An emotional affair...

Cold War Kid

homerjay2005 wrote: »

just another thing invented by woman to beat men with.

Calm down, nobody said it's something only men could do. You might not have noticed, but it's a woman who's being heavily criticised on this thread.
It's not an invention - it's infidelity without the physical, pretty straightforward; I don't get the people going on as if this is so implausible.

steddyeddy

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Maybe I'm broken but when I love someone, the thoughts of sleeping with someone else just wouldn't even cross my mind. There's been times when I've been single, and still had strong feelings for someone, and in an attempt to move on, attempted one night stands, but it's like a mental block. I personally can't get my head around sleeping with someone on a regular basis but loving someone else. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it just seems like trying to put a square shape into a round hole

Well it's because I have felt broken in the past I slept with other people Lexie. I think what you're feeling is normal.

heretochat

I have read this thread with interest over the last few days. Got alittle sidetracked with the concentration on one poster but going to put my opinion down on the issue of emotional v physical affairs.

I am unable to make up my mind as to which constitutes the worse form of betrayal. On the one hand, a full blown purely sexual affair could be argued to constitute the worst form of cheating. However, dependant on the circumstances, there may be no more than physical needs being satisfied.

An emotional affair on the other hand involves just that - emotions. This can go a lot deeper - sharing intimate thoughts, worries, secrets with someone that is not your partner. And if not checked (or more likely found out by the partner) can progress to a physical affair. This sort of an affair is far more serious in my opinion. But I offer only that - an opinion.

Fat Christy

Fat Christy wrote: »

I'm the same. Reading this thread I don't agree either with the whole situation but at the same time, I feel bad that this poster was ganged up on. Some of the comments were uncalled for. There is a thing called a measured and civil response without getting petty digs in.

That poster was well able to fling it around, and she veered from passive aggression to downright nastiness. She also could do the wounded mode.

If someone wants peace, maybe they should tell their "I want to steal him away from his wife - who is both jealous and insane - and child" stories to their cats. I'm not going to applaud her for her honesty or anything. It's an anonymous forum.

blue note

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I personally wouldn't be paranoid about my oh having female friends. He has plenty of female friends, some that he knows a lot longer than me and that's fine. However, if I discovered he had a female friend he lied about or kept secret from me, his balls would be stomped on while wearing a pair of those boots they used for cracking chestnuts.

Why hide a friendship? Why lie about something innocent?

For example - I'm currently in canada, with the OH. I have a Canadian friend I know almost 10 years. He's married and we only really talk through emails and Skype. Me and him have went out for dinner three times this week. Each time, my oh knows where I'm going, what I'm doing, when I'll be home. They don't know each other, haven't met each other but it's not a major problem.

But his wife doesn't know he's coming out for dinner with me. She doesn't know we email. She doesn't even know my name, or the fact we've been talking many years. This does bother me, and I asked him why he's lying to her when he hasn't done anything wrong. He says because it's easier, because she's jealous and because he believes men and women can never just be friends.

All I know is if I was his wife, I'd be furious, not because he was going to dinner with a friend, but because he was lying about it.

I'd be the same as this. I don't care what gender my girlfriend's friends are, but if I found she had a male friend she was keeping secret from me I'd restrain her and mutilate her genitals.

inocybe

Deleted User wrote: »

That poster was well able to fling it around, and she veered from passive aggression to downright nastiness. She also could do the wounded mode.

If someone wants peace, maybe they should tell their "I want to steal him away from his wife - who is both jealous and insane - and child" stories to their cats. I'm not going to applaud her for her honesty or anything. It's an anonymous forum.

How can a man be 'stolen away from his wife'? Has the man no say in the matter. Personal responsibility???

Penny Tration

blue note wrote: »

I'd be the same as this. I don't care what gender my girlfriend's friends are, but if I found she had a male friend she was keeping secret from me I'd restrain her and mutilate her genitals.

What the fcuk?

Even as a joke, that's fcuked up man

worded

Mate Poaching

Poaching other peoples partners. It has to be a part ego enhancing and challenge for some people.
When kids are involved its a horrible thing to happen, the kids loose the most.

