The Apart-er: A New Intimacy Archetype in the Age of Cultural Narcissism

Thursday, April 24, 2025.

A growing number of folks are in committed romantic relationships yet choose to live separately. These people are not simply part of a logistical LAT (Living Apart Together) arrangement due to external constraints.

They are apart-ers—those intrepid souls who intentionally structure their romantic lives around autonomy, spatial sovereignty, and emotional self-regulation.

In many ways, the aparter may represent a countercultural posture against the enmeshment and performance-driven intimacy norms typical of Western relational life.

Rather than merging homes, calendars, and identities, apart-ers assert that intimacy can thrive with deliberate distance.

This post explores the psychological, sociological, and cultural underpinnings of the apart-er identity, situating it within broader trends of Cultural Narcissism, attachment diversity, and relationship decoupling from conventional domesticity.

The Evolution from LAT to Apart-er

Living Apart Together (LAT) has been documented since the late 20th century, primarily among older adults both married and divorced folks maintaining companionship without domestic entanglement (Levin, 2004; Régnier-Loilier et al., 2009).

In more recent studies, LAT relationships have become increasingly common among younger adults as well, particularly those with higher educational attainment and urban residency (Coulter & Hu, 2017; Duncan et al., 2014).

However, apart-ers differ in one critical regard: they are not simply delaying cohabitation or avoiding it due to circumstance.

Instead, they philosophically and emotionally prefer separate living.

The apart-er is a distinct identity orientation—someone who views intimacy not as constant togetherness, but as intentional recurrence within boundaries that preserve the self.

Psychological Foundations: Boundaries, Autonomy, and Attachment

Apart-ers often reflect a highly individuated attachment style, not easily mapped onto conventional attachment theory.

While they may resemble avoidant types superficially, they are often securely attached partners with a strong orientation toward differentiation (Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2003). They value closeness but only when it does not erode self-continuity (Skowron & Dendy, 2004).

Research in neurodiversity also helps explain the apart-er’s relational logic.

For example, autistic and highly sensitive folks often report sensory and emotional overload in cohabiting environments (Botha & Frost, 2020; Cheak-Zamora et al., 2020). Living apart allows for self-regulation without sacrificing connection, which is essential for maintaining long-term emotional stability in these populations.

Gender and the Emotional Labor Rebellion

Apart-nership is also shaped by feminist critiques of traditional domestic arrangements.

The emotional labor of managing shared life—organizing schedules, initiating hard conversations, tracking moods—is disproportionately shouldered by women in heterosexual relationships (Daminger, 2019; Hochschild & Machung, 1989).

Living apart can be seen as a way for women to withdraw unpaid emotional services and reclaim their discreet mental bandwidth.

The apart-er model therefore serves as a rebellion against the unspoken assumption that love equals service.

In separate homes, partners must negotiate emotional presence explicitly rather than defaulting to the ambient intimacy that proximity creates (Duncombe & Marsden, 1993).

In other words, emotional labor becomes visible, voluntary, and inherently more reciprocal.

Cultural Narcissism and the Refusal to Perform

The apart-er identity also represents a resistance to Cultural Narcissism—the societal tendency to equate self-worth with visibility, validation, and performance (Lasch, 1979). In a media-saturated age, relationships are frequently used as vehicles for social capital, where romantic success is measured in public displays and digital affirmations.

The apart-er refuses this.

They opt out of the performance economy.

Their love is not a brand partnership, but a private practice.

They push back against the idea that intimacy must be continuous, visually documented, or always available. This refusal often results in more sustainable and less performative emotional bonds (Illouz, 2007).

In this way, apart-ers may perhaps embody a counter-narcissistic relational ethic.

Where narcissistic culture demands self-dissolution into collective validation, the aparter insists on the preservation of personal narrative sovereignty.

The Erotic Value of Distance

Apart-nership also revitalizes long-debated issues about eroticism and domesticity.

Erotic desire often wanes in highly familiar or routine domestic arrangements (Perel, 2006).

By maintaining physical and psychological distance, apart-ers sustain the erotics of anticipation. Research shows that novelty, uncertainty, and individuation are correlated with sustained sexual interest over time (Muise et al., 2015).

Living apart creates a liminal space—a zone of tension and re-entry that mirrors the early phases of desire without reverting to instability. In this sense, apartnership is not only a psychological stance but a sexually intelligent design choice.

Critiques and Class Realities

It must be noted that apart-nership remains a class-dependent privilege. Maintaining two residences is economically inaccessible to many, and critics argue that it commodifies intimacy under the guise of freedom (Jamieson, 1999).

Moreover, the apart-er lifestyle may reinforce certain neoliberal values—autonomy, efficiency, privacy—that are themselves products of the very late-modern individualism that fosters disconnection.

Yet, for those who can sustain it, the aparter model retools these values into a framework of ethical intimacy. Rather than escaping connection, apart-ers are redefining the terms on which connection occurs.

The Apart-er as a Relational Innovator

The apart-er is not a reactionary figure.

They are post-conventional in their relational orientation—someone who has moved beyond traditional couple scripts but not abandoned intimacy. -They are not fearful of closeness, but protective of its conditions.

In resisting the merge, the aparter may offer one of the most nuanced, ethical, and sustainable visions of partnership in a world grappling with relational burnout, emotional overload, and the relentless demands of visibility.

In an era shaped by Cultural Narcissism, the apart-er whispers a modest revolution:
Love me from your side of the river. I’ll meet you halfway—on purpose.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Botha, M., & Frost, D. M. (2020). Extending the minority stress model to understand mental health problems experienced by autistic people. Society and Mental Health, 10(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869318804297

Cheak-Zamora, N. C., Teti, M., & Maurer-Batjer, A. (2020). “I’m a little more independent”: Autistic adults and the experience of independent living. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50, 4191–4203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04458-w

Coulter, R., & Hu, Y. (2017). Living apart together and relationship quality. Demographic Research, 37, 1973–1998. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.62

Daminger, A. (2019). The cognitive dimension of household labor. American Sociological Review, 84(4), 609–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419859007

Duncan, S., Barlow, A., & James, G. (2014). New families? Tradition and change in partnering and relationships. Families, Relationships and Societies, 3(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674313X671653

Duncombe, J., & Marsden, D. (1993). Love and intimacy: The gender division of emotion and 'emotion work'. Sociology, 27(2), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038593027002003

Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (1989). The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. Viking.

Hu, Y., & Coulter, R. (2024). LAT relationships in midlife and late adulthood: Wellbeing, companionship, and social structure. Journal of Marriage and Family Studies, 86(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12831

Illouz, E. (2007). Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism. Polity.

Jamieson, L. (1999). Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the ‘pure relationship’. Sociology, 33(3), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038599000310

Kokko, K., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Developmental tasks and psychological functioning in middle age. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020783413412

Lasch, C. (1979). The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. W.W. Norton.

Muise, A., Schimmack, U., Impett, E. A., & Desmarais, S. (2015). Sexual frequency predicts greater well-being, but more is not always better. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614542340

Perel, E. (2006). Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence. Harper.

Régnier-Loilier, A., Beaujouan, É., & Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (2009). Neither single, nor in a couple: A study of living apart together in France. Demographic Research, 21, 75–108. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2009.21.4

Skowron, E. A., & Dendy, A. K. (2004). Differentiation of self and attachment in adulthood. Contemporary Family Therapy, 26(3), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COFT.0000037919.63750.9d