Emotional Affairs

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blarg,

this isn't about casual friendships or flirting, it is about being 'emotionally intimate' (however you want to define that) with someone of the opposite sex. like others have alluded to, i think emotions are tied to physical attraction and sexual desires. i don't think a man a women can be emotionally intimate without being attracted to each other and desiring each other, atleast that is my experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about being friends, which I think you were originally talking about too when you said that men and women can't be friends.

I think "emotionally intimate" is a bad phrase, too, in that it conflates being emotionally connected with the kind of intimacy that one would expect from a boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife, as if there is no other way to share deep emotions. Yet we grow up sharing them with many people we don't want to boink -- parents, siblings, relatives, friends at school, etc. It takes a determined turning away and turning off of emotional possibilities to claim that there really are none outside of one's relationship with one's partner. It just isn't true.

Can you confide in guy friends? Get great advice from them, some real empathy and good feedback and some concern sometimes? I can. Some of that stuff can go down real deep. But I can also get that from a female. And not necessarily have the slightest physical interest in her, or at least be able to keep it well in perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding of the term emotional affair is that you develop very strong feelings and desires for another person, only you don't act on them physically. In other words, you are Bill Murray in Lost In Translation. You are close to someone and feel strong energy between the two of you and open up yourself to them in an intimate way that you would only do with someone you were physically attracted to... i think you can see how this is different than discussing politics over lunch with a female and not feeling anything for her.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be moving the goalposts back every time the ball comes near. First you said men and women can't be friends, then said they can't be emotionally intimate, and now are speaking of emotional affairs. I'm with you when it comes to emotional affairs being out of line, but that seems pretty much basically self-evident. To be fair, these terms are so fraught with assumptions, prejudice, and sexual fear or braggadocio that it can be hard to nail down what we really believe or want to say.

Up to that point, though, women are still great to be around, without it having to "mean" anything. In other words, there is a line to be crossed, but it's not simply one of which gonads you are born with. And sometimes more than others, you may have to finesse this line and remind yourself to keep your head on straight. But it's not like we don't do that every day of our lives with others, too -- bosses, subordinates, co-workers, our kids, friends, or partners when we're pissed off but don't want to show it or take it out on them, etc. Life requires a lot of fine control. That's not beyond our abilities. Saying that it is paints us all as children, animals, or idiots.

I think the lack of confidence both in one's own ability to handle that combination of emotional openness and sexual responsibility, and the fear that one's partner might be as incapable as we fear or know ourselves to be, is what makes silly phrases like "Men and women can't be friends" such a relief to espouse and suggest others agree with and live by too. It justifies, even declares as some sort of law of nature or worldly-wise fruit of maturity, our own fear of ourselves and instinctive, childishly unflattering distrust of our partners.

Perhaps it also brings to the fore how our choices in partners might not have been good ones.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for leaving my own thread! Had to watch Dancing With the Stars and The Bachelor. Priorities [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


Roundguy,

This is what I was wondering about,

[ QUOTE ]


Emotional attachments (affairs) aren't harmful in and of themselves. It's the fact that they open the door for a physical affair later. The relationship simply progresses over time.

Without an emotional affair, the physical affair rarely happens.

Can you have an emotional attachment to someone other than your mate? Sure. Do you have to be on guard and careful where it could lead? Absolutely.



[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't clear on what exactly an emotional affair was. So you're defining it as an emotional attachment between both parties? To me, an affair is a physical affair. Anything else is great friendship, flirting or longing, but not an affair.

I think you can have attachments and great friendships without it going to the next level.

I read something awhile back that said having an emotional affair is just another kind of adultery. I was like come on, you gotta be kidding. Seems sort of ridiculous. Adultery is the physical act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how personal and intimate the conversations get. And if it takes away from your other relationship.

I agree with the what you quoted above. The brain is one of the strongest sex organs.

b

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of the term emotional affair is that you develop very strong feelings and desires for another person, only you don't act on them physically. In other words, you are Bill Murray in Lost In Translation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst of all possible worlds--Bill didn't bang Scarlett but had to deal with her annoying jealousy anyway.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blarg,

this isn't about casual friendships or flirting, it is about being 'emotionally intimate' (however you want to define that) with someone of the opposite sex. like others have alluded to, i think emotions are tied to physical attraction and sexual desires. i don't think a man a women can be emotionally intimate without being attracted to each other and desiring each other, atleast that is my experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about being friends, which I think you were originally talking about too when you said that men and women can't be friends.