New Study Reveals Why You Should Think Twice Before Stealing Someone's Partner
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/stealing-someones-partner_n_6102094.html

Poached Partners Make Unreliable Mates
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/relationships-dating-poached-partners-make-unreliable-mates-88428

worded

My Post >
I heard a taxi driver say married men tend to have less STDs as well and are better for flings as they are less needy for one night stands, ie good for career woman looking for a ride now and again. Couldn't believe my ears but it sounds plausible.

anncoates wrote: »

Was (s)he moonlighing in the taxi between working in an STD clinic?

>> That's a very funny reply :-)

He was saying that married men or ones in a relationship were less of a risk for one night stands

1 - Less STDs as they are in a relationship
2 - Will be gone in the morning due to commitments.

Ideal for a woman who puts her career as no 1 and has no time for relationship and no current interest in kids or visiting STD clinics

hatrickpatrick

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

I've been with someone who was having an "emotional affair," and it had precisely zero to do with me being a nag.

I was 21, so very happy, excitable, fun to be around.

His friend used to sit on his lap, suggest porn sites to him, show him pictures she'd taken of herself in only underwear to get his opinion, etc.

I said nothing precisely because I didn't want to be seen as a nag!

When he started seeing her 5 nights a week, stopped sleeping with me and I was lucky to have an hour per week of his time, I knew I was being had.

Turns out that aside from the emotional stuff with her, he was banging two women behind my back and had fcuked an acquaintance a few years previously, when we were only together 6 months.

It can happen, and it's not the hurt party's fault.

Emotional closelness is cool. I don't give a fcuk who my boyfriend shares his feelings and emotions with. It's natural to friends of either sex to talk about these things with. Emotional affairs are more than spilling your guts to a mate

That's not an emotional affair, that's an actual affair as far as I'm concerned.
I object to the "an emotional affair means going to someone else about problems in your relationship / life issues / whatever" paradigm, and I see that used as a definition all the time. Sometimes - hopefully not often, but sometimes - partners can be the worst people to talk to about stuff like that. I'm particularly aware of this as someone who's been in a relationship with a depressed person, and who goes through similar spells myself - that's just one potential scenario in which people can become incredibly unreasonable, unsympathetic, and downright unkind. It's not talked about, but it happens. And then, hopefully, it passes.

Point is, many seem to include "confiding in someone of the sex you find attractive other than your partner" about deep issues like that, in the definition of an emotional affair. In my opinion, that's symptomatic of something I regard as fairly abusive, where someone tries to cut their partner off from sources of interpersonal support except for themselves. Certainly among people I know, the very few times I've seen "emotional affairs" alleged, were alleged by extremely possessive partners who couldn't get over their objections to their partners having lives of their own.

That's just me, though. I feel my perspective might be a little different since my absolute best friend is a woman, which might be slightly unusual? I can easily see myself getting accused of having an "emotional affair" with her when the reality is we're more like siblings and always have been. It's always been an absolute deal breaker for me in a relationship if a woman has a problem with that. And again, among people I know, that's always been the kind of scenario in which the emotional affair allegation has surfaced - "You talked to HIM about our arguments?! You b!tch!".

That I have a problem with. If there's another definition of it (which doesn't include incidents of emotional closeness subsequently developing into a physical affair) then fill me in and I'll happily change my views if I've misinterpreted the term

Day Lewin

I dunno - there are a lot of regular assumptions being taken for granted in the many pages above, I think: but on examination, maybe all of them ain't necessarily so.

Assumption 1: that if you are in a devoted, intimate relationship with someone, you won't want to sleep with anyone else. Ain't necessarily so!

2. That if you are in a sexual relationship, you can't also love a person outside that pair bond. Likewise, ain't necessarily so!

3. That each partner in a pair will have the same expectations of what loyalty should consist of. (NO!)

4. That each partner will automatically meet, and want to meet, the expectations of "above" - (assuming, in turn, that they even know what those expectations are)

Well - Infidelity can be physical, or emotional, or mixtures of other kinds of disloyalty. Much depends on what you are willing to give, and if you demand more than you are willing to give.
Would I take offense at my devoted long-term partner having a close, confiding friendship with another person? Not necessarily - but terms would have to be agreed.
-example - ["I don't discuss your shortcomings with anyone, and you don't discuss mine"]

I mean, I just think that love should be tolerant and trusting. If it were not so, how could polygamy or polyamory ever work? But they can work, as long as everyone is honest, and everyone's needs are met, and everyone's dignity is respected.

