Psychology Today Blogs - Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D.

What Happens When Your Lover Is Real?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:29:28 -0700

"I love Mickey Mouse more than any woman I have ever known." Walt Disney.

Emotional intensity depends on the way in which we evaluate the significance of events. Although emotions arise from an immediate eliciting event, their intensity depends on broader sets of circumstances that circumscribe our sensitivity to such an event. The various intensity variables may be divided into two major groups, one referring to the perceived impact of the event eliciting the emotional state and the other to background circumstances of the agents involved in the emotional state. The major variables constituting the first group are the strength, reality, and relevance of the event; the major variables constituting the second group are accountability, readiness, and deservingness (see The Subtlety of Emotions).

Here I discuss the variable of reality and argue that the more we believe the situation to be real, the more intense the emotion. The importance of the degree of reality in inducing powerful emotions is illustrated by the fact that a very strong event, which may be quite relevant to our well-being, may not provoke emotional excitement if we succeed in considering it as fantasy. Thus, despite the horrifying impact of a potential nuclear holocaust, many people do not allow this to upset them, since they do not consider the event to be a real possibility. On the other hand, events in a fictional movie may generate intense emotions as we choose to believe in the possible reality of the events in the movie.

In analyzing the notion of "emotional reality" two major senses should be discerned: actual existence and vividness. Referring to the first sense, we may say that emotions aroused by imaginary objects are less intense than those elicited by actually existing objects. When we know that the danger actually exists, we are more frightened than when we suspect that the danger is illusory. The second sense of emotional reality, that is, the object's vividness, relates to the fact that we receive information from various sources and with varying degrees of vividness. Pictures are most vivid due to the vast amount of information supplied by vision; hence, their importance in our everyday life. A film-clip of one wounded child has usually more emotional impact than reports about thousands killed. A picture is worth a thousand words. This vividness may account for the weakness of reason when opposed to the strength of emotions. Intellectual deliberations typically refer to something remote while emotions refer to what is present in the here and now.

In light of the crucial role imagination plays in emotions, the importance of the degree of reality in the existential sense may be questioned. Thus, although works of art are understood to describe imaginary characters, they easily induce intense emotions. Art may in fact quite often induce more intense emotions than those we have toward real people. Many people are sadder when their favorite star, or even a cartoon character, gets hurt in a movie than when they read about a few hundred people killed in a remote place in the world.

The above difficulty can be overcome when taking account of the vividness sense of reality. Works of art are obviously real in this sense. They provide us with more vivid information than that reported about actual existing events. The detailed and concrete description we have of the life of a fictional character in a movie makes this character more vivid and closer to us than an actual existing person reported in a newspaper. In perceiving artistic objects, we "put in brackets" their imaginary existence.

One may further argue that an imaginative object is sometimes more exciting than an actual existing one even when there is no difference in their vividness. Consider, for example, the case in which while having sex many people fantasize about a different person than their current partner and the case in which a half-naked woman may be more exciting than a fully-dressed or a stark-naked woman. Explaining these cases should refer to the fact that both of them actually involve two different, rather than identical, objects where the imaginary one is more exciting. The fantasized person and the half-naked woman are imagined to have other properties-which are more attractive-than those of the real ones.

Cyberspace is less real in the existential sense, but it can facilitate vivid fantasies. A 52-year-old married man writes: "Each time I had cybersex, I was really acting out some of my more common fantasies. With the help of some unknown and unseen people on the Internet, these experiences were very rewarding." Indeed, some people testify that their online lovers are more real to them than their offline spouses are. Thus, a woman may feel that even when her husband is at home, he is less real to her than her unseen online friend is. In addition, the freedom to behave more openly can make an individual feel more of a real person while in cyberspace (see Love Online).

Your partner then is not a real lover when he merely physically exists around you. He may become more real when his loving attitudes are more vivid-even if those are merely expressed in a somewhat virtual environment. Having a physically existing partner whose loving attitudes are profoundly vivid involves the highest degree of reality. Achieving this most rewarding experience is not easy for many people; accordingly, too many of them settle for the vivid lover or worse the mere existential one (see In the Name of Love). In any case, some (partly) virtual loving attitudes are more real than those expressed by physically existing partners.

Should Romantic Experiences Be Consistent?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:55:00 -0700

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." Henry Louis Mencken

When I talk about what people do when being consistent, I mean that they generally behave in similar ways under similar circumstances. When it comes to thinking about what people say, I mean that what they say is coherent and not self-contradictory. A woman is consistent when she always loves her spouse. Saying today that "I love you" and saying the next day that "I do not love you" is inconsistent. The uniformity of a consistent behavior reflects reliability and predictability.

We expect people to be consistent, and this expectation has a great deal of intellectual and practical value. However, from the point of view of emotions, which are generated by change and are more sensitive to contextual factors, the value of the expectation that people be consistent is questionable. The behavior of extreme people, for example, those governed by extreme political ideologies, who appear to be uninfluenced by the complexity of the world, is consistent. On the other hand, people who are sensitive to such complexities are more flexible and therefore likely to be less consistent. When one politician was asked why he changed his mind concerning a certain issue, thus being inconsistent, he said: "because reality has changed."

Consistency of others in our personal relationships matters because understanding and predicting their behavior is important to the extent that it affects us. Predicting the behavior of others enables us to prepare our responses and even to control it if the occasion calls for it. These goals are of lesser utility concerning ourselves and hence the requirement of consistency is less significant when applied to our own behavior. We do not usually perceive ourselves as inconsistent, but we often perceive others as behaving in an inconsistent manner.

The charge of inconsistent behavior in a personal relationship often reflects a lack of awareness of the complexity of the other's situation. Concerning ourselves, the need for consistency is weaker because our own complexity is automatically taken into account as we have mental access to much more information about our own situation and beliefs than we do concerning others.

