The friendship-as-primary partnership model

Romantic friendship in the 18th and 19th centuries was a recognized cultural form. Letters between same-sex friends regularly used language of love, devotion, and longing that contemporary readers, accustomed to the romantic-sexual dyad as the only frame for such language, often misread as evidence of secret romantic-sexual relationships. Sometimes that was correct, often it was not. The intensity was the point; the framing was non-sexual and non-romantic in the modern sense. Lillian Faderman's research on women's romantic friendships, and Anthony Rotundo's on men's, documents how a previously recognized form became culturally illegible once the romantic-sexual dyad colonized the intimacy space.

The phrase "Boston marriage," used in the late 19th century to describe long-term cohabiting partnerships between two financially independent women, captures a configuration that had cultural recognition without requiring the relationship to be romantic-sexual. Some of these partnerships were lesbian relationships in a closeted era; some were not. The phrase's contemporary revival in queer historiography sometimes flattens this distinction. The modern analogs — two friends, often but not always women, building life together — recover the older configuration's structural shape without claiming the same political content. Rhaina Cohen documents several such modern partnerships.

The medieval southern French institution of affrèrement allowed two men, often unrelated, to enter a notarized contract to share property, household, and inheritance as if they were brothers. Allan Tulchin's research on parish records in 16th-century Provence documents thousands of such contracts. Whether the partnerships were sexual is debated; the institutional point is that the law and the church recognized a non-marital, non-kin partnership form as a legitimate household unit. Comparable rituals existed in Byzantine adelphopoiesis (brother-making) and various other traditions. The historical record contains plenty of friendship-primary partnership; it is the late-modern period that narrowed the options.

Rhaina Cohen's 2024 book of that title profiles contemporary American friend-pairs and friend-clusters who have made friendship their primary partnership. The reporting documents several recurring patterns: legal scaffolding built deliberately rather than inherited, financial entanglement done with explicit contracts, caregiving arrangements that exceed what marriage law would routinely require, and a cultural illegibility that the participants navigate constantly. The book's central argument is that friendship is capable of bearing the weight of primary partnership when both parties commit to it, and that the cultural script that denies this is both historically anomalous and currently harmful.

The economic case for friendship-primary cohabitation is increasingly hard to ignore. Median rent in San Francisco, New York, London, Sydney, and Toronto consumes over 50% of median single-earner income. The dyadic married household once made sense partly because two incomes could afford a home that one could not; friend cohabitation does the same arithmetic without requiring romance. The Pew Research Center's data on multi-adult households shows a steady rise since 1990, driven partly by economic necessity and partly by preference. Many of these households are non-romantic friend clusters or mixed configurations.

Surveys document declining numbers of close friends per person over the past three decades. The Survey Center on American Life's 2021 report found that the share of Americans reporting no close friends had quadrupled since 1990. This sits uncomfortably with the friendship-primary partnership narrative. The likely resolution is that average friendship counts have declined, but the people who do build deep friendships build them deeper as the population thins. Friendship-primary partnership is a minority configuration in a population whose median friendship situation is impoverished. Both can be true simultaneously.

Friend-partners who want legal recognition assemble it piece by piece. Durable powers of attorney for medical and financial decisions. Wills and beneficiary designations. Some jurisdictions allow domestic partnership registration without romantic-sexual content; Somerville, Cambridge, and a few other Massachusetts cities have multi-partner ordinances; some employers extend benefits to designated household members. Adult adoption is used in some cases to create legal kinship between friend-partners, though it forecloses other options. The workarounds work but they require legal sophistication and money. The structural lag is real.

Some friendship-primary partnerships involve children. Modamily, the platonic co-parenting matching service, documents this pattern: two friends, or two people who become friends through the platform, deciding to parent together without romantic involvement. Single mothers by choice sometimes structure life with a close friend as co-caregiver rather than seeking romantic partnership. The children in these configurations appear to do as well as children in comparable dyadic-romantic households when the friendship-primary relationship is stable; the variable that matters is stability, not romantic content. The research base is small but consistent on this point.