Nucular Arms

katemarch wrote: »

I dunno - there are a lot of regular assumptions being taken for granted in the many pages above, I think: but on examination, maybe all of them ain't necessarily so.

I thought those assumptions were implicit in a defined relationship?

Isn't that the point of relationships? Love?

Smidge

Greentopia wrote: »

Why? sorry but I don't want to give specific personal details. Early forties is sufficient I think.




I can handle that. It's more frustrating that some people can't be bothered to read what I've already posted before commenting and repeat the same points over and over again when I've already addressed what they've asked or said.



Sorry you've got that impression. I think I've been civil and fair with those who've been civil, fair and reasonable with me-eviltwin, Candie, Saralee4, This Fat Girl Runs, for example. Even if some of those people disagree with what I'm doing they were able to put their points across in a way that wasn't nasty or insulting.
Can't say the same for haveringchick or Conor74.
Perhaps you might like to read my comments to evil twin etc. and then read some of the bitchy, provocative, baiting comments haveringchick and Conor74 made to and about me before coming to the conclusion that I'm the one that's unreasonable, unpleasant and abrasive.



Someone else raised the point about empathy and I've replied.

I know how to handle situations like this. I was with a divorced man for 6 years (not because of me! I met him after he was legally separated) and he has two kids. I don't have kids of my own but I have plenty of experience being the 'step-Mum'. Obviously you don't bad mouth the mother to her child, or indeed to the ex-husband. I never did that with my ex or his kids and don't intend to start now.
Give me some credit for having the smarts to realise how damaging and counter productive for all that would be.

I think my post to you was civil in all regards.
Your above response is not.

I think you and this woman's husband are a fine match.
Good luck with it all.

_Whimsical_

katemarch wrote: »

I mean, I just think that love should be tolerant and trusting. If it were not so, how could polygamy or polyamory ever work? But they can work, as long as everyone is honest, and everyone's needs are met, and everyone's dignity is respected.

Do they work though? Outside of people who engage in it for religious reasons like Mormons who have deeper reasons for sticking with it, I don't see too many successful polyamorous unions. I'd suspect that if they did work they'd be an awful lot more common they they are.

katemarch

katemarch wrote: »

I
4. That each partner will automatically meet, and want to meet, the expectations of "above" - (assuming, in turn, that they even know what those expectations are)

Well - Infidelity can be physical, or emotional, or mixtures of other kinds of disloyalty. Much depends on what you are willing to give, and if you demand more than you are willing to give.
Would I take offense at my devoted long-term partner having a close, confiding friendship with another person? Not necessarily - but terms would have to be agreed.
-example - ["I don't discuss your shortcomings with anyone, and you don't discuss mine"]

The point about shortcomings is very good. I have close female friends, they tell me I always speak very well of my wife, and it feeds into the fact that there are no expectations of it being anything other than friendship.

And that's possibly one thing that was so objectionable in Greentopia's contributions, the idea that "her guy" would converse with her in a way that saw her refer to his wife in such ugly terms. It's a massive betrayal. If one of my female friends was in any way less than complimentary about my wife, that would end the friendship immediately. The team here is my wife and I, I owe my loyalty to her first and foremost, if that jars with anyone well they go.

OneOfThem

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Do they work though? Outside of people who engage in it for religious reasons like Mormons who have deeper reasons for sticking with it, I don't see too many successful polyamorous unions. I'd suspect that if they did work they'd be an awful lot more common they they are.

With the amount of cheating that goes on, emotional, and real, and the amount that end due to their monogamous nature, there's an argument to be made that it's monogamous relationships that seem not to "work".

How many people actually try polyamorous unions? And what percentage of them work out? How would that compare to the percentage of monogamous unions that actually work? How many monogamous unions that seem to work are actually monogamous?

In a society more accepting of polyamorous unions I think we'd see a lot more, both in terms of people trying them and people being emotionally and mentally capable of making them work.

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

The point about shortcomings is very good. I have close female friends, they tell me I always speak very well of my wife, and it feeds into the fact that there are no expectations of it being anything other than friendship.

And that's possibly one thing that was so objectionable in Greentopia's contributions, the idea that "her guy" would converse with her in a way that saw her refer to his wife in such ugly terms. It's a massive betrayal. If one of my female friends was in any way less than complimentary about my wife, that would end the friendship immediately. The team here is my wife and I, I owe my loyalty to her first and foremost, if that jars with anyone well they go.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there for me. Of course people will argue that you cant dictate who your partner's friends are, and obviously that would only play into the hands of insecure or jealous partners, but in a fair and balanced relationship, that relationship - especially where children are involved - should be considered priority, not a friend.

