I’ve seen some reports on the news about emotional infidelity, where you become very close with a member of the opposite sex while you are romantically involved with someone else. You may share some things or feelings with this person that you don’t share with your SO, although you’re not having sex or doing anything that would be considered inappropriate by most people. Does this qualify as infidelity to your SO?
I think that the SO can’t be everything to a person, and you should seek out close emotional relationships with people, both men and women.
I think that it does. Friendship is one thing, and I do believe a platonic friendship can exist between two opposite-sex people, but an intimate, emotional, romantic relationship is a “mind-cheat.”
If your spouse or S/O would be hurt if s/he knew what was really transpiring in your meetings with another person, then what you are doing is wrong.
If you find yourself in a situation such as this, you may want to seriously reconsider your primary relationship. If you find your heart straying, something needs to be done. A serious talk with your SO is in order. Perhaps you can repair the relationship, but you would need to be able to cut off your relationship with the outside party in order to do so. If you’re unwilling to do that, it’s time to end things with your SO. They deserve better than a half-hearted relationship.
I suspect (but it’s only a hunch) that men and women would have very different attitudes about “emotional infidelity.”
Suppose a jealous husband fears that his wife is cheating on him. He hires a detective to tail her. The detective reports back, "Your wife is meeting another man for lunch several times a week. However, I can guarantee she’s never slept with him. Their relationship is completely non-sexual. The problem is, she doesn’t feel emotionally connected to you, doesn’t think you listen to her or appreciate her emotional needs. She and this other man get together and talk about art, literature, and music. They share their deepest feelings, their dreams, and their hopes for the future.
My guess is, the husband’s reaction would be a sigh of relief! “Oh, thank God, she hasn’t had sex with him! She hasn’t cheated on me!”
But if your reversed the roles, if a jealous wife found out that her husband was having an emotionally (but not sexually) close relationship with another woman, she’d be just as devastated as if he’d been sleeping with her.
As I understand the evolutionary biological explanation of this discrepancy between, men are more concerned about actual physical contact (“Did he touch her?”) because back in the Stone Age, a man could never really be sure it was his offspring he was supporting.
A woman, who relied on a man’s continued devotion for material support, would become concerned about her man’s waning interest, even if he hadn’t physically cheated.
As to the OP, given that my relationships with my SOs are not defined as exclusive in the first place, the answer is, “No, my partners don’t have an issue with that sort of thing.” However, that datapoint obviously has no bearing on those people who are interested in being in monogamous relationships.
I think, for me, it would actually be WORSE if my husband were deeply emotionally involved with another woman than if it were “just” sex. A body is one thing, a heart is something entirely different.
I might be able to forgive a physical indiscretion, depending on circumstance, but I could never forgive him if his heart had strayed from mine.
have to agree with Lissa on this one. it’s not the sex, it’s the intimacy. a physical affair can be seen by the one cheated upon as a problem with the cheater- a moment of weakness, what have you. i think that however, possessive we can be, we all have an understanding of human biology and sexuality.
an emotional infidelity seems like an accusation against the one cheated against, saying that there is something wrong with them, a need that they were unable to fill. this is a double-slap in the face.
that’s from a husband’s pov…astorian, what you describe may be the ‘norm,’ but certainly does not fit all men. i can understand what you mean though- in a lot of old-school relationships, the man feels a duty to provide materially, and that’s pretty much it. the wife, in turn, provides for him materially (food, cleaning, sex, etc.). any other needs can be fulfilled without beaking the ‘ground rules’ of the marriage.
i’m very glad that my marriage is nothing like this.
I think sex IS intimate, not just emotion. I’ve heard about women being more bothered by emotional connections than sex. But I must say I feel differently. I would much rather my SO make an emotional connection with someone else than have sex with them!
I have to argue against the thought that sharing with another person is a slap in the face to the SO. One person can’t be EVERYTHING, no matter how well-rounded they are. Let’s take gender completely out of this. You have an SO who is absolutely not interested in Opera and you have a great passion for it. Is this reason enough to not, say, marry your SO? Wouldn’t you seek out other people who have a great passion for opera and share with them? You would probably discover that you have other things in common as well. What happens if that person you find who shares your passion for opera is of the opposite sex?
Is it wrong to ask a person of the opposite sex to see an opera with you if your spouse won’t?
Likewise, if my SO is always “bugging” me to do something I don’t enjoy, it seems like it would be relief that they found someone else that likes doing those things, regardless of gender.
I’m sure that we all have different interpretations of what emotional sharing is, so that probably doesn’t help. The extreme on one side would perhaps not even want their SO to talk to another person of the opposite gender if possible. Exactly where along the continuum does it turn to emotional infidelity?
