Psychology Today Blogs - In the Name of Love

Online Affairs as Flirting: "Nibbling on the Forbidden Fruit"

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Mon, 12 May 2008 13:38:43 -0700

Angels fly because they take themselves lightly. G. K. Chesterton.

Flirting adds spice to life and supports positive attitudes toward other people. It may involve flattery, but it is a subtle and enjoyable flattery that is closer to praise than to a lie. Flirting creates a relaxing, calm, and enjoyable atmosphere. It involves curiosity, humor, imagination, and empathy. Flirting is subtle: it is typically not an explicit sexual activity, but rather an enjoyable, gentle prelude or substitute for it. Flirting has elements of intellectual teasing flavored by emotional play. During flirting, each partner's soul is stirred, thereby enabling the two souls to respond to each other. Miss Etiquette indicates that the meaning of flirting is to be playfully romantic; something of little value or importance; to speak or act in a playful or flirting way; to toy with. Indeed, her colleague, Miss Manners, considers flirtation "a gentle amusement," an activity that should be harmless and not lead to anything. In a chat room entitled "Married and Flirting," people are advised to treat flirting as pure fun, as a good way to practice social skills and to make yourself and your targets feel good. This site, whose motto is "Married Not Dead," offers the following rules of flirting: F is for Flattery; L is for Listen; I is for Interest; R is for being Responsible; T is for Trusting yourself; S is for winning a Smile.

Flirting encompasses seemingly contradictory aspects: honesty together with an element of innocence, as well as a mild level of deception (expressed in flattery); caring for others-by listening to and showing interest in them-while not taking them too seriously; being confident and feeling good about yourself while not attaching too much importance to yourself; intelligence flavored by emotional tone. All these characteristics are evident in online affairs.

Flirting is conducted within a tacit borderline; it is a kind of game in which participants move closer to the borderline-and sometimes even step across it-and then move back to a comfortable distance from it. Cyberflirting is a type of verbal dance in which the boundaries of sexuality are not clearly drawn. Flirting is like an inactive volcano that can become active any moment. In online affairs, crossing the line between innocent flirting and overt sexual interaction, and hence activating the sexual volcano, is greatly facilitated as the stimulation is high and the typical warning signals that alert people of infidelity-e.g., nonverbal signs of discomfort or shame-are not apparent in cyberspace.

A married woman having an affair with a married man illustrates the move from the playful nature of flirting to the more profound nature of a committed romantic relationship in the following description: "We flirted with and seeked each other constantly, until one day we realized we were not just playing anymore, the flirting had transformed into very deep feelings for both of us. He had reached deep inside my heart and touched where no other man has ever before." The gradual manner in which people become involved in overt sexual interaction online is also expressed in the following description: "I am a single woman who has formed a relationship with a much younger married man. In real life there is no way I would have formed this relationship. I do not go out with married men. I met him in a chat room and at first it was just a nice friendly chat. This of course progressed until we eventually went into a private room. I was intrigued by what would happen but could not believe the feelings this man evoked in me" (Cited in Ben-Ze'ev, Love Online).

Flirting enables you to be yourself and express all types of personal characteristics. Typical flirting offers participants an enjoyable, frivolous form of sexual communication with no serious intent. Typical flirting is usually harmless. However, often flirting is not restricted to such harmless communication and leads to a sexual relationship.

Flirting may involve gentle physical contact, but often it does not involve sexual intercourse. Flirting may develop into sexual relationships, but then it stops being flirting in the sense used here. Sometimes sexual talk is considered more sexually offensive than are certain activities involving physical contact, such as kissing and hugging. In flirting, people do not force themselves on others; it is a kind of enjoyable play having the pleasant atmosphere that is typical of the promise of sexual activity. Flirting also involves the mystery and uncertainty associated with sex. Consider the following description of flirting: "Flirting is more than ‘Hi, ya wanna?' It's teasing, playing, innuendos-it's about making someone feel special, it's about being attentive, it's about walking on the edge of danger & getting caught. Flirting is nibbling on the forbidden fruit. It's not blunt straight-to-the point comments. It's playing cat & mouse with each other, and enjoying it." (Cited in Levine, The Joy of Cybersex)

Flirting does not have to be a preparatory activity aimed at an external goal, namely, sexual intercourse. Quite often, flirting is the best available alternative-rather than means-to actual sexual intercourse. When people enjoy flirting for its own sake, it may be commendable. Although flirting has its own intrinsic value, it also has certain personal and social benefits (as well as disadvantages). Thus, flirting may help to reduce loneliness and boost one's ego and self-confidence. One survey has found that most working-women believe that flirting is good for their health and confidence. Indeed, three out of four of them have flirted with a colleague, while 28 percent have had a sexual relationship with a fellow-worker. Some findings indicate that flirting at the workplace makes people more comfortable around each other.

Although explicit sexual activities and orgasms are secondary in flirting, an orgasm is always possible-sexual arousal is often part and parcel of flirting. Since online sex is essentially a type of conversation, which is also an essential part of flirting, the distinction between online sex and flirting is not clear-cut, and the two activities often overlap. Cyberspace is associated with flirting not only in the sense that many online affairs are similar to flirting, but also in the sense that the Internet considerably facilitates the process of flirting. Flirting is particularly prevalent in chat rooms as most of them promote flirting and "fooling around."

