SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Is it only because you might become physically attracted to someone?

That's a big part of it, for sure. I've been reading about the many definitions of sexuality (partly to understand more about where you're coming from, PSTI, and partly from curiosity after decoding all the flags at our local PRIDE march). I felt some resonance with the term "demisexual," which means that you only feel sexually attracted to people with whom you also feel an emotional connection. I'm not sure that's purely true of me, because there's a bit of chicken-or-egg on my case -- if I get emotionally connected, that's when I feel attraction, but also, if I feel attraction, there's a temptation to take it to an emotional place. But in any case, the two go hand in hand for me. I have zero interest in casual sex. Even when I watch porn, I'm bummed at how hard it is to find people who act convincingly like they care about each other, because that's something I need in order to get turned on.

And that's why, for the last 30 years, I've kept a careful eye on emotional connections to anyone with whom a sexual relationship is a possiblity. I'm heterosexual, so that means straight men. I've already proved that I have shit boundaries and a poor track record with adhering to rules once my feet are on the path of either emotional or physical intimacy.

Monogamy is inherently a zero sum game. It isn't at all like loving multiple children. People don't typically abandon one of their children for another unless there is a romantic connection to a new adult involved in the abandonment. However, they leave committed partnerships for a new partner all the time.

For many of us out here, an intimate emotional connection with someone outside our romantic relationship is a deadly threat, like an addiction. You don't take that first hit because you don't want to be selling yourself and everything you value to keep the hits coming in the future. I haven't had the urge to cheat for decades, and that is in part because I don't let myself get into situations where there's a possibility a spark could ignite.

BSR- that's a really interesting way of looking at it. Hmm. So like gambling, or alcohol, or anything addictive... some of us can do it and be just fine, and some can't without consequences. That actually makes a lot of sense in context. I'm going to have to think that through for a little while because I think it's worth processing.

I'm not demisexual myself, but my DBF is. He didn't want to have sex until I think four dates into our relationship, but at least he was very clear that he was interested in me and attracted to me, he just wasn't yet ready for sex. I would have been fine on the first date since I liked him and he was cute.

I agree with you about the porn, though. I tend to save the clips I find that are good since so many are just rubbish. I might like porn, but a little bit of connection in there is nice too.

I figured the comment about multiple children won't resonate with most people, but I didn't mean it in terms of ending relationships- just as an illustration that love can indeed multiply in the right circumstances without it taking away any love from the first partner. Of course, if one is a serial monogamist that will also not happen because loving someone new will pull energy away.

I'm glad you've been able to find a way that defines connections that works for you and your husband. It sounds like it makes sense for you to set those specific limitations the way that you do. Thank you for giving me some things to think about!

An emotional affair occurs when one spouse steps outside the marriage to receive fulfillment somewhere else, when he or she should really be receiving it from their spouse. A connection is formed with that other person and conversations become flirty and/or more intimate and personal. Sometimes those who are involved even don't even realize the slippery slope they are on initially. To them, it may seem innocent because sex isn't involved or perhaps there isn't any sexual tension yet. I feel like that is a very dangerous place to be because it's like carrying a stick of dynamite around a bunch of sparks. Given the right circumstances, the fuse can be easily lit.

My husband now admits his relationship with the OW was a dangerous one. Though he wasn't physically attracted to her, he wasn't physically repulsed by her either, and a connection was certainly building between both of them. I think we all know of people who got together over time because the person "grew" on them, and although their relationship didn't start out with a physical attraction, it developed as both parties got to know one another well.

Personally, I guard my heart carefully. I have loads of female friends for friendship, and the only male friends are from couple friends my husband and I both hang out with. I do have men at my job and at church I consider "surface friends" - those relationships I hold at a professional distance. I don't share anything too personal with these men, nor do I allow myself to spend alone time with them unless we are working on a work-related project together. When that happens, the conversation remains professional.

It's just not worth the risk.

[This message edited by emotionalaffair1 at 8:24 AM, December 26th (Thursday)]

An emotional affair occurs when one spouse steps outside the marriage to receive fulfillment somewhere else, when he or she should really be receiving it from their spouse. A connection is formed with that other person and conversations become flirty and/or more intimate and personal.

EA1- That has been my point all along, what exactly is it that you think a person should only get from their spouse, aside from the flirty bits? If you were bisexual, would that mean you couldn't have intimate female friends either, in your opinion?

I think maybe in my mind there is a differentiation between what I think of like a cyber affair, where it's sexual even if not in a physical sense, and an emotional affair which I would define if asked as one involving love or romantic feelings but not physical intimacy.