Let’s take another scenario: A young woman never had a father, but found a friend in one of her professors–he is an expert in her field of interest, and he thinks she has great potential. They have similar interests, and he knows she looks up to him as a father figure. They do not do anything physically inappropriate in their relationship. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that inappropriate stops at an enthusiastic kiss on the cheek. In this case, they are sharing something that cannot be shared with an SO, because you are having sex with your SO. Would you want your wife to see you as a father figure?
While I agree that this sort of relationship is troubling, I can’t really look on it as infidelity. There’s only so far you can stretch what falls under the umbrella of infidelity, before you change the entire concept of the word.
Rule of thumb: If your behavior towards him or her is what would be acceptable with your brother or sister, then it’s not infidelity. That would include emotional attatchments.
Still, these relationships just have BAD IDEA!! written all over them. A person with this sort of relationship is a person with a lot of unanswered questions, and it does seem to be asking for trouble. The phrase “slippery slope” comes to mind.
I’ve known more than a few people who have these sorts of relationships, and they always claim it’s nothing sexual, but I have my doubts, and in any case, they just . . . seem to be breaking the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not fool thyself.
My bottom line? If you’re in one of these relationships, it’s time to start asking yourself a few tough questions.
Having a personal intimate relationship with another person is a wonderful thing - something to be both cherished and treasured.
Why someone would willingly limit their ability to connect with other people, to share emotionally, and to generally build intimate relationships is beyond me. Life is too short, and love too rare and wonderful, to build artificial barriers.
However, once establishing such a relationship, failing to disclose any other intimate emotional relationship - physical or not - is a form of emotional infidelity, IMHO. Of course, having an involved “committed” relationship with someone who would then attempt to exert control over how I deal with other people is beyond me as well.
So, I would put forward that it is “emotional infidelity” if you wouldn’t share your honest feelings with your SO. Otherwise, I’d just call it “a beautiful thing”.
That “beautiful thing” has wrecked more than one marriage, Cowboy. Friendships are great, and it really doesn’t matter if you have a close friendship with someone of the opposite sex. The problem comes in when the friendship with the other person becomes closer than that with your SO.
In fact, I’d take it one step further. The kind of intimacy that we’re talking about in here should really only be for your SO. I don’t think that kind of intimacy really works with more than one person. There’s just too much room for error otherwise. And again, I don’t think a person would develop that deep of an emotional relationship with someone else, unless things were kind of screwed up on his or her homefront.
Even if I * HATED * opera, I would go with my husband because it’s something important to him. Likewise, he accompanies me to events that he doesn’t necessarily enjoy, because he knows how much I love, oh, say, kabuki theater.
Most of our enjoyment comes from being together, and even though I’m not a big fan of football, I’d happily go with him, and if nothing else, get pleasure from how much fun he’s having and just being with him. After all, I married the guy so that I could monopolize his time.
If your spouse refuses to go along with you to things that you enjoy but they don’t, you have problems. Such a stance, in my opinion, is selfish.
I have no problem with that. A father-figure relationship is not romantic.
One of my husband’s best friends is a woman. There is not, nor ever has been, nor will be, anything romantic between them. I (and the woman’s husband) are gladly included in everything they do. There’s no secrecy there. I have no problem with this relationship, and I think it enriches his life. Anyone who would object to something like that is overly-jealous.
I don’t buy it. Are you suggesting that honesty wrecks marraiges? IMHO, a marriage that necessarily restricts the participants ability to interact in other developing relationships has control issues. If honesty wrecks a marriage, the marriage had other problems. And infidelity is unlikely to occur in a relationship where each person can be totally open and honest with their partner.
IMHO, infidelity, emotional or physical, is a symptom of a troubled relationship, not a cause.
I suspect, for many people, you are absolutely correct. However, when such sentiments are stated as an absolute universal, I bristle, because I know it is not true for me, or for many others. While I recognize that for many people it is true, I believe it is unfortunate, because I don’t think it has to be true for anyone.
I don’t accept that such limits come through our genetics, or through basic environmental drivers, but instead through cultural mores propogated through religious tenets - though contrary to the principles of love, tolerance, honesty and understanding of basic human nature.
Do you see where, in your last post, your first sentence and last sentence tend to contradict one another?
I think saying if you don’t participate in things that your SO enjoys, “you have problems”, is being a bit simplistic. What if you change opera to loud rock concerts? That’s intolerable for some people. What if your SO likes horse racing but you don’t believe in it because they think it’s cruel to animals? Are those reasons to throw away a relationship? Isn’t it also somewhat selfish to ask your spouse to do things they don’t enjoy?