My partner is very close to a female colleague. They get on brilliantly and he does talk to her about a lot of things. But the key difference is that it's a brother-sister type of friendship they have, its clear to see.

It was interesting to see that poster's posts in the beginning describe and insist it was mere friendship where the wife was being irrational and jealous for no reason, then as the posts continued, it was clear to all it followed a well-worn format and was a bog-standard affair in its infancy, with the usual players playing their usual roles following the script. It's like watching a speeding car you know is going to lose control and cause carnage.

The partner's jealousy and paranoia often comes about when their partner starts to look elsewhere, so its a consequence of the cheating rather than a cause for it. People can sense an emotional detachment happen in their intimate relationships - they might not be able to put their finger on what is happening or what is wrong, particularly when their partner is swearing blind everything is fine, but they know. I've sensed it a couple of times in previous relationships, and I was right each time. One was definitely in the class of an emotional affair, the other I'm pretty sure was actual physical cheating. But either way, the gut feeling I had that something is up was identical. So was the fallout from both types of affairs - both checked out of the relationship and the trust was broken.

Penny Tration

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's not an emotional affair, that's an actual affair as far as I'm concerned.
I object to the "an emotional affair means going to someone else about problems in your relationship / life issues / whatever" paradigm, and I see that used as a definition all the time. Sometimes - hopefully not often, but sometimes - partners can be the worst people to talk to about stuff like that. I'm particularly aware of this as someone who's been in a relationship with a depressed person, and who goes through similar spells myself - that's just one potential scenario in which people can become incredibly unreasonable, unsympathetic, and downright unkind. It's not talked about, but it happens. And then, hopefully, it passes.

It wasn't a physical affair with his friend, though. It was an emotional affair. His shagging other women was unrelated because it wasn't her. He has never slept with her, but he betrayed me with her.

Confiding in someone of the opposite sex isn't emotionally cheating. It's having a friend.

When that friend's feelings, desires, wants, needs and presence in your partner's life become more important than yours, it's an emotional affair,which is exactly what I was subjected to.

seenitall

Deleted User wrote: »

The point about shortcomings is very good. I have close female friends, they tell me I always speak very well of my wife, and it feeds into the fact that there are no expectations of it being anything other than friendship.

And that's possibly one thing that was so objectionable in Greentopia's contributions, the idea that "her guy" would converse with her in a way that saw her refer to his wife in such ugly terms. It's a massive betrayal. If one of my female friends was in any way less than complimentary about my wife, that would end the friendship immediately. The team here is my wife and I, I owe my loyalty to her first and foremost, if that jars with anyone well they go.

Yes, but on the other hand, you also have a type of person (I happen to know one) who sings his girlfriend's praises, and you can actually hear in his voice all the love and devotion he has for her when he talks about her in company.

And yet he rides rings around her every chance he gets.

He is an emigrant with the type of lifestyle that enables him having a few locations to call home, facilitating such cheating in the process, to what seems to me a ridiculous degree.

I always think to myself that this guy wouldn't actually like it or know what to do with himself if he were single. He has a great partner in life with whom he gets along (15 year together), they have a good life together, make ok money, travel and do as they please. He seems to be so suited to that life with her, as much as the other way around. I get the feeling she adores him. He's a charming b....rd.

Sex and love/loyalty must be two completely different and disparate concepts in his head. A breathtaking amount of self-serving entitlement and selfishness.

I know this one guy who is like that, but what is kinda depressing is there must be reams and reams of people like that out there.

(A bit off topic, I know. But just as physical fidelity doesn't necessarily indicate the emotional one, the emotional fidelity doesn't necessarily indicate the physical one.)

B.A._Baracus

Ahh the old emotional affair bollocks
Often used when you admit that you have feelings/attraction for someone BUT it also states that you havent done anything.

It's just a BS line people say.

Cold War Kid

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ahh the old emotional affair bollocks
Often used when you admit that you have feelings/attraction for someone BUT it also states that you havent done anything.

It's just a BS line people say.

But it just means some of what you say in your first paragraph - the elements of an affair but without the physical.

