In an era of packed schedules, work, children, social networks, and increasingly defended personal spaces, many couples end up functioning as two individuals who share life. The psychiatrist and sexologist Walter Ghedín explains where the line lies between autonomy and individualism and why a relationship needs time, attention, and commitment.
Relationships also change over time. Not only because of the experiences of the people in them, but also due to the social and cultural context in which they unfold. Work, family obligations, personal time, social networks, and the need to maintain one’s own spaces can cause, almost unnoticed, two people who are a couple to start functioning as if they were living independent lives.
For Ghedín, the challenge is to find a balance between personal autonomy and commitment to the relationship. Having interests, activities, and own spaces is healthy; the problem arises when defending the individual begins to systematically displace the encounter with the other.
When Being in a Relationship Is Postponed Until There Is Time
In the early years of a relationship, explains Ghedín, there is typically a greater willingness to share moments. Desire finds space even when schedules are full and a well-established routine has not yet formed.
Over time, however, daily responsibilities can begin to take up more and more space. Work, children, social commitments, and personal activities are organized around a schedule in which the couple is relegated to the leftover moments.
The specialist notes that this does not necessarily have to do with age. While physical and mental performance can change with the years, mature couples also seek pleasurable activities as part of their personal well-being and their bond.
The problem appears when shared time ceases to be a priority and becomes a rarity.
Autonomy Is Not the Same as Individualism
One of the central points in Ghedín’s argument is the difference between autonomy and individualism.
Autonomy is necessary for personal development. It allows one to have one’s own criteria, make decisions, sustain interests, and protect one’s own spaces without depending entirely on another person.
Within a couple, that autonomy can coexist with the bond. The specialist explains that it enables concessions without implying renouncing one’s own identity.
Individualism, by contrast, takes the defense of what is one’s own much further.
“The autonomous subject has their own points of view, their life philosophy, their care patterns, and can reformulate when they feel overwhelmed, demanded, or pressured by the other”, explains Ghedín.
And adds a fundamental difference: “Autonomy allows you to yield without renouncing.”
In contrast, in individualism, the person remains attached to their positions and prioritizes their own needs without opening much space for negotiation.
When the Couple Becomes a Sum of Individualities
The current context also influences this transformation. Work pressure, the need for performance, family obligations, and social conventions can reduce the spaces available for the couple.
And when a moment of free time finally appears, other elements compete for that attention.
Ghedín mentions social networks and also the use of artificial intelligence among the activities that can occupy that personal time. To that, add friends, the gym, diets, professional goals, individual routines, and other activities that each member pursues separately.
Thus, the daily schedule can end up organized around two personal projects that are coordinated to make life work, but that do not necessarily find moments of true connection.
“An infinity of situations become normalized, turning the relationship into a sum of individualities that seek personal gratifications to avoid feeling that the bond is another stressful factor,” states the specialist.
The sentence sums up one risk: that the couple ceases to be a space of meeting and becomes, fundamentally, an organizational structure for daily life.
Stress Also Enters the Relationship
Fatigue and pressure can alter how people relate to each other. When each member arrives home with a packed schedule, negotiating, agreeing, or simply finding a moment to be together can feel like just another task.
Therefore, according to Ghedín, defending individual spaces can end up being easier than the effort to build agreements.
Work, friends, exercise, diet, networks, personal goals, and family responsibilities begin to occupy slots in an increasingly tight schedule.
The risk is that the couple becomes limited to a functional coexistence: handling the necessary, organizing schedules, meeting responsibilities, and continuing with their respective activities.
Sex Can Become a Space for Connection
In this context, Ghedín suggests that sexuality can function as an outlet and as an opportunity to reconnect.
But it’s not simply about “getting into bed” to solve the problem.
Arriving at sexual intimacy with the day’s responsibilities on one’s mind can make it harder to enjoy. The specialist explains that moving from the realm of obligations to the realm of gratification requires an internal shift that isn’t always easy.
There can be desire and physiological responses to sexual contact, but that does not necessarily mean achieving satisfaction.
For Ghedín, satisfaction requires time and focus on the contact, something linked to what is known as mindfulness.
Sexual Frequency Is Not the Same as Sexual Satisfaction
One of the concepts the specialist emphasizes is particularly clear: “Sexual frequency is not the same as sexual satisfaction.”
The number of encounters does not by itself determine the quality of the experience. When contact does not function simply as a release of sexual tension, it can become a space for personal and bond evaluation.
The difference lies in being truly present in that moment, temporarily setting aside obligations, duties, and worries.
In that sense, sexuality appears not merely as another activity on the agenda, but as a possibility to reconnect.
How to Prevent the Relationship from Running on Auto-pilot
Ghedín’s approach does not aim to eliminate autonomy or require a couple to share absolutely everything. The challenge is that personal spaces do not end up replacing the relationship.
To that end, the specialist proposes improving communication, promoting interpersonal contact, and being more flexible with individual commitments.
Because a relationship does not necessarily break when each member has their own world. The problem can arise when those two worlds stop meeting.
The final idea is simple, but it requires a daily decision: to stop thinking that the bond “runs on its own” and to acknowledge that it also needs time, attention, negotiation, and care.
Having one’s own life and, at the same time, building a shared life are not necessarily opposing paths. Autonomy can coexist with love when there is space to yield, agree, and choose to meet again.