I think "emotionally intimate" is a bad phrase, too, in that it conflates being emotionally connected with the kind of intimacy that one would expect from a boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife, as if there is no other way to share deep emotions. Yet we grow up sharing them with many people we don't want to boink -- parents, siblings, relatives, friends at school, etc. It takes a determined turning away and turning off of emotional possibilities to claim that there really are none outside of one's relationship with one's partner. It just isn't true.

Can you confide in guy friends? Get great advice from them, some real empathy and good feedback and some concern sometimes? I can. Some of that stuff can go down real deep. But I can also get that from a female. And not necessarily have the slightest physical interest in her, or at least be able to keep it well in perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding of the term emotional affair is that you develop very strong feelings and desires for another person, only you don't act on them physically. In other words, you are Bill Murray in Lost In Translation. You are close to someone and feel strong energy between the two of you and open up yourself to them in an intimate way that you would only do with someone you were physically attracted to... i think you can see how this is different than discussing politics over lunch with a female and not feeling anything for her.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be moving the goalposts back every time the ball comes near. First you said men and women can't be friends, then said they can't be emotionally intimate, and now are speaking of emotional affairs. I'm with you when it comes to emotional affairs being out of line, but that seems pretty much basically self-evident. To be fair, these terms are so fraught with assumptions, prejudice, and sexual fear or braggadocio that it can be hard to nail down what we really believe or want to say.

Up to that point, though, women are still great to be around, without it having to "mean" anything. In other words, there is a line to be crossed, but it's not simply one of which gonads you are born with. And sometimes more than others, you may have to finesse this line and remind yourself to keep your head on straight. But it's not like we don't do that every day of our lives with others, too -- bosses, subordinates, co-workers, our kids, friends, or partners when we're pissed off but don't want to show it or take it out on them, etc. Life requires a lot of fine control. That's not beyond our abilities. Saying that it is paints us all as children, animals, or idiots.

I think the lack of confidence both in one's own ability to handle that combination of emotional openness and sexual responsibility, and the fear that one's partner might be as incapable as we fear or know ourselves to be, is what makes silly phrases like "Men and women can't be friends" such a relief to espouse and suggest others agree with and live by too. It justifies, even declares as some sort of law of nature or worldly-wise fruit of maturity, our own fear of ourselves and instinctive, childishly unflattering distrust of our partners.

Perhaps it also brings to the fore how our choices in partners might not have been good ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blarg, you make a lot of good points, and believe it or not, I agree with most of them. However, I think your statements live in a "perfect world" where "this is how it should be." Most of us do not.

Should men and women be able to be friends, even if they are in relationships with others? Of course they should. In the real world, does this often lead to unfortunate complications, jealousies and misunderstandings? Yes, they do.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adultery is the physical act.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. But don't you see how an emotional attachment can easily lead to that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if the people are looking for an affair. You have to have some self control RoundGuy!

I once got emotionally attached to this one guy. He was so much fun, he was from Germany. He'd come sit down at my desk and talk to me several times a day. I would correct his English. I don't know, we just seemed to mesh. He invited me over to his place so he could cook for me. Anyway I was attached to someone else so it didn't go beyond friendship and actually I didn't want it to. It was a very awesome friendship. Hm, now that I think about it maybe it was a wannabe affair that never materialized. Good god I don't know what the hell it was. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably wanted to bang you. The odds a guy invites you over just to cook for you without anything else is long.(although, people from other countries I can give a little slack to as they are usually just trying to form some sort of core of people) Some guys will do it, though.

A chick in my class has a 'bud' like this. She says they're just friends(this after describing a nice, but somewhat intimate meal they had). So I asked her if he cooks that sort of stuff for his other buds. Long pause followed. Then you see the lightbulb go on a little.

But by the same token, I flew a chick friend of mine to Vegas with me, her brother and sis in law. She's like a sister and I'm known to do some stuff like that for buds.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
There are certain things that are just plain inappropriate when you're in a relationship: dining out (one on one) with a "friend" of the opposite sex is one of them. Sure there are exceptions, and it can be completely innocent, but on the whole it's just not respectful of your significant other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even more so when 'dining in'. He cooked for her at his place.

b

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blarg,

this isn't about casual friendships or flirting, it is about being 'emotionally intimate' (however you want to define that) with someone of the opposite sex. like others have alluded to, i think emotions are tied to physical attraction and sexual desires. i don't think a man a women can be emotionally intimate without being attracted to each other and desiring each other, atleast that is my experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about being friends, which I think you were originally talking about too when you said that men and women can't be friends.