Thus, people who told me about their own experiences of loving two people at the same time considered their experience and related behavior to be acceptable and justifiable. They sought to justify their seemingly inconsistent behavior by referring to the complexity of the situation and focused on their claim to love different aspects of their beloveds. However, when considering the possibility that their partner would love two people at the same time, most of them found the behavior unacceptable and did not acknowledge a comparable complexity of their partner's situation (see In the Name of Love). The complexity of our views of ourselves is matched by the simplicity of our views of others.

The strong need for consistency is compatible with what David Schnarch calls "the other-validated model of intimacy" wherein one's whole identity is based upon the other. When people cannot predict the behavior of their beloved, they cannot validate, in this model, their own identity. But if one's validation is based more upon oneself, inconsistency in one's own behavior is less likely to be destabilizing or threatening.

The prevailing model of the romantic relationships involves the expectation of acceptance, empathy, validation, and reciprocal disclosure from one's partner. As this model involves profound dependency upon the other, the issue of the other's consistency is of great importance. Consider the case of Nancy, a married woman, who prefers not to be in love because it involves dependency on another person: "When I was once in love, I lost control of my happiness; my happiness belonged to someone else. It is important for me that I experience my happiness not through someone else whose moods and sanity I do not control." In this model the requirement of consistency is extended to the attitudes of both partners.

Indeed, in Karen Kayser's study of disaffected marriages, the major events responsible for the deterioration of love involve the partner's controlling behavior, in particular behavior that consists of unilateral decision-making. Her study indicates that spouses tried, with little success, to stop the process of disaffection by seeking to please their partners even more. A 26-year-old woman, married for four years, says, "I would always agree with his suggestions-whether I thought they were wrong or not, I would always agree." And a 29-year-old woman, married for four years, says "I changed my interests so that they were more acceptable to my husband." Here the simplification of one's identity extends beyond the demand to be similar over time, but it requires being similar to that of another person.

As an alternative to the other-validated model, Schnarch proposes the model of self-validated intimacy, which relies on each person maintaining his or her own autonomy and self-worth. In this model, the foundation of long-term marital intimacy is differentiation, which is the ability to maintain one's sense of self while in close contact with other people who may pressure us to be consistent with their perceptions or needs. In this model the issue of consistency is of less importance. This model does not attempt to maintain the exciting period of infatuation forever, but rather encourages the self-development and fulfillment of each partner and thus requires greater autonomy, sensitivity, and flexibility to the complex circumstances. Each must keep pace with the other's development in order to keep the relationship alive; similarly, each must exhibit self-control and not try to control the other.

If we were stop expecting absolute consistency in others, relationships would become more genuine. At the same time, they would become more complex. Under such conditions, attitudes that are absolute, uncompromising, and unconditional, have little chance of ever being functional; more complex and flexible attitudes are more beneficial. Abandoning the expectation of absolute consistency is not the same as abandoning the expectation of some consistency. Some measure of consistency will always be necessary in order to prevent profound uncertainty about the world in which we live.

Is It Worth Playing Hard to Get?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:43:47 -0700

"The love game is never called off on account of darkness." Tom Masson

The comparison underlying emotional significance encompasses the mental construction of an alternative situation. The more available the alternative, namely, the closer the imagined alternative is to reality, the more intense the emotion. Therefore, the fate of someone who dies in an airplane crash after switching flights evokes a stronger reaction than that of a fellow traveler who was booked on the flight all along. A crucial element in emotions is, indeed, the imagined condition of "it could have been otherwise."

An illuminating example in this regard comes from research on singles bars: as closing time approached, men and women viewed the opposite sex as increasingly attractive. The looming alternative-the likelihood of going home alone-increased the value of those still available. The notion of the availability of alternatives may explain many seemingly puzzling situations such as people who remain in unfulfilling marriages or jobs. Although their satisfaction is low, these people perceive other available alternatives to be even worse.

There is much evidence indicating the tendency of people to react more strongly to those events for which it is easy to imagine a different outcome occurring. Considering the importance that the availability of the alternative thus attains, "almost situations" or "near misses" come to have intense emotional effects. The American Basketball star, Magic Johnson, who has been infected with the AIDS virus, explains that it is particularly hard for him to accept the disease since "I could have easily avoided being infected at all. All I had to do was wear condoms."

Availability of an alternative is determined by how likely it is to occur. The closer a certain alternative is, the more other possibilities are eliminated; it becomes more real and hence more emotionally significant. The notion of the availability of an alternative is connected with that of abnormality: an abnormal event is one that has highly available alternatives. Many of the ideas discussed here inspired by the seminal work of the Noble laureate Daniel Kahneman and his long-time collaborate, the late Amos Tversky.

The issue of availability is quite evident in romantic relationships as well. The more available the person, the more intense is usually sexual desire. Indeed, accepting a person's sexual invitations is the most effective way for someone to attract a prospective partner into a casual liaison. There are many signals that women, for example, use to convey their interest to men. Such signals include darting glances, head tossing, lip-licking, hair-flicking, as well as coy smiles, and dancing alone. Signals like these can indicate availability and have a strong seductive effect. This effect is due to the general correlation between the availability of an alternative and emotional intensity. There is also evidence suggesting that perceived opportunity is a significant factor in extramarital sexual affairs. This is in accordance with a more general tendency of ours: we tend to be drawn to those who show signs of friendliness and cooperation (see The Subtlety of Emotions).

An opposite effect of the availability impact is expressed in the tactic of playing hard to get. If a person seems unattainable, love and sexual desire may be stronger. As someone suggested, "By keeping men off, you keep them on." This has become known as the Romeo and Juliet effect: if real impediments exist, such as a family feud or marriage to another person, our love or sexual desire are likely to intensify. Indeed, "playing hard to get" is a most effective strategy for attracting a partner. It should be noted, however, that when the required effort is too immense and the probability of its success is low, people may give up the idea and may not invest extra effort. In accordance with the tactic of "playing hard to get", Hollywood films portray genuine love as a culmination of a difficult journey; love in this sense must be "earned" and "proved," often by enduring the pain of separation (see In the Name of Love).

