Hypothetical: You are sexually attracted to (or, if not conscious of... simply have chemistry with) someone with whom you interact on some frequency (e.g., a co-worker, a best friend's spouse, a neighbor, a former lover, whatever) but you are committed to someone else. Or, someone is sexually attracted to you with whom you interact regularly and you strongly sense it. On a conscious level it would be inappropriate to "go there" and maybe you haven't... Simply, something unsaid (but felt) is there between you. Maybe you taunt and tease... flirt, play but not touch... that sort of a thing. Maybe you even go to the edge a bit... chatrooms, text private jokes... etc. A heat is ever-present and you feel it, or he/she feels it, or you both feel it. Often in such cases, other people are aware of it, too.

Question: If your partner was attuned to the hypothetical situation with this sexual source and asked you curb your interaction with the person or give up the friendship all together (e.g., because the partner is insecure or feels threatened or senses danger)... would you honor your partner's request and curb your behavior? Would you be mad at your partner for "not trusting" you? Would you acquiesce/not acquiesce OR, instead fight for your independence to have any friends you want without their consent and tell them to "get over it"?

Another question: If your partner is the one with a lusty friend and you are the person who witnesses/senses the flirtations... would you feel concerned that temptation would lead them astray? Would you want to step in and do something to affect/minimize your partner's personal relationship with the other? Would you admit jealousy, would you ask your partner to dis his/her friendship with the lusty other? Or at least curb flirtations?

And More Questions: What if one partner asks the partner to cool it with the sexual source and the other partner REFUSES to cool it? Is this a breakdown of the relationship? Or is the one asking the other one to cool it simply a controlling baby?

Do any of these scenarios resonate with you?

I have not two, but three female friends who are living this dilemma right now, in which their male counterparts are engaging in some sort of private fun exchanges with a third party. Each of my friends is in relationship hell right now.

I can see the differing views on this: On one hand, how dare anyone tell a person who they can and cannot be friends with... right? If you're secure in your love, nothing should threaten your relationship. On the other hand... if a beloved senses danger and is hurting because of it... shouldn't there be some effort to recognize a problem exists that would be worthy of discussion, negotiation or attempt to mediate the problem?

Have you ever had this sort of a problem on either end of this spectrum? What happened? What did you do? What WOULD you do?

Remember the movie, When Harry Met Sally? It raised the philosophical question if men and women can be friends without there being sexual undertones. Here's the dialog. Please read and discuss...

Harry Burns: You realize of course that we could never be friends.
Sally Albright: Why not?
Harry Burns: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form - is that men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally Albright: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: You only think you do.
Sally Albright: You say I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry Burns: No, what I'm saying is they all WANT to have sex with you.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally Albright: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry Burns: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too.
Sally Albright: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU?
Harry Burns: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally Albright: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then.
Harry Burns: I guess not.
Sally Albright: That's too bad. You were the only person I knew in New York.

AND... later in the movie,


Harry Burns: Would you like to have dinner?... Just friends.
Sally Albright: I thought you didn't believe men and women could be friends.
Harry Burns: When did I say that?
Sally Albright: On the ride to New York.
Harry Burns: No, no, no, I never said that... Yes, that's right, they can't be friends. Unless both of them are involved with other people, then they can... This is an amendment to the earlier rule. If the two people are in relationships, the pressure of possible involvement is lifted... That doesn't work either, because what happens then is, the person you're involved with can't understand why you need to be friends with the person you're just friends with. Like it means something is missing from the relationship and why do you have to go outside to get it? And when you say "No, no, no it's not true, nothing is missing from the relationship," the person you're involved with then accuses you of being secretly attracted to the person you're just friends with, which you probably are. I mean, come on, who the hell are we kidding, let's face it. Which brings us back to the earlier rule before the amendment, which is men and women can't be friends.

***

I've been meaning to post an entry about the ensuing drama over the former Presidential Candidate, John Edwards, his affair with Rielle and the latest book by his right hand man, Robert Young.

Friday's 20/20 featured an interview with Robert Young, who worked with the politician and covered up the Edwards affair. He wrote a book which tells a story of the scandal. It's bringing Edwards down. The story is all about money and loyalties broken... friendship gone awry. You can read the news reports and book summary for the timeline of events.

