What at first glance appears in the form of a “temporary marriage” can easily be interpreted within religious and legal frameworks; an agreement between two individuals that is also recognized within Iran’s legal system. But the issue becomes more complex when this relationship leaves the private sphere and enters public view. This shift is not merely a change of location; it is a transformation in essence. At that moment, the relationship is no longer just a personal contract, but becomes a “social event”—one that carries meaning, message, and impact. The central question begins here: what happens when a fundamentally private relationship is publicly represented?

Sigheh, within its cultural and social context, has always occupied a dual position: on one hand, it holds religious legitimacy, and on the other, it has largely remained confined to a non-public space. This condition had created a kind of unwritten balance; a permitted relationship, but not necessarily one to be displayed. The publicization of such a relationship disrupts this balance. What previously took shape in silence and at the margins is now brought to the center of attention. This shift elevates the relationship from the level of “individual choice” to that of a “meaningful social act.” In this situation, sigheh is no longer merely a legal institution, but becomes a signifier of a particular perspective on relationships, gender, and social order—and this shift in meaning occurs through the way it is presented.

The display of a relationship is always something beyond the relationship itself. When a temporary marriage is performed or announced in public, it conveys the message that this form of relationship is not only permissible, but also visible and even repeatable. Here, “becoming public” leads to a kind of redefinition of norms. A relationship that was previously regulated within private boundaries now enters the public sphere and becomes part of “observable social reality.” This transformation is especially significant in societies where the boundary between private and public plays a key role in regulating social behavior.

At a theoretical level, sigheh is based on mutual consent. But consent is not a simple, one-dimensional concept. It is shaped within real conditions—conditions that may include economic inequality, age differences, social status, and cultural pressures. In many cases, these inequalities place one party—often the man—in the position of choice, and the other—often the woman—in the position of acceptance. Under such circumstances, consent is no longer purely a free choice, but may become a form of “conditional” or “constrained” consent.

This raises an important question: can one speak of genuine equality in a relationship whose very foundation is unequal? In this context, the dowry becomes a determining factor and a guarantor of short-term commitment. On the surface, the dowry is one of the legal components of the contract. But when this figure is publicly announced, it shifts from a contractual detail to a “symbolic sign.” The amount of the dowry—especially in short-term relationships—can carry meaning beyond its financial value. A low dowry may be entirely valid legally, but when raised at the social level, it may be interpreted as an indicator of how the relationship, or even the individual, is valued.

At this point, the relationship is no longer just between two individuals; it becomes a reflection of society’s view on value, dignity, and human status. One of the most important axes of analysis here is the concept of “objectification”—reducing a person to a limited role without considering their full humanity.

Features such as the time-bound nature of the relationship, the limited scope of commitments, and the relative ease with which it can end create the risk that the relationship may be understood in “functional” or “consumptive” terms. Within such a framework, the other party may be seen not as an equal human partner, but as part of a temporary experience.

This issue becomes especially significant when such relationships are displayed publicly, as it can contribute to the reinforcement of this perspective at the social level. Such occurrences intensify the deep divide between tradition and modern critique in society. In the traditional view, sigheh is still seen as a legitimate and even functional institution—a tool for regulating relationships within religious frameworks. From this perspective, making it public can be interpreted as a form of transparency or normalization of what is permitted. In contrast, the modern critical perspective focuses on concepts such as equality, human dignity, and gender justice. Within this framework, sigheh—especially in its short-term and public form—can be interpreted as a reproduction of structural inequalities. These two perspectives, in fact, represent two different understandings of “human relationships” and “the position of women.”

One of the less-discussed dimensions is the impact of such representations on adolescents. At a stage when identity and understanding of human relationships are still forming, observation plays a decisive role. When a temporary relationship is presented in a formal structure and within a public space, it can contribute to the normalization of short-term relationships defined by “duration and payment.” Moreover, if roles are distributed unequally in such representations, this pattern may become internalized. As a result, not only behaviors, but also expectations and perceptions of relationships are shaped.