Is it worth then to play hard to get or easy to get? And in what circumstances are each of these seemingly contradictory tactics-"playing hard to get" and "playing easy to get"-more effective? The first tactic is most effective when used in the context of long-term love or the marital context in which a person wishes to be sure of their partner's fidelity. Long-term romantic love may have significant and enduring benefits for us and hence we are ready to invest a lot of effort, and other resources, in order to attain it. Playing hard to get ensures that the other person is ready to make a commitment to an enduring relationship. The tactic of "playing easy to get" is most effective when used by someone in the context of casual sex, where availability is the most important commodity. In this context, people are not ready to make significant investments since the benefits are smaller and more temporary; hence, playing hard to get here will not be effective at all.

Both tactics are less effective when used by men. The more overt the sexual advances by men, the less attractive women find them-probably because women do not want men to consider them as highly promiscuous. Playing hard to get is also less effective in men, as they are the ones who are socially expected to initiate the relationship.

Romantic love is often described as a game, but love is more than just a game for two. Love is a very profound and complex experience involving serious, yet enjoyable games that two can play and both win. But at the end of the day, we must realize the serious nature of this enjoyable bond between two people, and act accordingly. Acting seriously should not mean the abolishment of games in love, but rather making them more important.

When Do We Fall in Love?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:49:02 -0700

"I want a man who's kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?" (Zsa Zsa Gabor)

The complex experience of romantic love involves two basic evaluative patterns referring to (a) attractiveness-that is, an attraction to external appearance, and (b) praiseworthiness-that is, positively appraising personal characteristics. Falling and staying in love requires the presence of both patterns.

An attractive woman may want to be loved not merely for her beauty but also for her actions and personal traits. An unattractive woman may wish the contrary: that her beloved would value her external appearance as much as he did her kindness or wisdom. People realize that genuine romantic love requires the presence of both evaluative patterns and they want to satisfy both, even if they are at an apparent disadvantage insofar as one pattern is concerned. One would be offended if one's partner said: "You are rather ugly and I am not sexually attracted to you, but your brilliant brain compensates for everything." One would also be offended if one's partner declared: "You are rather stupid, but your attractive body compensates for everything." In Yeats' poem, "For Anne Gregory," a woman wants to be loved not for the yellow color of her hair, which stands for the element of attractiveness, but for herself alone, namely, her actions and traits. An old man tells her that "only God, my dear, could love you for yourself alone and not your yellow hair."

Quite often we hear statements such as: "you don't love me, you just love my body (or, beauty, money, kindness, humor, wisdom, etc.)." We may notice that that this statement can be voiced not only when it is concerned with features perceived as superficial, such as beauty and money, but also with regard to more profound features, such as kindness and wisdom. We may say that beauty and money are not legitimate reasons for love, whereas kindness and wisdom are more legitimate reasons-since they express characteristics more fundamental to us. Nevertheless, none of these reasons alone is perceived to be sufficient for romantic love. Such love requires the presence of both praiseworthiness and attractiveness.

Some people would like to change the relative weight of one of these patterns-not regarding the beloved's attitude toward them, but regarding their own attitude. Thus, some people wish that they could attach less weight to attraction, which may carry less value in the long run. Others may wish the opposite: that their love would be more spontaneous and less calculated; they wish they could attach more weight to attraction. The familiar unsuccessful experience of trying to love the "right" person indicates the importance of attraction in love. The familiar experience of being attracted to a handsome person, up until the moment he opens his mouth, indicates the importance of praiseworthiness in love.

The two kinds of evaluative patterns involved in romantic love are not independent: a positive appraisal of your partner's characteristics is greatly influenced by his or her attractiveness. There is much evidence suggesting that attractiveness significantly influences ratings of intelligence, sociality, and morality. A common phenomenon in romantic relationships is the "attractiveness halo," in which a person who is perceived as beautiful is assumed to have other good qualities as well.

In contrast to romantic love, where both evaluative patterns are essential, in sexual desire attraction is far more dominant. Sexual desire is a simpler attitude, based largely on spontaneous and non-deliberative evaluations, whereas romantic love often requires both spontaneous and deliberative evaluations. Sexual desire is largely based upon perception (and imagination), whereas love encompasses in a more significant manner capacities such as thinking and memory, which are important for appraising personal characteristics. Sexual desire is typically focused on limited aspects of external appearance; romantic love is more comprehensive in this sense.

The evaluative pattern of attractiveness is related to the emotional characteristic of change (as Mae West said, "Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before"), while the pattern of praiseworthiness is closer to familiarity ("To know you is to love you"). It is often the case that in long-term relationships, praiseworthiness may increase but attractiveness typically decreases. It is also the case that with age, people typically accord less weight to the issue of attraction.

Some differences between men and women may also be present in this respect. It has been said, for example, that men love the women they are attracted to, whereas women are attracted to the men they love. Indeed, physical attractiveness is more important in determining male love for females than female love for males. This claim is supported by cross-cultural studies indicating that, among the 37 cultures studied, there was no culture in which women cared more about the looks of their partners than men did. Another support for this claim has been found in a study on the focus of men and women's initial gaze upon first meeting. Women tend to look at men's eyes, whereas men initially look at women's bodies. While the body is of central importance for sexual attraction, the eyes are perceived as the best indicators of one's character (see The Subtlety of Emotions).

People will usually not admit or even be aware of the great weight they assign to the pattern of attractiveness. They tend to claim that they assign greater weight to the pattern of praiseworthiness. A popular old song states that "it does not matter how you cut your hair; what counts is what's inside." This song is not entirely accurate. The fact is that appearance does matter; and even if what's inside is the most important thing, the way you cut your hair determines how people evaluate what is inside your head.

Although romantic love is required to take account of both attractiveness and praiseworthiness, it is up to the lover to give the appropriate weight to each of them and to characteristics within each pattern (see In the Name of Love). Here the subjective nature of love is most evident. Hence, we may love a person who is "objectively" not the most handsome or the wisest person in the world, but nevertheless has other characteristics which are highly regarded by the lover. While love is essentially a subjective experience, it cannot completely ignore objective features of reality. Positive illusions are useful only to a certain extent. Accordingly, love maybe around the corner for everyone, but not every corner is the proper one.

