Think You or Your Partner Have ‘Intimacy Anorexia’? Read This First

The phrase “intimacy anorexia” was introduced by psychologist Dr. Doug Weiss to describe situations in which someone “purposely withholds emotional, spiritual, and sexual closeness” from their partner.

Problems with emotional or physical closeness can seriously affect romantic partnerships. Loving another person usually involves sharing thoughts, feelings, and physical affection, so when those connections wane, relationships can feel hollow and unsatisfying.

If you love your partner but aren’t sure they still reciprocate, the relationship may begin to feel depleted. As intimacy diminishes, you might fear it’ll disappear altogether.

Mental health clinicians use different models to understand intimacy difficulties, and only a small number accept intimacy anorexia as a distinct condition.

Below is a closer examination of intimacy anorexia and ways to thoughtfully address intimacy problems.

Words matter

Before diving deeper, it’s important to acknowledge that the term “intimacy anorexia” is somewhat problematic for two reasons:

• Anorexia nervosa is a potentially fatal eating disorder. While intimacy struggles can be serious, they are not usually life-threatening.
• Weiss frames intimacy anorexia as a deliberate decision to withhold closeness. People don’t willingly choose to develop an eating disorder or many other mental health conditions.

Key features

Weiss describes common behaviors in people he labels as having intimacy anorexia. These people often:

• stay perpetually occupied with childcare, household chores, errands, screens, or work
• blame their partner for the lack of closeness instead of examining their own patterns
• avoid expressing love in ways they know resonate with their partner
• stop offering compliments or praise on a regular basis
• show little interest in sexual intimacy
• have minimal desire to connect spiritually, for example not wanting to attend religious services or pray together
• shy away from talking about their emotions, making emotional bonding difficult
• treat their partner more like a roommate than a romantic companion
• demean, belittle, or undermine their partner*
• lash out, give the silent treatment, or hold grudges over minor matters rather than process anger constructively*
• control finances by making the partner track purchases, restricting access to funds, or criticizing spending*

Weiss emphasizes that not everyone will display all these signs. He suggests that five or more of these behaviors may indicate someone could benefit from treatment.

*These behaviors are usually forms of abuse, not simply symptoms of intimacy problems. Learn more about recognizing emotional abuse.

Potential explanations

Weiss proposes four possible roots of intimacy anorexia.

Sexual trauma

Weiss argues that survivors of sexual trauma may withhold intimacy to regain a sense of control over intimate interactions and to cope with the shame or harm tied to the trauma.

It’s common for sexual assault or abuse survivors to face challenges with closeness afterward, and many harbor shame or self-blame.

That said, survivors are never responsible for the assault itself or for subsequent intimacy struggles.

Rebuilding comfort with intimacy can take considerable time and often requires substantial therapeutic support — which is normal and expected.

Attachment history

The attachment style formed with primary caregivers in childhood shapes relationship patterns later in life.

A secure attachment tends to develop when caregivers reliably meet a child’s needs and are consistently present.

People who grow up with secure attachments typically learn to get their emotional needs met and often form healthy adult relationships.

In contrast, inconsistent or neglectful caregiving can create an insecure attachment, which can affect emotional health and make forming stable adult relationships more difficult.

Dr. Joe Kort, a sex and relationship therapist, explains that intimacy difficulties can arise from a protective response to vulnerability stemming from disrupted childhood attachments.

Someone may not even recognize this protective avoidance as such.

Sexual compulsivity

Weiss suggests that when individuals meet their intimacy needs outside the relationship through sexual behaviors, they may stop seeking closeness from their partner.

However, the idea of “sex addiction” is controversial. Some researchers and clinicians dispute its validity.

Kort notes the label is sometimes applied to behaviors others find distasteful — like consuming pornography, having a high libido, or certain sexual interests — which aren’t inherently pathological.

While some people struggle with sexual behaviors they want to change, Kort recommends considering broader contributing factors, such as trauma or other mental health conditions, rather than relying on an addiction label.

Also remember that sexual coercion and controlling sexual behaviors are abusive tactics, not evidence of addiction.