The end-of-life caregiving question is one of the load-bearing tests of partnership configurations. Marriage was historically partly a caregiving contract: in old age and illness, the spouse provides care. Friendship-primary partnerships have to take this on deliberately. Cohen documents partnerships where the friend-partner provides intimate caregiving — bathing, medication management, end-of-life decisions — equivalent to what spouses provide. The cultural assumption that this is what spouses do and what friends do not has no biological or moral basis; it is institutional habit. The configurations that take caregiving seriously survive the test; those that do not, do not.

The cultural toolkit for friendship-primary partnership lacks rituals. Marriage has weddings, anniversaries, and divorces. Friendship has nothing analogous in mainstream culture. Some communities have begun to develop them — public commitment ceremonies between friend-partners, friend-anniversary observances, ritualized friend-partner introductions — but these are rare and culturally illegible to outsiders. The ritual deficit matters because rituals are not just decoration; they are how communities mark commitment as serious. Without them, friendship-primary partnership has to rely entirely on the parties' private articulation, which is harder to defend against external pressure.

The configuration does not specify the parties' sexuality or romantic orientation. Allosexual heterosexual friends can be friendship-primary partners. So can asexual aromantic pairs. So can mixed configurations. The configuration's defining feature is the centrality of the friendship to life organization, not the absence of any sexual or romantic element with other people or even between the friend-partners themselves. Some friendship-primary partnerships include occasional sexual involvement; some are strictly platonic; the configuration tolerates the variation because the organizing principle is commitment to the friendship as primary, not the sexual content of the friendship itself.

If friendship-primary partnership spreads, the collective question becomes whether to recognize it. Recognition options range across a spectrum: from extending marriage to friend-pairs (probably politically infeasible), to recognizing designated household kinship without marriage equivalence (more feasible), to leaving friend-partners to assemble legal scaffolding piece by piece (the current default). Each option has costs and tradeoffs. Marriage extension dilutes the romantic-coupling meaning of marriage in ways that some communities would resist. Designated household kinship is institutionally cleaner but politically slow. Piecemeal assembly is what most current friend-partners do and what most will continue to do until something better is built.

Success for the friendship-primary partnership model at the collective level would not be replacement of romantic partnership. It would be the establishment of friendship-primary as a recognized, legally supported, culturally legible option alongside romantic partnership. People could choose, switch, or combine. The default would not be that every adult must be in a central romantic relationship or is failing. Friendship would have institutional weight when people chose to invest it with that weight. This is a modest revision in stated terms but a substantial revision in lived terms, because the current default is dense and pervasive. Law 5 says revise the model; the question is whether the collective gets enough revision through to make the option real rather than rhetorical.

1. Cohen, Rhaina. The Other Significant Others: Reimagining Life with Friendship at the Center. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2024. 2. Faderman, Lillian. Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love between Women from the Renaissance to the Present. New York: William Morrow, 1981. 3. Tulchin, Allan A. "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement." Journal of Modern History 79, no. 3 (2007): 613-47. 4. Brake, Elizabeth. Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. 5. Survey Center on American Life. The State of American Friendship: Change, Challenges, and Loss. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 2021. 6. Pew Research Center. The Rise of Multigenerational and Multi-Adult Households. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2022. 7. Chen, Angela. Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex. Boston: Beacon Press, 2020. 8. DePaulo, Bella. Single at Heart: The Power, Freedom, and Heart-Filling Joy of Single Life. Brentwood, TN: Apollo Publishers, 2023. 9. Hope, Rachel. Family by Choice: Platonic Partnered Parenting. Self-published, 2014. 10. Fisher, Helen. Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray. Rev. ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2016. 11. Twenge, Jean M. Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents — and What They Mean for America's Future. New York: Atria Books, 2023. 12. Akbari, Anna. Startup Your Life: Hustle and Hack Your Way to Happiness. New York: Seal Press, 2016.