Here are some of my reactions:

• Robert Young and his wife and kids sold out for the money in all they did to serve the Congressman Edwards. This book is also blood money. They are desperate and they recognize now their blame - at least that's what Young's wife said in the interview. The book is bullshit, however.... its reason for publication is not to right wrongs, as Young alleges, I think it's to hurt Edwards and it's revenge and it's more dirt. Just shame on him.
  
• Elizabeth's cancer has returned. John Edwards was staying with her to see her through this, but once the publicity came out that Edwards was the father Rielle's baby and he lied about it knowingly, Elizabeth filed for divorce. Good for her! There was nothing more mentioned of this in the 20/20 piece, but I'm sure other interviews with Elizabeth will emerge. Some of the footage was shown of John's hypocrisy and how he elevated Elizabeth as his wind beneath his wings, blah, blah, blah and it was all just to get money and votes. He used Elizabeth as wife/mother figure for 30 years to advance his career.
  
• John Edwards robbed Bunny (some rich old lady) of a million dollars for his non-campaign expenses to fund the hiding of Rielle's pregnancy and setting her up in a mansion. This is criminal and there are investigations going on. We'll find out more... What ever happened to Bunny? She is/was in her 90s. I want to know what she thinks.... she believed in John Edwards and never knew where the money was being spent. I wonder if she has comment now.
  
• John needs to be with Rielle and their baby (Oh God that baby girl is beautiful) and try to live an ordinary existence out of the limelight and be a better man. He needs to stay a father to the two children of the first marriage, too. He needs therapy. It seems he has no regrets, no remorse.... he's sociopathic and I'm not sure this guy can be saved.
• Rielle was described as a jealous and weird woman. Young told the story of how is a new age spiritualist who guided Edwards. Told stories of how she had to preview hotel rooms to make sure the right essence was there and one time the only room in a hotel that had the right spiritual elements was the top floor penthouse (why, of course!). She's a wacko... seems. Did she plan the pregnancy as a ploy? Methinks.
  

If anyone is following this story... comments welcomed.

An article last year gives a wonderful spin on infidelity, recognizing the powerful force of temptation. I love this piece of reality and am reprinting it here.

Comments? Please post.

The Washington Times - August 31, 2008
Honesty best way to prevent affairs
By Cheryl Wetzstein

When it comes to extramarital affairs, Peggy Vaughan may have heard it all. Since 1980, she and her husband, James, have spoken publicly about how they saved their marriage despite his infidelities. Now 72 and married for 53 years, Mrs. Vaughan has written several books and talked with thousands of people about the cheaters in their lives.

Not surprisingly, she has some advice for couples - especially those who think they are immune to affairs - and for an American culture that thinks it bears no culpability for the steady stream of betrayed spouses stomping off to divorce court.

Couples should know, "the only actual way to prevent affairs is by complete honesty. There is nothing else," says Mrs. Vaughan, whose latest book, "Preventing Affairs," came out in May.

Most people think other things will protect their marriage - being in love, being religious, taking wedding vows seriously, trusting each other, she says. But none of those things are as important as being honest with each other, which means both sharing private feelings and "not withholding relevant information."

People can be tempted to have an affair for myriad reasons, but the only way someone will act on a temptation is "if they are willing to be deceptive and lie to their partner," she says. "That means the trump card is honesty."

Mrs. Vaughan advocates honesty even though "it sounds counterintuitive" to tell your wife you think the neighbor lady is hot, or tell your husband you're flattered when that guy in the office flirts with you.

But it's impossible that spouses will go through life and never be attracted to other people, she says, and if spouses talk with each other about these attractions, they can pop the "fantasy" balloons and keep attractions harmless.

If you don't talk about temptations, she warns, "You're starting to keep secrets, and the fuel for affairs is secrecy."

Confiding in each other about private things keeps a couple connected, she adds.

"People don't grow apart because they do different things or have different interests," she says. "They grow apart because they stop telling each other what they're thinking."

Mrs. Vaughan has a few candid observations about the American culture, which she believes aids and abets extramarital affairs. "We're positively schizophrenic" about sex, she says. Marital sex is downplayed, while extramarital sex is glorified in TV shows, movies, books, fashion and advertising.

This is buttressed by a "code of silence" that says philanderers have privacy rights, and people shouldn't tell on each other. But let former Sen. John Edwards get caught in a hotel visiting his former mistress, and condemnation and outrage come pouring out as if he were the first husband to get caught with his pants down, she says.