I think "emotionally intimate" is a bad phrase, too, in that it conflates being emotionally connected with the kind of intimacy that one would expect from a boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife, as if there is no other way to share deep emotions. Yet we grow up sharing them with many people we don't want to boink -- parents, siblings, relatives, friends at school, etc. It takes a determined turning away and turning off of emotional possibilities to claim that there really are none outside of one's relationship with one's partner. It just isn't true.

Can you confide in guy friends? Get great advice from them, some real empathy and good feedback and some concern sometimes? I can. Some of that stuff can go down real deep. But I can also get that from a female. And not necessarily have the slightest physical interest in her, or at least be able to keep it well in perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding of the term emotional affair is that you develop very strong feelings and desires for another person, only you don't act on them physically. In other words, you are Bill Murray in Lost In Translation. You are close to someone and feel strong energy between the two of you and open up yourself to them in an intimate way that you would only do with someone you were physically attracted to... i think you can see how this is different than discussing politics over lunch with a female and not feeling anything for her.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be moving the goalposts back every time the ball comes near. First you said men and women can't be friends, then said they can't be emotionally intimate, and now are speaking of emotional affairs. I'm with you when it comes to emotional affairs being out of line, but that seems pretty much basically self-evident. To be fair, these terms are so fraught with assumptions, prejudice, and sexual fear or braggadocio that it can be hard to nail down what we really believe or want to say.

Up to that point, though, women are still great to be around, without it having to "mean" anything. In other words, there is a line to be crossed, but it's not simply one of which gonads you are born with. And sometimes more than others, you may have to finesse this line and remind yourself to keep your head on straight. But it's not like we don't do that every day of our lives with others, too -- bosses, subordinates, co-workers, our kids, friends, or partners when we're pissed off but don't want to show it or take it out on them, etc. Life requires a lot of fine control. That's not beyond our abilities. Saying that it is paints us all as children, animals, or idiots.

I think the lack of confidence both in one's own ability to handle that combination of emotional openness and sexual responsibility, and the fear that one's partner might be as incapable as we fear or know ourselves to be, is what makes silly phrases like "Men and women can't be friends" such a relief to espouse and suggest others agree with and live by too. It justifies, even declares as some sort of law of nature or worldly-wise fruit of maturity, our own fear of ourselves and instinctive, childishly unflattering distrust of our partners.

Perhaps it also brings to the fore how our choices in partners might not have been good ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all true, but it doesn't change the fact that people get really jealous over stuff that is completely harmless. Sure, people should be able to have friendships/closeness/whatever with members of the opposite sex without it progressing to sex, and without pissing off the significant other, but in reality, that's pretty rare.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
I read something awhile back that said having an emotional affair is just another kind of adultery. I was like come on, you gotta be kidding. Seems sort of ridiculous. Adultery is the physical act.

[/ QUOTE ]It depends. Would you rather have your husband have a single drunken one night stand while on travel for business or be secretly in love with another women? To some people, the second is more damaging because the first is just drunken sex.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
There are certain things that are just plain inappropriate when you're in a relationship: dining out (one on one) with a "friend" of the opposite sex is one of them. Sure there are exceptions, and it can be completely innocent, but on the whole it's just not respectful of your significant other.

[/ QUOTE ]Katy was talking about having lunch once a week. That seems to be different from 'dining out.' I have lunch with female colleagues all the time at my previous job. It's completely meaningless. Just friends/co-workers having lunch together.

Throughout my 11 year marriage, I've had to deal with this problem because it's always easier for me to form friendships with women then with men. So my wife always had to deal with the fact that I hung out with women or had lunch with them. But just because I'm having lunch with a woman, or having a conversation with a woman doesn't mean that it will lead to anything.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Blarg, you make a lot of good points, and believe it or not, I agree with most of them. However, I think your statements live in a "perfect world" where "this is how it should be." Most of us do not.

Should men and women be able to be friends, even if they are in relationships with others? Of course they should. In the real world, does this often lead to unfortunate complications, jealousies and misunderstandings? Yes, they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just take these difficulties for granted and think they are well worth dealing with. Far from expecting a perfect world, I am willing to deal with an imperfect one rather than close my life down enough that I can kid myself that I have achieved some sort of safety. That is, if you are going to cheat, you are going to do it anyway, and so is your partner, whether or not she has friends of the opposite sex. Imagining that they won't strikes me as self-deception. This is a question of fundamental character. Temptation is a constant, not an occasional appearance, and you can either be persuaded or you can't.

I don't mind if life is a little harder. The human companionship is worth it and right up there at the top of what life has to offer. And I think one's significant other should be cut some slack, or else one should find another whom they trust more.