Maybe my opinions are more laid-back because I’ve been married for 11 years
Perhaps this is another thread, but I think many people try to modify their behavior too much early in a relationship and you eventually “snap back” to being yourself…there was a section on this in M. Scott Peck’s The Road Less Traveled, but it’s kind of fuzzy since I read it many, many years ago…
Emotional infidelity
too intangible to define as a yes-no type of thing. Every couple has a different threshold for what is acceptable closeness outside of their relationship, and that’s usually based on many many factors other than just gender.
There was nothing in my wedding vows about becoming close friends with members of the opposite gender.
I’d say there is such a thing, but too hard to quantify, other than by spousal report.
If my wife says she thinks I’m getting too close to a female friend, then we have a discussion, and I prioritize my marriage or my friendship.
If I prioritize the friendship, that’s emotional infidelity. IMO
Absolutely not. Where did I say this? I’m saying that developing this kind of intimacy with someone who is not your SO is a sign of being less than honest with yourself at least, if not your SO as well.
I agree with this. Again, I certainly didn’t argue this point. And I’ll reiterate that I don’t think there’s such a thing as emotional infidelity. If it’s not physical, it’s not really infidelity. What I’m arguing is that having this kind of relationship increases the chances of infidelity if your relationship with your SO hits the rocks. You’re asking for trouble in this kind of relationship.
I’m no preacher, and I’m no saint, but I agree with the cultural mores on this one. I mean, how does being honest with yourself and your SO work with something like this?
My wife: Hi, honey, how was your day?
Me: Great. I saw Violet for lunch today, and we talked about my issues with my dad. Then I told her about losing my virginity at 13, and she told me about her thing for bikers. Then we took a nice walk on the beach and caught a movie.
My wife: Great, what do you want for dinner?
I don’t think that would play very well for me. I don’t think that would play very well for anyone, unless they were in what amounted to an open marriage. Or does your definition of emotional intimacy differ from mine?
Do you know why things like the Dotcom bubble, the stock market crash of '29, and the spread of various social diseases throughout the ages happen? It’s because too many people think that the laws of probability and other natural constructs don’t apply to them for whatever reason.
No, I don’t. Just because a marriage/relationship hits a bad spot doesn’t mean the couple should automatically throw in the towel. It could be a difficulty that can be worked through. But working through a rough patch in a marriage is hard enough without something like this coming between the couple.
Again, I don’t think that everyone in this sort of relationship will ruin their primary relationship any more than I think that everyone who plays with fire gets burned. It’s a question of risk. And it’s a question of not being entirely honest with oneself about the consequences of eventually setting oneself on fire.
Perhaps I’m lucky in that I chose a spouse who shares the same interests that I have. (Nor would he ever participate in anything I find ethically objectionable.) I was not referring to, say, people who can’t go to rock concerts because they always give them a migraine, but those who don’t participate in their spouse’s favorite activities because they just * don’t want to. *
Spending time together and learning to appreciate one anothers’ interests is important in a marriage. I may not like hockey, but I can sit through a game with him without complaining and pouting. He may grow impatient while browsing with me in a bookstore, but he’s considerate enough to be pleasant about the wait. I would rather do other things than go out with his co-workers on an evening, but I’ll go because it’s all part of the compromises you must make in marriage. In turn, he’ll go with me to something I want to do the next evening.
Having to sit through things we don’t necessarily enjoy is all part of life. Doing things together is important in a marriage, and I know that an activity wouldn’t be half as fun without my “best friend” with me.
Marriages in which the participants are not friends have a lot of problems. Love and passion will only take you so far-- it’s having common interests, and genuinely enjoying one anothers’ company which is most important.
Personally, I’d find it very discomfiting to be in a relationship of whatever sort where one person’s discomfort with a situation was always overridden. If it’s selfish to not want to go do something that one’s partner is doing, it’s just as selfish to expect that one’s partner will submit to one’s wishes.
I wonder, somewhat, if this is in part an introvert/extrovert thing. I don’t want to to everything with someone in the first place, and doing everything with the same someone would make me feel like a limpet. Doing things together is, yes, important in relationships, but doing everything together would leave me feeling stifled, strangled, and miserable. (Which was the result when my husband and I shared living space that was too small.)
I’ve encountered people who were horrified by the idea that partners might do things separately at all; I honestly can’t understand why one would want to live that way. I recognise without comprehension that it works for some people, but there’s no way it would work for me.
As to the other thread of discussion, Linty Fresh, please keep in mind that plenty of people do, in fact, have multiple relationships. Saying that forming an additional close relationship is in and of itself a sign of a lack of honesty or a fault in an existing relationship is passing judgement on a number of people’s lives without any basis in fact.