But the emotionally intimate friendship seems to be a different kettle of fish in my opinion.

I asked you to define "intimate "

What in your mind is an intimate friendship vs an intimate "relationship?

All of my friendships are true and authentic but none of them I would consider intimate. I feel that intimacy is to be saved for that "one and only"....which I guess doesn't apply to you in your circumstances. And I'm not just talking physical intimacy. As you quoted above, anything that that fulfills the needs if one person by stepping outside of their relationship is crossing a line thay shouldn't be crossed.

Since many have already given you the definition of what an EA is based on their personal views and the "professional " description, I'm confused as to what you're really looking for.

What's the difference in talking to a woman about sex if you don't want to have sex with her?

I don't really talk to women about sex, either. I'm not a prude. I've had some pretty funny sexual conversations with people. But, I don't go looking for someone to talk to about sex. Sure, I might tell a friend I finally got some last night, or complain that it's been too long, but that's it. I don't go into intimate detail about what we did and whether or not I liked it. 🤷‍♀️ I don't feel the need. I know what I'm doing. I know what I like and don't like. What do I need to talk to someone else about? It's just not something I feel the need to do.

I don't talk to my friends about my traumas, either. Again, not something I feel the need to do. If it were to come up in conversation and it seemed like some empathy was needed, I may share some of my story. But, again, I don't go around looking for people to talk to about that shit, not even my fch. I have told him about them, but we don't discuss it.

Like DragnHeart said, that doesn't make my friendships or me less authentic. I can be my real, true self with them without telling them everything on my mind or in my heart.

ITA that one person can't be all things to us. There are some things my fch can't provide me with. I find friends who can. Meaningful conversation is one of them. I don't call that intimate, though. It's intelligent and thought provoking and sometimes enlightening, but not intimate.

Again, my fch's EA consisted of him sharing his deepest thoughts and feelings about me and our M with a MOW. These were all things that he did not share with me. She was not his type. He was not physically attracted to her. He developed romantic feelings for her before they did anything physical. He developed those romantic feelings for her because she fed him ego kibbles so that he felt good about himself.

BSR, that's interesting about demisexual. Did I get that right? That's probably me. I'm not interested in casual sex. I invariably form an attachment to anyone I have sex with.

That has been my point all along, what exactly is it that you think a person should only get from their spouse, aside from the flirty bits? If you were bisexual, would that mean you couldn't have intimate female friends either, in your opinion?

I think the wrong question is being asked. It's not about what we can only get from our spouses - it's about what affects the marriage itself. What should be asked is, will this other relationship going to grow my marriage in a positive direction? If this answer is, it won't, then that relationship needs to go.

I think we tend to think of just the husband and wife and their children being damaged from an affair, but there is another party that is involved - the marriage relationship itself. To me, marriage is an entity, a covenant, something special that should be upheld with integrity. Every day people make choices that grow their marriages or chip away at it. Personally, my goal is to have a marriage others can be encouraged by. Also, because I am a Christian, I want my marriage to be the best reflection of the relationship between Christ and His church possible.

People come into our lives all the time. Most of us who have chosen monogamous relationships and who took vows to "forsake all others" must make the wise decision to evaluate the people who come into our lives. Is that person a friend to the marriage, meaning someone who will grow you and your spouse closer together and will help you build value into your marriage, or is that person someone who is going to tear things down?

Why would anyone want to keep someone around - male or female - who brings harm to their marriage or who hurts their spouse?

Why would anyone want to keep someone around - male or female - who brings harm to their marriage or who hurts their spouse?

Because, apparently, if we, as spouses, don't want our spouses to be friends with another person, we are being controlling.

I asked you to define "intimate "

What in your mind is an intimate friendship vs an intimate "relationship?

All of my friendships are true and authentic but none of them I would consider intimate. I feel that intimacy is to be saved for that "one and only"....which I guess doesn't apply to you in your circumstances. And I'm not just talking physical intimacy. As you quoted above, anything that that fulfills the needs if one person by stepping outside of their relationship is crossing a line thay shouldn't be crossed.

Since many have already given you the definition of what an EA is based on their personal views and the "professional " description, I'm confused as to what you're really looking for.

Sorry, Dragonheart, I must have missed your question.

I use intimate to mean someone that I put in one of those inner circles of friendship. Someone that I feel I can call at 3am if I have issues and they will help me. Someone who I can talk to about whatever is on my mind, and that's okay. The people you call when you're having emotional issues and you need someone to talk to.

It has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. I have both male and female friends that I consider intimate friends. My mother would call them true friends.