Does Being True to Your Heart Imply Emotional Infidelity?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:48:43 -0700

"With me, nothing goes right. My psychiatrist said my wife and I should have sex every night. Now, we'll never see each other!" Rodney Dangerfield.

Following my recent article "Is Chatting Cheating?", Michael J. Formica has tried to clarify the notion of emotional infidelity; l would like to go further, and in a somewhat different manner, in elucidating this notion; I do it by comparing it to the notion of sexual infidelity. But first, let me distinguish between the related notions of casual sex, adultery and infidelity.

Ellis characterizes casual sex as "sex between partners who have no deep or substantial relationships of which sex is a component ... If sex becomes an essential part of their relationship, then they are no longer just friends (but lovers) and their sex is no longer casual sex." The most extreme example of casual sex is that between complete strangers. Adultery has an objective definition that is independent of the participants' attitude. Adultery involves extramarital sex; it is a voluntary sexual relationship with someone other than the person's spouse. Infidelity is related to the participants' attitudes and to their explicit or implicit agreements; it involves unfaithfulness, which violates the spouse's trust. There are cases of consensual adultery, such as in open marriages, where adultery is not regarded as infidelity. There are also cases in which an activity may be considered to involve infidelity although it is not adulterous-for instance, some people may consider a man attending a movie with a woman without the knowledge of his partner as a type of infidelity. It is also doubtful whether most cases of emotional infidelity can be regarded as adulterous. (see The Subtlety of Emotions)

Emotional infidelity involves having a certain emotional attitude, such as love, toward another person other than one's partner. Sexual infidelity involves having a sexual relationship with another person who is not one's partner. An interesting claim in this regard is that for women jealousy is primarily triggered by emotional infidelity and men jealousy by sexual infidelity. It may be the case that men's sexual infidelity is perceived to be less emotionally loaded than women's sexual infidelity, hence the lesser weight women accord to sexual infidelity of their male mates. An evolutionary explanation for this may be that men were primarily concerned that their partner's offspring would be their own; women's major concern was that their partner would continue to invest resources in raising their offspring. Sexual infidelity endangers the first concern and emotional infidelity the second concern.

The most frequent event eliciting jealousy among married people is not actual sexual infidelity, but a kind of emotional infidelity-the partner paying attention, or giving time and support to, a member of the opposite sex (or to a member of the same sex in homosexual relationship). This situation tends to elicit extreme jealousy when the third party is the partner's ex-spouse.

Sexual infidelity is considered by many people as a greater moral violation than emotional infidelity, since it may also involve the latter and it is often expressed in greater intimacy. Emotional infidelity is larger in its scope and hence harder to avoid. However, the greater intensity of emotional infidelity may threaten marriage more than sexual infidelity. Nevertheless, emotional infidelity can be perceived from a different aspect as a more genuine attitude and hence may be more tolerated.

Many types of emotional infidelity are hard to avoid as our emotions are not fully controlled by us. In this regard it is been told that the actor Dustin Hoffman is an exception as he claimed that after meeting his wife, he felt no passion toward other women. There is no infidelity in the behavior and heart of such a true lover, since his romantic and sexual emotions are always directed at the proper moral direction. Most other people are less fortunate, and avoiding romantic and sexual emotions toward as people is impossible for them. Emotional infidelity may involve sexual infidelity, but does not have to, and sexual infidelity may involve emotional infidelity, but does not have to. Casual sex typically involves sexual but not emotional infidelity.

A distinction which is quite beneficial for people, who are less virtuous than Dustin Hoffman, is that between formal and genuine emotional fidelity. Formal fidelity adheres to formal and prevailing rules and standards, without taking into account specific circumstances and personal situations. Genuine fidelity takes into account such circumstances and situations and tries to adhere to reflective desires of our hearts. Thus, a married person could claim that while his relationship with his married lover flouts the formal rules of fidelity, he is certainly being true to his heart and this is the most genuine fidelity. Such an attitude casts doubt on the validity of prevailing rules and standards that require one to renounce one's genuine love.
Once people make the formal-genuine distinction, they can cope better with their own (commonly regarded infidel) behavior and may be more understanding of the whole issue of fidelity. In this case emotional infidelity does not, as Formica argues, cause some degree of emotional unavailability but rather increases emotional availability in circumstances where emotional romantic attitudes are fading away. In this case, the rub is not that in emotional infidelity you are stealing from yourself-in many cases of emotional infidelity you bring back to yourself absent emotional attitudes. However, Formica is right in assuming that emotional infidelity takes place while to a certain degree one actually absents oneself from one's primary relationship without physically (but merely emotionally) leaving that relationship.
Jealousy is likely to be more intense when genuine, rather than formal, fidelity is breached. With people who lack any formal-genuine distinction, jealousy is generally more frequent and intense. These people are more likely to consider boundaries as absolute and to acknowledge no mitigation or degree, whereas those who make the allowances required by genuine fidelity find it possible to countenance the complexity that enables them to see that fidelity might have been breached only to some degree (see In the Name of Love).

The distinction between formal and genuine emotional fidelity is not easy to formulate and it makes life, and especially the issue of maintaining boundaries, more complex. However, it more adequately describes reality. Being true to your heart often expresses genuine emotional fidelity despite its being sometimes formal infidelity.

Is Chatting Cheating?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:40:09 -0700

"A man can have two, maybe three love affairs while he's married. After that it's cheating." Yves Montand

Online sexual activity involves various types of activities, such as viewing explicitly sexual materials, participating in an exchange of ideas about sex, exchanging sexual messages, and online social interactions with at least one other person with the intention of becoming sexually aroused.

In a stimulating paper entitled "Chatting is not cheating," John Portmann defends online lust and characterizes cybersex as talk about sex; he maintains that such talking is more similar to flirting than to having sex. The issue of online cheating is, however, more complex-especially when it concerns those types of sexual activities involving social interaction with other individuals.