Lack of positive role models

People learn how to behave in romantic relationships by observing others — parents, peers, siblings, and media representations.

As Weiss suggests, someone who grows up without healthy models of intimacy may have difficulty opening up or recognizing intimacy in their own relationships.

It’s reasonable to expect that someone rarely exposed to positive examples of closeness will struggle to identify and practice healthy intimacy without guidance.

All of the above influences can shape how people relate to intimacy, usually in subconscious ways. It’s misleading to imply anyone avoiding closeness because of these factors is doing so intentionally.

Weiss’ treatment recommendations

If you and your partner are losing intimacy, you might wonder how to address it.

Weiss provides limited guidance on self-directed strategies or conventional therapy, but he promotes:

• attending his 3- to 5-day intensive counseling retreats
• engaging in therapy at his counseling practice
• buying his DVDs or workbook collections

Although some may find value in these resources, exercise caution when an individual claims expertise in a contested condition and markets their own (often costly) treatments as the primary solution.

Reasons to reconsider this approach

Before pursuing intimacy anorexia interventions for yourself or your partner, consider the following points.

It’s not widely accepted by clinicians

Intimacy anorexia (and sex addiction) don’t appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the primary diagnostic tool clinicians use.

Very few mental health practitioners list it among conditions they treat.

Much of the information about intimacy anorexia traces back to Weiss. The main organization that recognizes it is the American Association for Sex Addiction Therapy, a for-profit group founded and run by Weiss.

Many clinicians avoid diagnosing sex addiction and instead emphasize the nuance of human sexuality, acknowledging that behaviors some deem problematic — like BDSM, role play, or group sex — can be healthy when consensual and safe.

Religious foundations

Treatment rooted in religious beliefs isn’t inherently invalid, but it may not suit everyone.

Many of Weiss’ programs are informed by Christian views on marriage and sexual purity. If you don’t share those beliefs, this approach may hold limited value.

It risks mislabeling abuse

Several of Weiss’ indicators have more to do with abusive behavior than with a fear of intimacy.

Consider that these signs typically point toward abuse rather than intimacy avoidance:

• habitual belittling and mean-spirited remarks
• repeated criticism without cause
• controlling access to finances
• deliberately withholding affection
• expressing intense anger directed solely at you

Relationships marked by persistent criticism or control are often toxic and, in many cases, abusive.

Therapists usually discourage couples therapy for abusive relationships and do not advise the person being harmed to change to accommodate the abuser.

Get help now

For information about domestic violence and resources, visit the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which offers free, confidential phone and chat support any time.

It can reinforce unequal roles

Weiss suggests someone with intimacy anorexia may keep busy with duties until they have no time or energy left for the relationship.

However, if one partner shoulders most household tasks, childcare, and errands — on top of paid work — it’s unsurprising they feel too tired to connect emotionally or sexually.

Addressing how household responsibilities are shared can significantly improve chances of restoring closeness.

Other ways to address intimacy struggles

Whether you’re seeking help for yourself or your partner, remember these problems often trace back to childhood and may not resolve without professional intervention.

People who avoid intimacy are often trying to protect themselves from pain, Kort says. Recognizing the gap in closeness is an important first step toward change.

Consulting a seasoned sex and relationship therapist is frequently the most effective starting point. Look for practitioners who use evidence-based methods like the Gottman approach, Imago therapy, or emotionally focused couples therapy.

Begin your therapist search with the AASECT directory (American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists).

One final thought: reduced intimacy isn’t always something that must be fixed.

People have different needs for closeness, and those needs can shift over time. If you feel less connected than earlier in your relationship, one or both partners may simply desire less closeness.

Everyone needs alone time, and some people prefer more distance as relationships evolve.

Sometimes intimacy can be rebuilt; other times partners are no longer compatible.

The takeaway

Intimacy doesn’t come naturally to everyone. It requires vulnerability and trust, which can be challenging to establish and maintain.

If you’re trying to understand a lack of closeness in your relationship, the concept of intimacy anorexia might seem to explain what’s happening.

However, it’s essential to recognize this label is not formally accepted by most clinicians, and the treatments proposed by its main proponent may not be appropriate — and could even be harmful — for some people.