I don't think your spouse should be your only source of emotional support, frankly. And not everyone has that kind of relationship with family. Unless you are the kind of person who can't have that relationship without it, I don't see why the gender of the person matters since it has nothing to do with sex, and I don't think it takes anything away from your connection with your spouse, either.

I think this is why I am splitting EA from cyber affair. I agree that anything sexual would cross the line big time in a monogamous relationship.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

I think the wrong question is being asked. It's not about what we can only get from our spouses - it's about what affects the marriage itself. What should be asked is, will this other relationship going to grow my marriage in a positive direction? If this answer is, it won't, then that relationship needs to go.

I think we tend to think of just the husband and wife and their children being damaged from an affair, but there is another party that is involved - the marriage relationship itself. To me, marriage is an entity, a covenant, something special that should be upheld with integrity. Every day people make choices that grow their marriages or chip away at it. Personally, my goal is to have a marriage others can be encouraged by. Also, because I am a Christian, I want my marriage to be the best reflection of the relationship between Christ and His church possible.

People come into our lives all the time. Most of us who have chosen monogamous relationships and who took vows to "forsake all others" must make the wise decision to evaluate the people who come into our lives. Is that person a friend to the marriage, meaning someone who will grow you and your spouse closer together and will help you build value into your marriage, or is that person someone who is going to tear things down?

Why would anyone want to keep someone around - male or female - who brings harm to their marriage or who hurts their spouse?

See, that's a logical fallacy. By making that statement, you're assuming that close friendships will bring harm to the marriage. That doesn't have to be true in all cases. But OF COURSE it's a terrible idea to have people around who bring harm to the marriage. There is no arguing that.

But life is not so black and white. I certainly don't evaluate all my friends and hobbies and decisions to see if they are positive or negative to my marriage because they have nothing to do with my marriage. I am an individual person inside my marriage. I agree with your point that the relationship is an entity unto itself and it needs TLC. But not everything I do as an individual is about the marriage.

If you aren't considering the individuals in the marriage as well, I think that would be an unhealthy level of codependency. It is good for me when my husband is happy, and vice versa. Unless his friendship is specifically at my expense and that's not what I'd consider the usual situation for friends. Which circles back to, when is a friendship inappropriate, which was the point of this thread.

I think your talking in circles.

Your definition of intimacy is different than others. Your responses continue to come across as if your trying to educate others on how insecure they are. It's almost bordering on condescending at this point.

Intimacy is defined by those in the relationship. You and YOUR PARTNERS define it one way...others define it another.

You don't think it's and issue for you and your relationships. Then it's not.If another finds it an issue...it is.

I respect your right to relationship but it really seems as if you try to present yourself as "evolved" and that those who chose monogamy aren't. And you take the opportunity to "educate" on APs, respect for them and now how to define intimacy.

coco- honestly, it just sounds like you're a private person and there is nothing wrong with that. If you personally are content not sharing those types of thoughts and feelings, then more power to you. There is no one right way to be.

I couldn't understand it coming from my frame of reference, and that's okay. It's just totally foreign to me. I not only want but need the kind of close relationships based on shared intimacies and connection developed through sharing personal thoughts and experiences. I am not happy being self contained in that manner.

I find when I share personal thoughts with someone and they share theirs with me, it deepens our connection as human beings, and to me that's the best part of friendships. Being close to people even if we see things in very different ways.

Not everyone wants the same things and that's what keeps our world interesting. I suspect you probably have as difficult a time understanding me and what I want as I do understanding your point of view, since it's difficult to see a stance so opposite in an unbiased way.

If you are happy, the bottom line is that's what matters.

I think your talking in circles.

Your definition of intimacy is different than others. Your responses continue to come across as if your trying to educate others on how insecure they are. It's almost bordering on condescending at this point.

Intimacy is defined by those in the relationship. You and YOUR PARTNERS define it one way...others define it another.

You don't think it's and issue for you and your relationships. Then it's not.If another finds it an issue...it is.

I respect your right to relationship but it really seems as if you try to present yourself as "evolved" and that those who chose monogamy aren't. And you take the opportunity to "educate" on APs, respect for them and now how to define intimacy.

Prissy, did you miss that I was specifically asked for my definition of intimacy? Because I missed that the first time as well :)

No, I don't think polyamory is any more evolved than monogamy. What I think is worth exploring, is the different ways we define things and why. It is never a bad thing to spend some time on reflection considering how we feel about things and why, and to hear other people's perspectives.

I do disagree with rules. However, people can do what they wish in their relationships as long as there is informed consent. That's the touchstone, I believe.