People consider their online sexual relationships as real, as they experience psychological states similar to those typically elicited by offline relationships. Accordingly, cybersex is not merely a conversation about sex, but is a form of sexual encounter itself; it involves experiences typical of sexual encounters, such as masturbation, sexual arousal, satisfaction, and orgasm. Indeed, people consider cybersex to have a high degree of psychological reality. However, many of them do not consider it to be morally real-at least not as real as offline affairs. One survey found that over 60 percent of people having cybersex do not consider it to be infidelity. Many of them believe cybersex to be similar to pornography; it is an extension of fantasy, keeping them from physically being with other people. Consider the following statement from a 41-year-old married man: "My wife doesn't care if I have relationships (even sexual) on the Internet. It's like it's not real. I can get away with it. But I'm sure she'd get upset if we were to meet for a drink or something" (all citations are from Love Online).

Some people even consider cybersex as a means not to cheat-it is something that may add spice to their offline relationship. These people believe that if they do not know the real name of their cybermate and never actually see them, their affair cannot be regarded as real from a moral point of view; it should be considered as not any different from reading a novel or other kind of mere entertainment-a way to play out fantasies in a safe environment.

Other people admit that cybersex done without the knowledge of the other partner is cheating as it involves deception; nevertheless this is a type of positive cheating: "having cybersex with someone other than one's spouse IS cheating, but it's OKAY cheating." In some circumstances cybersex may help a person through rough periods in an offline, loving relationship. In such circumstances, cybersex may be recommendable, but can still be regarded as cheating. As a 29-year-old married woman, who often engages in cybersex, says: "People need to ultimately and consistently remind themselves that 99% of fantasy is WAY better than the actual reality." When people feel trapped by their current circumstances, but they still do not want to ruin everything around them, cyberspace may offer a parallel world in which things are better. Being in that world can help them preserve the actual one, while not giving up exciting emotional experiences. Living within the two worlds is not easy and may become risky when people do not realize the limitations of each world.

Whereas people having online affairs tend to reduce their problematic nature, their offline partners often do not see any difference between online and offline affairs: the lack of physical contact and face-to-face meetings does not diminish the sense of violation of their vow of exclusivity. The fact that most of these affairs are concealed from the offline spouse is indicative of such possible harm. Consider the following reaction of Melissa: "I glanced at the screen and was shocked to find John talking to some woman about how he'd like to throw her on the bed and make wild, passionate love to her. I was furious and hurt. We had quite a blow up about it." A similar attitude is expressed in the following message: "I recently found a love letter my husband sent to a woman via email. I know there has been no physical contact because she lives across the country, but I still feel betrayed, humiliated, and hurt."

At the heart of moral harm is the harm we impose upon other people. Just as casual sex is not inherently harmful, neither are online affairs. They may be so, when participants are also involved in another primary offline relationship. In this regard, the following aspects are particularly significant: (a) the resources invested in such affairs are taken from the primary relationship, (b) the wish to actualize online relationship is intense, and (c) the degree of intimacy in online affairs is high. All these worries are genuine and can be found in many online relationships.

One way of reducing the weight of these difficulties is to distance the online affair from offline circumstances; for example, by refraining from exchanging personal, actual details or by having other types of limitation upon the online affair. Thus, people may agree not to develop a profound relationship, permitting themselves only a virtual one-night stand, or an uncommitted affair, or promising to tell each other about each online affair. As one woman in a committed relationship remarks about her online sexual affairs: "I've had this discussion with my boyfriend and we both agree that as long as it's not with the same person more than twice, it is really masturbation. It's like reading an erotic story and masturbating to it. I think, however, if you do it with the same person more than once there is a risk of getting attached to them." However, the above types of limitations are extremely difficult to obey, as online boundaries are less constant and less rigid.

Generally, online affairs are easier to perform and put the agent in a less vulnerable position, as the chances of getting caught or being hurt in other ways are considerably reduced. They are also perceived to involve a lesser degree of betrayal as they involve more imaginary elements and the degree of neglecting the partner's interests may also be lesser. The private nature of online affairs may make them less painful for the betrayed partner as well. Moreover, when online affairs are revealed to the significant other, which is done more often than in offline circumstances, it cannot be considered as cheating.

Nevertheless, since online affairs are psychologically real they often cause actual harm to the primary, offline romantic relationships. Accordingly, people are likely to be just as disturbed about their partner's online sexual affairs as they would be if they discovered that their spouse was exchanging steamy love letters with someone else. Since people do not consider online affairs as mere fantasy or as mere interactions with an anonymous series of computer links, such affairs are highly emotional and can be harmful.

Who Cares About the Economy of Extramarital Affairs?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:40:23 -0700

"We ought never to do wrong when people are looking." Mark Twain

The loss experienced when a partner engages in a romantic affair is often described as a loss of resources, such as love, time, attention, sexual energy, and financial resources. The unfaithful person is described as transferring such resources from the spouse to the lover. There are here two empirical assumptions: (a) we have a given amount of mental (and sexual) energy, and (b) having an affair decreases the mental (and sexual) energy directed toward the spouse. It is not evident that these assumptions are always correct.

Rosa, a single mother, based her initial opposition to extramarital affairs on the reason of scarce resource: "I believed that I only have a certain amount of time and energy for romance. So it is best spent with someone that is open to all the various possibilities of its development." After a while, however, Rosa did find the time and energy for such affairs and twice was involved in affairs with married men, claiming that "I love who I love. Marriage may put restrictions on how I can be with married men, but it doesn't seem to impact how I perceive them and how I experience the fit with me. I still believe I wouldn't pursue a married man... wouldn't let myself open to him knowing he was married. Both these two just snuck in..." (see In the Name of Love).