B.A._Baracus

Cold War Kid wrote: »

But it just means some of what you say in your first paragraph - the elements of an affair but without the physical.

It's utter BS, mate.
It basically means I havent cheated yet but I would love to have sex with that person. Thats the mental thinking.

Cold War Kid

I just see it as a description - "emotional" being used to indicate that there's no physical, and there may never be. Not having a go, just not seeing how it's inaccurate.

NI24

I have to say, when I first started reading this thread I wasn't sure whether or not I believed there was such a thing as an emotional affair. But after reading through that woman who's having an emotional affair with a married man, I'm now completely convinced there is such a thing. I still think sexual infidelity is bad, but if a man I was married to was divulging such personal information to a former coworker via e-mail, then I admit, I would be crushed. And the amount of justification for it is truly astonishing.

bolopapa

Another excuse to cheat i believe.

Colser

I dont see the need to use the word "emotional" tbh...an affair is an affair as far as Im concerned ,no ifs or buts..sugarcoat how you like but it doesnt wash with me.

NI24

Neyite wrote: »

It was interesting to see that poster's posts in the beginning describe and insist it was mere friendship where the wife was being irrational and jealous for no reason, then as the posts continued, it was clear to all it followed a well-worn format and was a bog-standard affair in its infancy, with the usual players playing their usual roles following the script. It's like watching a speeding car you know is going to lose control and cause carnage.

I kind of skipped over your post and so I missed this, but this is exactly what I was thinking. First it's a friendship, then she admits he divulges very personal information about his wife to her, which he then hides from his wife. Then she admits that they don't live in the same town because they're so hot for each other (I think that's what she said), then she says that she doesn't consider sex cheating, so even if he was sleeping with her, she wouldn't consider it an affair, which sounds like it could very easily turn into a physical affair (or, according to her, just sex, no affair at all, because there is no such thing as an affair), then she ends with "he needs a friend to talk to" (and I'm paraphrasing here), so now we're back to friendship.

Now, I certainly don't believe she's "stealing" him away from his family--he's a grown man and the idea that a man can be stolen by a mistress is pretty stupid, in my opinion. And I do believe her when she says he's unhappily married because, well, why would he cheat if he was happy? And for all we know, he will leave his wife for her, and they will live happily ever after. Men have left their wives for their mistresses before and it's worked out, so why would their relationship be any different?

It's the justification and denial that I have a problem with. What has transpired between those two is crossing the line of decorum between a married man and a so-called "friend". It's a full-blown affair without physical contact.

NI24

OneOfThem wrote: »

With the amount of cheating that goes on, emotional, and real, and the amount that end due to their monogamous nature, there's an argument to be made that it's monogamous relationships that seem not to "work".

How many people actually try polyamorous unions? And what percentage of them work out? How would that compare to the percentage of monogamous unions that actually work? How many monogamous unions that seem to work are actually monogamous?

In a society more accepting of polyamorous unions I think we'd see a lot more, both in terms of people trying them and people being emotionally and mentally capable of making them work.

I've heard this argument before and I think the fact that society rejects polyamorous unions would suggest that, at a deep level, humans desire monogamy. Society tends to form rules around what people want, not vice versa.

And, as an aside, and only in my opinion, the people who do engage in polyamorous relationships tend to be really really flaky and self-absorbed.

Nucular Arms

NI24 wrote: »

I've heard this argument before and I think the fact that society rejects polyamorous unions would suggest that, at a deep level, humans desire monogamy. Society tends to form rules around what people want, not vice versa.

And, as an aside, and only in my opinion, the people who do engage in polyamorous relationships tend to be really really flaky and self-absorbed.

I would tend to disagree and suggest that it's an evolutionary hangover of when there were concrete benefits in terms of security and survivability that emerged from monogamous family structures.

Couple that with the fact that historically people would not have had either the developed emotional demands that come from a society mostly free from the more immediate concerns of survival and the huge difference in life expectancy between now and then and you have a vast potential for the increasing amount of infidelity in modern relationships.

OneOfThem

NI24 wrote: »

I've heard this argument before and I think the fact that society rejects polyamorous unions would suggest that, at a deep level, humans desire monogamy. Society tends to form rules around what people want, not vice versa.

I don't think either of us would have to stress our powers of recollection particularly hard to come up with examples of society rejecting things in the past that are now widely accepted?