Mrs. Vaughan wants to see less hypocrisy about sex, but she sees it starting in the home, not the movie theater. Her provocative message to parents is to "stop training your kids to have affairs."

When teens have sex - but can't be honest about it with their parents - they already are associating sex with secrecy and lying, she says. Later, when they're grown, married and tempted to have an affair, "they have already been conditioned [to] do what you're not supposed to do and pretend you didn't," she says.

Mrs. Vaughan recommends parents have lots of honest talks about sex with their teens - emphasizing its beauty with one loving partner - and not harp so much on avoiding sex. Kids may get information about "the plumbing" or "the basics," she says, but they get very little about loving relationships and having sex in a responsible way.

To prevent affairs in the next generation, she says, parents should raise their children "so they can talk about sex with you."

Cheryl Wetzstein's On the Family column appears Tuesdays and Sundays. She can be reached at cwetzstein@washingtontimes.com.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Posted September 24, 2009 15:39:00
Source: ABC NEWS

Cheating common in cyber sex world
By Gus Goswell


A study has found that over half of all internet users who engage in cyber sex are either married or in a serious offline relationship.

Melbourne psychologist Marcus Squirrell says the study of 1,325 internet users shows significant levels of infidelity and addiction.

Dr Squirrell carried out the research as part of his professional doctorate at Melbourne's Swinburne University.

Of the people who completed the questionnaire, 55 per cent said they were either married or in a serious offline relationship.

"I suppose one of the problems with it is that when you engage in cyber sex frequently enough, the actual arousal pattern to your partner often diminishes and it actually gets replaced with the online images," Dr Squirrell said.

"There's lots of people who report they actually prefer engaging in cyber sex and looking at pornography and masturbating online than actual face-to-face-encounters."

Mr Squirrell says online infidelity can have the same impact on a partner as other forms of cheating.

"Even if somebody isn't actually meeting up with somebody online it has the same sorts of ramifications as a face-to-face affair, because people feel that they've been cheated on even if the partner's just looking at pictures," he said.

Dr Squirrell's survey shows men have a strong preference for looking at pornographic pictures and videos, while women are twice as likely to use web cameras, to send sexually explicit emails or spend time in chat rooms.

He recruited survey participants by advertising within cyber sex user groups - sites that are generally used by people who spend a greater than average amount of time engaged in cyber sexual activities.

Almost half of those who took part in the survey live in North America; 12 per cent said they were Australians.

The average respondent was male, well-educated, and in their early 40s.

Around 40 per cent of respondents identified themselves as heterosexual, with others listing their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian or bi-sexual.

Hours of online sex

While the average participant in Mr Squirrell's sample group said they spent just over 12 hours a week engaging in sexual activity online, some people reported engaging in cyber sex for up to 10 hours a day.

Dr Squirrell says while not all sexual activity online is harmful, some people are desperate to overcome an addiction to online sex.

He treats about seven online sex addicts at his practice in Melbourne's inner south.

"They're absolutely at the end of their tether in terms of being able to control their behaviour themself," he said.

"Clients will even go as far as putting filters and blocks on websites. They've often made changes like putting their computer into other rooms.

'I've got one client who frequently looks at cyber sex at work and just struggles to control that behaviour."

Fighting the addiction

Dr Squirrell says he often suggests people fighting an addiction to cyber sex install filtering devices or join support groups such as Sex Addicts Anonymous, which offer a 12-step program based on the Alcoholics Anonymous model.

He says it is important to realise that not all cyber sexual activity is harmful.

"Most people can engage in cyber sex and take it or leave it. But there is significant minority, like there is with all addictions, where the behaviour just gets absolutely completely out of control," he said.

Dr Squirrell says there is a need for more support services for people who do want to overcome their online sex addiction.

"There's very few people out there who really specialise in the area," he said.

"What I'm trying to get off the ground is actually an e-therapy program like they have for some other conditions, with training modules where people can actually go through the process of treatment online and engage with a therapist occasionally.

But I say this, too. Does a scandal make a person rotten to the core? Can we possibly look beyond the wrongdoing and see a bit of humanity in all of this? Can people still be effective in their work if their personal lives go to pieces? Why or why not?






There are no easy answers.

It is good to talk about these types of events, read and understand the behaviors of others. It helps each of us define better who we are inside and the things we represent. I truly feel sorry for each of the people in the triangle who are now being publicly beaten up by public opinion. So sad.