There is no doubt that in many circumstances, such loss of resources occurs. However, it is not clear whether the loss of resources, rather than the loss of exclusivity, is the focus of concern. There are situations in which the mate, for reasons of guilt, personal considerations, or a better emotional state in general, lavishes extra attention on a spouse while developing an outside attachment. In these cases, too, the spouse may develop negative emotional attitudes such as jealousy and hostility. This suggests that the value of certain activities is enhanced if people engage in them only with each other, despite the fact that they may reap some benefit in violating such exclusivity. Certain rewards may lose much of their value if they are not exclusive. This is true even when the violation of exclusivity is only imaginary. Jealousy exists also when the spouse is merely sexually interested in someone else, even when this interest does not involve any loss of resources.

In the same vein, a major objection to online extramarital affairs is that such affairs ruin the established relationship by diverting resources from the primary offline relationship to the online affair so that it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain the offline relationship, as someone else is competing for the time and attention of the partner. Thus, cybersex may make offline sexual activity a rarity: the person having the online affair may be less enthusiastic, less energetic, and less responsive to lovemaking with the offline partner, as it is difficult to compete with the novelty and excitement of a new, fantasy partner.

There are, however, cases in which getting involved in cybersex may improve people's comfort with their own sexuality and their offline sexual relationships. This is especially true for people, who are often less comfortable with sexual issues. One woman notes: "I've been happily married for four years, but recently I found an old boyfriend on the Internet. Sometimes we have cybersex and I think it has made my sex life with my husband better. Even though we will never meet in person, doing this makes me feel like I'm cheating." (see Love Online)

Analyzing the postulated exclusivity of the beloved from an economic point of view, we may speak of two seemingly opposed effects. One is the consumer effect, in light of which a product becomes more desirable when perceived as desired by others. The second is the rarity effect, in light of which the rarer the product is the more desirable it becomes. The two effects are compatible in the sense that we do desire more what is desired by others, but for exactly this comparative issue, we value it more if it is ours alone. Thus, a man may desire a woman more if other men desire her as well (and accordingly, demonstrating that others are interested is a good way of increasing the interest of your partner), but this man will value her more if she will remain exclusively his romantic partner. She is a kind of trophy he won while the others did not.

It has been claimed that people should share their sexuality "the way a philanthropist shares her money-because they have a lot of it to share, because it makes them happy to share it, because sharing makes the world a better place" (see Ethical Slut). It is obvious, however, that in many other cases, such sharing reduces sexual desire and activity within the primary relationship, as resources and attention are directed away from the primary partner.

It appears then that the most pressing problem regarding extramarital affairs is not the economic problem of losing resources but the psychological problem of losing exclusivity. Nonexclusive love, which may be accepted on a moral level, is quite painful on the psychological level. Married people having an extramarital affair still feel intense jealousy when suspecting their lovers might be having an additional affair. Thus, Eva says that it so difficult for her to imagine her married lover being in the arms of another woman-the fact that he may be in the arms of his wife did not disturb her as much. She also promised her lover not to let anyone else beside him ever touch her-not referring, of course, to her husband, although indicating that she does not like making love to him.

In the same way that greater resources do not make you necessarily happy, so fewer resources do not make you necessarily miserable. It is rather the issue of exclusiveness which is more crucial when it comes to extramarital affairs. It seems then that although mental and sexual energy is limited, it is not inevitably the case that an extramarital affair decreases it or even decreases the share of the primary partner.

Why the Net Is So Seductive?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:13:26 -0700

So many men, so little time. Mae West

Nowadays, one of the most exciting social, as well as romantic, sites to visit is cyberspace. At any moment, millions of people are surfing that space, socializing with each other or having romantic affairs. Their number is growing by the minute. Why do people feel compelled to leave the comfortable surroundings of their actual world and immerse themselves in this seductive space? Why are emotions so intense in this seemingly imaginary world? What is the lure of the Net?

The major features responsible for the great romantic seductiveness of cyberspace are imagination, interactivity, availability, and anonymity (see Love Online).

Imagination, which plays a major role in cyberspace, makes this space seductive since it can free us from the limits imposed by our bodies and by our contexts. Imagination has hardly any practical constraints, and it enables one to depict oneself and the other in a most positive and seductive light-much better than in reality. Online imagination can also complete, in an exciting manner, details upon which our online companions might remain vague. Imagination can, therefore, entertain our wildest fantasies. As someone who has participated in cybersex says: "Just as in personal fantasy, you don't have to worry about mechanics-your legs stretch as wide open as you wish, there are no unseemly smells or tastes or textures, and your partner looks precisely as good as you want him or her to look" (cited in Semans & Winks, The Woman's Guide to Sex on the Web).

Interactivity is what distinguishes cyberspace from other imaginative realities. In cyberspace people are not merely imagining themselves to be with an attractive person, they are actually interacting with such a person. Indeed, the reported actions are sexually more daring and exciting. You can do things in cyberspace that you would never do in real offline circumstances. The interactivity of cyberspace fosters a crucial aspect of romantic relationships: reciprocity. Mutual attraction is the most highly valued characteristic in a potential mate-this is true for both sexes. People like to hear that they are desired. It is easier to express reciprocity in cyberspace, as it requires fewer resources or real actions, and self-disclosure is greater.

Cyberspace is an alternative, available environment providing people with easy access to many available and desired options. It is easy and not costly to reach desired partners and easy to perform desired actions. It is easier to find romantic partners in cyberspace than at bars, shopping malls, or supermarkets. Cyberspace is also highly available in the sense that it is highly accessible. Connections to cyberspace are everywhere-home, work, hotels, and even cafes-and logging in is simple and inexpensive. One does not have to do much or invest significant resources in order to step into this imaginative paradise. Millions of people are eagerly waiting for you on the Net every moment of the day. They are available and it is easy to find them. (You must remember, however, that, as is true in offline life, most of those people will not suit or interest you.) The great availability is associated with frequent novel changes, and this makes cyberspace more dynamic, unstable, and exciting.

