‘‘Marriage’’ Misnames ‘‘Couples’’ and Familial Therapies

Abstract

Diverging from familial fluctuations perpetuates ‘‘nuclear families’’ conceptually in contemporary theoretical, research, and clinical practices. Furthermore, presuming all couples are ‘‘reciprocal relationships’’ only between men and women entails couples are heterosexual or married relationships. However, not all couples are ‘‘reciprocal relationships’’ between men and women. Therefore ‘‘marriage’’ misnames all nonheterosexual and all unmarried couples. In this positional article, the authors emphasize reasonableness, transparency, and linguistic accuracy to include all systemic clients in emergent theories, research, and clinical practices. Preeminent publications (n = 1,763) demonstrated ‘‘couples’’ preponderance over ‘‘marriage’’ between 2000 and 2008. Moreover, the authors suggest linguistic accuracy may advance couples’ ontology and epistemology to develop familial therapies in 21st-century America. The authors also discuss ethical and clinical implications.

Avaliação Clínica de Relações Familiares com a Utilização da Entrevista Familiar Estruturada (EFE): Estudo de Caso

“…A organização familiar é o mais importante e significativo referencial na vida da pessoa. Vínculos sociofamiliares dão ao indivíduo a segurança de pertencimento social e, quando os pais estipulam papéis e regras claras, coerentes e permanentes, essas são aproveitadas durante toda a vida (Féres--Carneiro, 2005;Del Rio, & Mieling, 2010;Distelberg, & Blow, 2011;Kolbert et al, 2013).…”

“…A afeição física é elemento fundamental para o casal e para a família como um todo, pois por meio dela se pode manter a proximidade emocional dos subsistemas e das pessoas (Rocha, 2010;Moimaz et al, 2011;Scorsolini--Comin & Santos, 2011;Del Rio, & Mieling, 2010). A afeição física, na dinâmica familiar, é considerada um tipo de comportamento usualmente não verbal, manifestado pelos membros e essencial para a constituição da identidade individual e do senso de pertencimento.…”

Book Review: Robert W. Firestone, Lisa A. Firestone, and Joyce Catlett Sex and Love in Intimate Relationships Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2006, 2008. 338 pp. $34.06 (softbound, 2008), $40.95 (hardbound, 2006). ISBN 1-59147-286-5 (hardbound), ISBN 1-43380-430-1 (softbound)

“…Nevertheless, in today's America, for example, there is evidence that individuals are not following dogmatic regulations on sexual pleasure vis-à-vis procreation (e.g., Berthrong, 2004). By and large, American society has evolved to render the notion of ''marriage'' as a misnomer for all possible couples and families (Del Rio, 2004). Couples today include (a) biracial dyads; (b) biethnic dyads; (c) dual career dyads; (d) blended dyads; (e) divorced dyads, wherein either one or both partners have undergone divorce and may or may not bring children into the couple; (f) dyads facing disabilities whether physical or mental or both by one or both partners; (g) samesex identity dyads; (h) bisexual identity dyads; (i) transsexual identity dyads; and (j) unequal or equal educational background dyads.…”

The Soul Mates Model

“…Within the context of successful couple's relationship development the postmodern orientation-which is particularly salient to helping professionals trained in multicultural and diversity competence (ACA, 2005;Sue & Sue, 2007)-becomes one of inclusivity and embrace of the diverse and variegated nature and dynamics of the contemporary couple's relationship. From this philosophical vantage point, the traditional, positivist, marriage-centric (Del Rio & Mieling, 2010;Gurman, 2008), heterocentric, sex-essentialist, and at times religiously inspired models for couples dynamics and long-term success of past centuries are seen as increasingly insufficient to guide contemporary relationship development. The soul mates model, in contrast, provides an alternative designed to serve all couples, regardless of age, culture, marital status, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.…”