See, that's a logical fallacy. By making that statement, you're assuming that close friendships will bring harm to the marriage. That doesn't have to be true in all cases. But OF COURSE it's a terrible idea to have people around who bring harm to the marriage. There is no arguing that.

I have many close friendships outside of my marriage. They are very important to me. However, each of those friendships do not in any way bring harm to my marriage or make my husband feel threatened.

But life is not so black and white. I certainly don't evaluate all my friends and hobbies and decisions to see if they are positive or negative to my marriage because they have nothing to do with my marriage. I am an individual person inside my marriage. I agree with your point that the relationship is an entity unto itself and it needs TLC. But not everything I do as an individual is about the marriage.

This may be where we have to agree to disagree. I believe when I married my spouse, we became one. Thus, what I do and who I am friends with directly affects our marriage. Yes, I still have my individuality, my own hobbies and such. I do things that don't always include my husband. However, whatever I do, I evaluate to see if it will bring positive growth to me, my spouse, and/or our marriage. I don't consider it codependency; I consider it consideration for our marriage, his feelings, and the vows we took together.

Because, apparently, if we, as spouses, don't want our spouses to be friends with another person, we are being controlling.

I get the sarcasm.

I think the problem in this particular thread is that not everyone is in agreement on what marriage ought to look like.

For some people marriage looks like this:

husband + wife

For others, marriage looks like this:

husband + wife + other people as long as both husband and wife agree it's OK

The problem is, those of us who see marriage as husband + wife would feel like husband + wife + others equal an affair. This thread will not ever come to an agreement on what makes an affair an emotional affair because we aren't even in agreement on what makes up a marriage.

I have many close friendships outside of my marriage. They are very important to me. However, each of those friendships do not in any way bring harm to my marriage or make my husband feel threatened.

Right here is the point I am trying to make. What if your husband felt threatened for a reason you felt was silly? I don't have a specific example in mind but let's assume for the sake of argument he felt that one of your friends was a bad influence in some way and nothing could persuade him otherwise.

And let's say the friend was NOT a bad influence in any way, but he believed it. This is where I think things get arbitrary. Just because a spouse feels someone is a problem doesn't mean they actually are. Would you actually stop seeing that friend if you felt it wasn't a problem?

The problem is, those of us who see marriage as husband + wife would feel like husband + wife + others equal an affair. This thread will not ever come to an agreement on what makes an affair an emotional affair because we aren't even in agreement on what makes up a marriage.

I think this is a very, very good thing that we don't have agreement on what makes up a marriage. People need to craft the relationships that work for them, and we don't all want the same things from life. Forcing marriage into a tiny little definition would make more people unhappy because it wouldn't meet their needs and wants.

Sorry, Dragonheart, I must have missed your question.

That's ok.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

Yes and no. We have different definitions for intimate I guess.

Let me see if I can explain EA better.

My wayward husband had an EA because he put forth more effort in his special "friendship " than he did with his effort in our marriage.

With his OW#2:

He spent hours emailing her.

He responded with more than one or two words. He wrote out bloody novels to her.

He responded right away to any email from her.

He opened up about how he felt, what he wanted in life, what his concerns were with out children.

Now with ME:

He rarely even checks or reads emails from me.

He NEVER responds to them IF he decides to actually read them. I'm lucky if I get a one word reply on the ones I have demanded a response to.

He has never opened up about his feelings to me and totally closed himself off from discussing the medical problems we had/have with our children.

He shared more of his life with her than he did me. Now that EA eventually turned into a PA and went on for a very long time even after I discovered it.

He shared many details of his life and details of me that never should have been shared.

Does that make better sense than just saying he was emotionally intimate with her? Can you see how he violated my trust and the agreement we made to share those things only with eachother?

Absolutely. I can see that your WH was prioritizing the AP in a way that was clearly damaging to his connection with you. That makes perfect sense, as well.

I still don't make that connection that it should only have been between the two of you- but I absolutely agree that his behaviour was boundary violating and that he needed to be putting that kind of effort into his relationship with you.

I also agree that it's a violation for your WH to share your intimate details with someone else. DH and I have had that conversation previously, where we set boundaries about what kinds of things we prefer to keep private (unsurprisingly, I suspect our lines would be different than most people's) whether it's friends or otherwise. Consent is always the touchstone, and he shouldn't share your private information without your consent.

I still don't make that connection that it should only have been between the two of you

This is where many of us are frustrated.

It's because We. Are. Married.

No one outside of the two of us should have knowledge of our life together, especially shared without the others consent.

I can see that this isn't something you understand and that's ok. Just dont put down those of us who feel violated by what our partners/spouse did with another person.