The anonymity associated with cyberspace reduces the risks of online activities. Such anonymity decreases vulnerability and the weight of social norms, and hence makes people feel safer and freer to act according to their desires. In offline circumstances, the fear of harmful consequences is one of the major obstacles to conducting many romantic affairs and to significant self-disclosure in those that are conducted. Because of the greater sense of security, self-disclosure is also more prevalent in cyberspace-this in turn increases intimacy and, accordingly, the seductiveness of online relationships is further enhanced.

The above features of cyberspace increase the lure of the Net and make people feel more excited, comfortable, free, and safe while engaging in an online romantic affair. A woman notes: "I experienced cybersex for the first time and I have never been so turned on in my life! It gave birth to and brought out my ‘animal.' We reveled in fantasyland. It was a constant daily fever-what a rush" (cited in Love Online). It has been claimed that cyberspace enables one to have more sex, better sex, and different sex. Since many moral and practical constraints are lifted in the Net, people can more easily make sexual contacts when and with whom they want. Cybersex can be more intense, relaxed, and satisfactory-it may also be conducted with people who are not available for offline sexual activities.

Cyberspace provides an easy and desired alternative to the difficult circumstances of real life. When attempts are made to transfer this alternative to offline affairs, some of its advantages may disappear. As Lisa remarks: "I personally have only had cybersex with one person-and although I was alone, it was probably the best sex of my life. Would I want to have real sex with this guy? Of course I think I would, but I'm smart enough to know that it is the separation of reality and fantasy that makes the whole cybersex thing so sexy" (cited in Love Online).

A significant advantage of cyberspace is that it is different: it provides desirable situations over and above those found in offline circumstances. It is not an advantage however, if people are unable to draw the lines between online and offline worlds. Blurring the lines is dangerous as it abolishes the advantages of each world. Learning to live within two worlds is difficult as well. The price of the greater freedom available online is the risk of being captured by your own desire. As the Eagles put it in their "Hotel California": "we are all just prisoners here of our own device." Cyberspace should complement, rather than substitute for, offline life. Accordingly, people should be moderate in their use of the Internet; thus, they might limit the amount of time they spend online. In light of the great lure of cyberspace, such limitation is hard to achieve as the risk of sliding down the slippery slope is so high.

Why Should People Fake Cyberorgasm?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:43:20 -0700

"We waste time looking for the perfect lover, instead of creating the perfect love." Tom Robbins
"I love Mickey Mouse more than any woman I have ever known." Walt Disney.

Cyberspace is a psychological and social domain. It is virtual in the sense that imagination is intrinsic to that space. In many online relationships, you can imagine your cybermate in whatever way you wish to and you can describe yourself as you want to be seen. When people are asked why they engaged in sexual relationships online, the most common reason given is that they have specific fantasies and desires that are not being fulfilled in their offline relationships. However, in another important sense cyberspace is not virtual: online relationships are conducted between actual, flesh-and-blood people. Although this relationship involves many imaginative aspects, the relationship itself is not imaginary. Cyberspace is part of reality and online relationships are real relationships.

People typically consider the virtual nature of cyberspace to be its unique characteristic. Although cyberspace involves imaginary characters and events of a kind and magnitude not seen before, virtual realities have always been integral parts of human life. All forms of art involve some kind of virtual reality. In this sense, cyberspace does not offer a totally new dimension to human life. What is new about cyberspace is its interactive nature. It is a space where real people have actual interactions with other real people, while being able to shape, or even create, their own and other people's personalities. The move from passive virtual reality to the interactive virtual reality of cyberspace is much more radical than the move from photographs to movies.

The greater interactivity of cyberspace implies that we have greater control over our personal relationships. For example, when we so desire, we can either slow them down or increase their pace. If someone surprises you-say, by expressing her love for you-you have time to consider your response. You do not have to rely merely on your spontaneous responses. In this sense, it is easier to cope with online relationships. The sense of greater control is often central to enjoyable experiences.

Cyberspace is similar to fictional space in the sense that in both cases the flight into virtual reality is not so much a denial of reality as a form of exploring and playing with it. One crucial difference between the two is the interactive nature of cyberspace. In cyberspace, people do not merely read or watch a romantic affair undertaken by others, but in a sense they are actually participating in it. In cyberspace people are not merely reading erotica, but creating and participating in it. Karl Marx once said that people "make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please." In cyberspace, they can finally make it exactly as they please.

In cyberspace, people are more actively involved than they are when they read novels, and in addition, online communication touches upon more personal and specific aspects than does reading novels. As one woman writes: "I love reading about sexual things. When I know that the writer is thinking of me specifically, it is completely, absolutely thrilling. And when I find someone who enjoys the same level of explicitness I do and has similar writing skills, it's particularly alluring" (cited in Semans & Winks, The Woman's Guide to Sex on the Web). Since the personal aspect is of special importance in stimulating intense emotions, cyberlove and cybersex are typically more exciting than reading novels or watching television.

The imaginary journey into the virtual reality of novels or movies is not usually condemned unless it is perceived to have a negative influence on our everyday life. The moment that such negative impact is present, as in the case of violent movies, the effect of the virtual reality is condemned. The interactive nature of cyberspace makes it more susceptible to moral criticism, as its practical impact is greater. As one man argues: "Cybersex is closer to having a hooker than plain pornography because there is a real and active person involved on the other end. People are touching each others' minds in a mutual and cooperative way that silent fantasy does not permit." (Cited in Love Online). Indeed, in a survey of Internet users, 75% stated that they would find it acceptable for their significant other to visit an adult site, whereas 77% said that it would not be acceptable for their significant other to participate in an adult one-on-one online video conversation with a member of the opposite sex whom they do not know. Due to the interactive nature of cyberspace, virtual activities on the Net are accorded moral significance.