The significance of this phenomenon does not lie necessarily in sigheh itself, but in how it is represented. When a private relationship is brought into the public sphere, it can no longer be considered merely an individual choice. This act becomes a statement—a statement about power, gender, law, and culture.

From a psychological perspective, interpretations of this relationship depend on each individual’s perception and lived experience. What is presented at the social level as “representation” becomes, at the individual level, “perception” and “lived experience.” Every relationship, regardless of its legal or cultural framework, ultimately finds meaning in the minds and psyches of individuals. From this viewpoint, sigheh is not just a contract, but a psychological experience that can have multiple consequences for those involved.

The first step is to consider the issue of “meaning-making in relationships.” People do not merely live their relationships; they interpret them. How an individual understands a temporary relationship—as a free choice, a temporary solution, or an unavoidable experience—plays a decisive role in its psychological outcomes.

In this context, “emotional asynchrony” can be one of the major challenges. While the structure of sigheh emphasizes time limitation, human emotional experience does not necessarily follow contractual timeframes. One party may develop a deeper emotional bond, while the other experiences the relationship at a functional or transient level. This imbalance can lead to feelings such as one-sided attachment, rejection, or worthlessness.

On the other hand, the concept of attachment is also important here. Psychological theories show that people have different attachment styles in their relationships: secure, anxious, or avoidant. A relationship that is inherently defined as temporary and limited may be a source of tension and insecurity for individuals with an anxious attachment style, while for those with an avoidant style, it may even function as a way to maintain emotional distance. In such a context, the relationship may be shaped not on the basis of mutual needs, but according to unconscious psychological patterns. This increases the complexity of the experience and shows that even seemingly simple relationships can have deep psychological layers.

Another issue that must be considered is “self-perception.” The way one participates in a relationship affects one’s self-image. If the relationship is experienced within a framework where a person feels reduced to a mere instrument or limited role, this can lead to a weakening of self-esteem. Conversely, if the relationship is accompanied by respect, transparency, and genuine consent, it may be experienced as neutral or even positive.

In this context, the publicization of the relationship adds another layer to the experience. When a relationship is exposed to the view of others, the individual is confronted not only with personal feelings but also with its “social reflection.” Judgment, labeling, or even the curiosity of others can create additional psychological pressure. This pressure—especially in societies with high sensitivity toward sexual and gender norms—can lead to feelings such as shame, anxiety, or identity conflict. The individual may find themselves in tension between what they have experienced and what society expects.

On the other hand, the possibility of “internal normalization” should not be overlooked. Just as social representation leads to external normalization, repeated experience can lead to normalization at the psychological level. What may initially be accompanied by doubt or conflict can gradually become part of an individual’s behavioral pattern. This process can both reduce tension and lead to the stabilization of patterns that are not necessarily aligned with psychological well-being. In other words, psychological adaptation does not always mean psychological health.

It is also important to address the concept of “psychological boundaries.” Every relationship requires clearly defined boundaries—between self and other, between commitment and freedom, between intimacy and distance. In temporary relationships, these boundaries may be more ambiguous or unstable, especially if the expectations of the parties are not fully aligned. This ambiguity can lead to misunderstanding, conflict, or emotional harm. In such conditions, the ability to communicate, clarify, and maintain self-awareness plays a crucial role in reducing potential harm.

Ultimately, it must be recognized that the psychological experience of a relationship is not merely the product of its structure, but the result of a complex interaction between the individual, the social context, and the way it is represented. In this sense, sigheh can carry different meanings and consequences for different individuals. Therefore, any analysis of this phenomenon without considering its psychological dimension would be incomplete. What is presented at the social level as an “institution” or “discourse” ultimately becomes a lived experience at the individual level—an experience that can affect feelings, identity, and quality of life.

The final question is simple yet fundamental: does this form of representation contribute to the strengthening of human dignity and equality, or to the reinforcement of inequalities that already exist within the structure of society? And on another level: does this type of relationship, as it is experienced, lead to a sense of security, worth, and human connection, or to conflict, instability, and emotional distance?

The answer lies not in the event itself, but in how we interpret it—and in what kind of relationship we consciously or unconsciously accept as “normal,” both at the social and psychological levels.