I recently spoke with my friend and author, Rhaina Cohen, about platonic live partners. In her forthcoming book, The Other Significant Others: Reimagining Life with Friendship at the Center she shares stories of people who have decided to choose a friend as a life partner rather than a romantic partner. If you missed it, the first part of our conversation is available here. In this second part of our conversation we talk about the internal and societal changes needed to make these relationships more accessible in our world.

I hope you enjoy our conversation as much as I did. 

Dr. Marisa G. Franco (MF): I’m wondering if there’s a vulnerability in these expansive relationships because they break the norm. During rough patches, the mantra isn’t necessarily “marriage is hard” but rather questioning the validity of what we’ve created. What are your thoughts on that?

Rhaina Cohen (RC): Stigma and misunderstanding came up a lot in my conversations. When navigating difficulties, close relationships involve misunderstandings, compromises, and tough conversations. Romantic relationships naturally have these, but the hope is they don’t dominate. There’s this notion that friendships should be effortless, but like any relationship, they require maintenance. Unfortunately, resources for friendship troubles, like therapy, are scarce compared to family or couples therapy. More how-to books and resources could also help people work through difficulties and reduce stigma.

MF: Some might question, “Well why choose a platonic life partner when at its best it’s a romantic partner without the sex” What’s your response?

RC: Think of it like the closeness you have with a sibling or a close family member. Sex doesn’t define many of the relationships that deeply impact us. We need to reconsider why society places such emphasis on sex in defining partnerships. When people make wedding vows, they’re not necessarily promising eternal sexual desire, but rather to be there for each other through thick and thin. There’s beauty in finding profound commitment in various forms beyond the traditional romantic model.

MF: Do you think societal concepts shape our internal experiences, making it challenging to acknowledge deep friendships as life partnerships?

RC: Absolutely. Lack of societal categories can affect our perception of satisfaction and relationships. For example, a woman named Paula wrote to me about realizing the depth of her friendship after reading my article in The Atlantic. She was divorced, dating, and feeling a void until she recognized the fulfilling friendship right in front of her. Our internal experiences often align with societal norms until we question them.

MF: What tips can you share for deprogramming those societal norms and embracing unconventional relationship structures?

RC: Take cues from those with imaginative thinking and expand your options beyond societal norms. One of the things I’m hoping to do with the book is to expand the menu options for people so that there’s not just one path.

Reflect on past decisions and future motivations.  Asking yourself questions, like “Did I choose not to see my friend on Wednesday night because I was tired or because I thought I should by default, always be hanging out with my romantic partner? Or, you know, did I choose to move into a studio apartment rather than live with roommates because I really like to have my alone time, or was it that I felt like more of an adult thing to do? 

Be open and vulnerable in conversations about what you want from friendships. I’ve been in situations where it’s really clear that friends want to be more invested in people’s lives, but nobody’s willing to make the first move and then everybody’s in this kind of sub optimal position where no one’s getting the kind of depth of connection that they want, but everyone’s too afraid to ask for what they want. In these cases, initiating discussions using shared references from books or shows can provide a safe starting point. 

MF: For those valuing deep friendships in a culture that often prioritizes romantic relationships, do you have any advice on finding like-minded individuals who might be open to committing as deeply to a platonic relationship?

RC: Acknowledge the challenge of swimming against the current and understand it’s not about you; it’s about societal norms. People tend to have these skewed visions of trade offs depending on how conventional or not the situation is. When people do the conventional thing, and get married to go and live in a kind of isolated nuclear family household they tend to not engage as much with the losses of maybe being separated from the community. On the other hand, for people who make unconventional decisions, like living with friends, or prioritizing friends, they are constantly put in the position where they have to defend their decisions. 

I do think that the general pattern is that when people are thinking about trade offs, they really focus on the positives of the conventional decision and the negatives of the conventional. Once you understand and can acknowledge that it helps. 

Then you can test the waters by discussing shared texts or topics about friendship to gauge others’ responses to see how they feel. There are increasingly more things like Broad City or Insecure that have friendships at the center, use those as a starting place. See with the people in your life, do they respond to and see those relationships as preposterous, or do they experience some kind of longing for something like that in their lives?

MF: How can policy changes support platonic life partnerships on par with romantic ones?

RC: Policy changes can provide options beyond marriage for exchanging rights and benefits, such as designated partnership registries. Laws should accommodate a broader definition of family and ensure implementation to reflect individuals’ chosen support networks, preventing exclusion based on outdated norms.

You can order Rhaina’s book, now out, here.