 17, 4, Winter (1991), 259-267.