Our active role in cyberspace makes this environment more real and seductive than that of daydreams, erotic novels, or X-rated movies; hence the temptation to engage in sexual activities is greater. A married man whose wife of fourteen years is having cybersex, reports: "I offered a compromise and suggested that she read adult stories or look at pictures instead of a one-to-one chat. She refused. I even suggested that while she's cybering, she types, I do the things the other person describes, but she flatly refused and told me that it was a personal chat and is nothing to do with me" (cited in Love Online) The personal actual interaction, rather than the mere aspect of imagination, is what excites his wife. Since the line separating passive observation from full interaction has already been crossed in cybersex, it becomes easier to blur the line separating imagination from reality.
Participants in cyberlove indeed take the reality of cyberspace seriously. Thus, people speak of their cybermates or even their online husbands or online wives. People have even got cybermarried and vowed to remain faithful to each other. One woman wrote that what attracted her to respond to the first message sent by her online lover, with whom she is now deeply in love, is that he asked her to cyberdance with him. Some women have claimed that they do not want to engage in cybersex with the first person who asks them, since they want to save their virtual virginity for the right man. Similarly, some say that they do not want to have a one-night cyberstand, but rather wish to have a more extended and meaningful online sexual affair.

The reality of online interaction is illustrated by the significance people attach to having cyberorgasms. People complain that they now have the added pressure of faking cyberorgasms too. One married woman described her online sexual partner: "He was "self-centered on his part and not very exciting and I found myself faking an orgasm over the computer and thought I had totally lost my mind" (see Love Online). The virtual nature of cyberspace does not diminish the need to resort to the same illusory methods used in offline circumstances. In light of the interactive revolution in cyberspace, a cyberorgasm is as real as (and sometimes even more so then) a regular one and the lack of it may hurt people in the same manner it does in offline circumstances. The virtual environment is real, and so its imaginary aspects.

The presence of interactive characteristics in the virtual realm of online relationship is a tremendous revolution in personal relationships, as it enables people to reap most of the benefits associated with offline relationships without investing significant resources.

Love as religion—"I'm truly blessed for everything you give me"

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:11:24 -0700

Heaven on earth that's what you've made for me since the day we met. (The Platters)

I lost my faith, you gave it back to me,I was blessed because I was loved by you. (Celine Dion)

Lovers often compare their love to religion just as religions emphasize the centrality of love in their dogmas. Both love and religion are perceived to be central to human life.

In many respects, romantic love resembles a kind of religion. Both are similar in that they dictate basic beliefs, demand fundamental moral standards, and bestow high moral status upon their objects. Like faith, love is regarded as an expression of profound, unique, and morally pure attitudes. The basic assumptions underlying Romantic Ideology can indeed be found in many monotheistic religions. Like many religions, Romantic Ideology is basically characterized by its comprehensive and uncompromising nature. Not unlike the function of religion, love is considered to give meaning to life, to overcome all obstacles, and to provide a share in eternity.

The comparison of love to religion is made explicit by lovers. Thus, the following line, which is common in one version or another in prays directed at God, is also often used to describe the attitude toward the romantic beloved: "You are the only one that can give me comfort; you touch my heart in such a way that all I can do is cry your name." Some even replace God with the beloved: "I do not wish God to aid me nor to give me joy and happiness except through you." Consider also the following lines from a letter written by the English poet John Keats:
Love is my religion-I could die for that-I could die for you. My creed is Love and you are its only tenet-You have ravish'd me away by a Power I cannot resist: and yet I could resist till I saw you; and even since I have seen you I have endeavoured often 'to reason against the reasons of my Love.' I can do that no more-the pain would be too great-My Love is selfish-I cannot breathe without you.

It is indeed common to find in romantic conversations expressions such as, "Heaven has sent you to me," "I was quite sure that love as we are experiencing it right now only existed in the imagination of some people," and "our love is a dream come true" (see In the Name of Love).

The relationship between God and His people has been described in the Bible and elsewhere in romantic terms, such as betrothal and marriage. When the people of Israel followed their idols, they were like an unfaithful partner-their activities are described as betraying God and as committing adultery and prostitution. God is described as jealous of the people of Israel. Pope Benedict XVI argues that "Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and His people and vice versa." The fidelity to God and martial fidelity are celebrated as the utmost human accomplishments.

The similarity between love and religion is also expressed in the resemblance of the beloved to God. The beloved is often characterized as "the sweetest angel in heaven and on earth," and as a "divine gift." The beloved is perceived to be a perfect person whose existence cannot be comprehended. The beloved may be described with phrases like, "the most genius creation on earth." Hence, loving the beloved is often claimed to be so easy, since, unlike other people who are always found inadequate in something, the beloved is perfect and complete. Moreover, our inability to find the perfect mate may be compared to our inability to meet God: the fact that we have not found one does not imply that one does not exist.

In light of these similarities, love may take on some of the functions attributed to God: love may provide the comfort zone that enables us to escape existential anxieties and everyday fears. The loss of a lover is therefore the loss of the meaning of life. In order to prevent such a loss, love, like religion, contains elements such as self-sacrifice, devotion, the experience of the sacred, and means to attain spiritual perfection.

Love and religion, as well as the beloved and God, are perceived by devoted lovers and believers to be morally pure: they are considered major factors leading one to choose a moral life. However, despite their profound moral value, both love and religion have been used as an excuse for justifying immoral deeds, which can become global scale atrocities, as in the example of religious wars, or personal atrocities, as in murdering the beloved in the name of love. Ronald de Sousa describes this problematic aspect of love: "It is a commonplace that love motivates some of our worst behavior, ranging from dishonesty to murder. ... But what is most astonishing is that we regard love as a justification for treating people far worse than we would ever condone treating a stranger."

Both religion and love are making an impressive comeback in modern society. A rise in religious belief leads to a related rise in belief in the prevalence of sin, as religion conditions us to regard sin as God's foil (Portmann, A History of Sin). In a somewhat different manner, the comeback of love in modern society increases infidelity, in part because ‘true love' is considered to have no boundaries and to disregard many other values. The high value attached to love leads people to justify their infidelity by claiming to put fidelity to their heart above conventional fidelity. Lovers consider that the greatest expression of freedom and honesty is to act in accordance with one's heart. They believe that love is more important than formal, outdated rules and that freedom of the heart is more important than loyalty to emotionally false rules.