306 Chapter 9Intimacy
I remember interviewing an elderly couple
several months after the husband had suf-
fered a heart attack. I spoke to the two indi-
vidually. During the course of the separate
conversations, I learned that each person had
a different conceptualization of “closeness.”
The wife told me of an occasion when the
two of them were sitting together in the living
room and watching television. She was not
very interested in the television program and
he was not talking to her. Because he wasn’t
paying any attention to her, she went into the
other room and called a friend. The husband
told me about the same interaction, but it
held a different meaning for him. He told me
that the two of them were sitting comfortably
together watching television, something he
defined as amoment of closeness. Then, all of
a sudden, she disrupted this moment by leav-
ing the room and calling a friend. They were
both upset by the sequence of events, but for
different reasons. These two people had dif-
ferent definitions of intimacy. She defined
intimacyby talking or self-disclosure; because
the two of them were not talking, she didn’t
consider the interaction very meaningful, so
she called a friend. He definedintimacymore
as a feeling of comfort in the other’s presence
and physical proximity. She disrupted this
connection by leaving the room.
Although my anecdote suggests differ-
ences in women’s and men’s conceptualizations
of intimacy, empirical research has suggested
that women’s and men’s overall conceptualiza-
tions are quite similar. One feature of intimacy
that seems to be central to women’s and men’s
definitions is self-disclosure. When European
and Chinese Canadian dating couples were
asked to describe intimacy, the most frequent
response was self-disclosure (Marshall, 2008).
The Chinese Canadians scored lower on self-
disclosure, lower on relationship satisfaction,■ Gay men and lesbians are attracted to a similar set of
characteristics in potential mates as heterosexuals. Gay
men, like heterosexual men, are interested in a mate’s
physical attractiveness—more than lesbians are. How-
ever, lesbians, unlike heterosexual women, are not at-
tracted to a potential mate’s financial resources.
■ People make trade-offs when choosing mates. When
trade-offs have to be made, sex differences are mini-
mized, and women and men choose more similar mates.
■ Sex differences in mate preferences can be explained
by evolutionary theory, social role theory, and social
construction theory.
■ The weakness of evolutionary theory is that it cannot
explain men’s preferences for women with domestic
skills; the weakness of social role theory is that it can-
not explain men’s preferences for attractive mates.
Both theories, however, can explain why women prefer
a mate with greater economic resources.
■ Social construction theory of mate preferences is supported
by cultural differences in mate preferences. Sex differences
in mate preferences may be larger in more traditional
cultures where men’s and women’s roles are distinct and
women have less access to economic resources.
■ Historically, and still today, society expects men to initiate
romantic relationships. Despite this expectation, men may
be relatively uncomfortable having this responsibility.
■ First date scripts for relationship initiation among hetero-
sexuals and homosexuals contain similar components. Just
as heterosexual men take the proactive role in relationships
more than heterosexual women, gay men are more proac-
tive than lesbians. However, other aspects of the first date
script are not divided by sex in homosexual relationships in
the way that they are in heterosexual relationships.The Nature of Romantic Relationships
Romantic relationships are expected to pro-
vide closeness or intimacy, love, and sexual
exclusivity. I examine each of these aspects of
romantic relationships.M09_HELG0185_04_SE_C09.indd 306 6/21/11 12:40 PM