People are attractive when they are relaxed, feeling good, and enjoying themselves. It may also work the other way around: those who are attractive are more likely to be relaxed, feel good, and enjoy themselves. Since cyberspace offers new dimensions of attractiveness, in addition to that of external appearance, it may break the vicious cycle for those who, because they are considered externally unattractive, are not relaxed and hence are unable to attract people.

Online Conversations: The Art of Written Communication

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:02:01 -0700

"All really great lovers are articulate, and verbal seduction is the surest road to actual seduction." Marya Mannes

"I can do anything you want me to do, as long as I don't have to speak." Linda Evangelista

Online affairs consist of conversations having elements common to both gossip and flirting. Idle conversations, engaged in for the sake of conversation alone, are more typical of online than offline relationships. The rapid pace of modern society leaves fewer opportunities for idle chat. Online communication supplies such opportunities. The fact that the people you are corresponding with have no real connection to you, nor can they influence your life, enhances the atmosphere necessary to engage in such enjoyable, non-purposive conversations.

As the value of these conversations is in the conversation itself, there is no need to be efficient and brief; on the contrary, we want the conversations to continue for as long as possible. No wonder that some online couples spend many hours a day writing to each other. When participating in online communication, people report that they feel as if they are immersed in an enjoyable ocean. They often testify that each hour seems like minutes because time passes so quickly when you are with the one you love. It is difficult to imagine the value of conversation being elevated to such heights in an offline relationship. It is refreshing to discover that neither physical contact nor visual content, but rather conversation, is at the heart of online affairs. As one woman comments: "A relationship based solely on communication is rare and too valuable to be dismissed" (all citations are from Ben-Ze'ev, Love Online).

Conversations are indeed important in forming a good base for a strong romantic relationship. Thus, a woman who has a wonderful marriage with a man she had an online relationship with describes her current situation: "The only complaint I have is that I miss the relationship we used to have online. There was no routine, no garbage to take out and most of all, uninterrupted, deep conversations. I think there is no better way to meet someone and get to know them from the inside."

The American President, Calvin Coolidge, once said: "I have noticed that nothing I never said ever did me any harm." This claim cannot be true of cyberspace, where verbal communication is of crucial importance. The art of conversation should be distinguished from the power of speech. The latter can impress at first meeting; after this, an absorbing and genuine conversation should take place if the relationship is based merely upon written communication, as is the case in cyberspace.

The new means of communication available in current society have increased the value of verbal skills in some fields, such as politics. The introduction of television has also increased the value placed upon the individual's pleasant external appearance in politics and in many other fields. However, the value of verbal communication is constantly decreasing in personal relationships. In our current society, we scarcely have the time for genuine and prolonged conversations with those dear to us.

In cyberspace, conversations are more important, as this is the only means with which to make intimate connections with other people. Words are once again becoming essential in human interaction. In cyberspace, confidence in personal relationships is acquired by genuine conversations and not by expensive makeup. Conversation, rather than name and title, makes the difference. The emphasis upon written communication in online relationships can be perceived as a reaction to the excessive role given to visual content in modern society.

The value of online conversations in romantic relationships is also evident from the fact that, after meeting face-to-face, couples tend to retain the online conversation for its unique value. Sometimes it is easier to write down what you feel than to describe it in the presence of someone. Writing enables you to focus upon those feelings and to express them in a more precise and less vulnerable manner. A relationship with the same person that is conducted both offline and online may have distinct qualities in each domain. In some cases, the offline relationship may be more physical and sexual, whereas the online one may be more intellectual. In other cases, the two relationships may be of different types. In any case, having access to various ways of communicating may enhance the connection between partners.

Given the greater value placed on conversations in cyberspace, skills involving words are becoming more important than skills connected with appearance. People often allude to writing styles when they explain their attraction to their online partners. Thus, one woman explains in the following manner why she replied to an email from a man after being disappointed with online meetings and blind dates: "He seemed nice from the letter, spelled most things correctly and I figured I would write back to him." The greater importance of conversation in online relationships indicates that the weight of intellectual activity, which conversation is an example of it, is by far greater in online relationships than in offline relationships. A woman who has participated in cybersex writes: "The best sex, obviously, is with someone literate enough to ‘paint a picture' describing activities or thoughts. I suppose that in face-to-face activities, someone stupid could still be extraordinarily sexy. But stupid doesn't work online, at least not for me."

Online relationships are sometimes criticized on the grounds that participants invest many hours a day simply chatting with people who are almost strangers to them. While it is clear that too much of a good thing can be harmful, in comparison to prevailing alternatives in modern society--such as watching television, mechanical sex, or playing computer games--chatting with strangers about everything that is on one's mind is at least of equal value, and may be the better alternative.

Positive Illusions in Romantic Love: "You're the Nearest Thing to Heaven"

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:31:41 -0700

I'd rather have a Paper Doll to call my own than have a fickle-minded real live girl. (The Mills Brothers)

I may not be a great actress but I've become the greatest at screen orgasms. Ten seconds of heavy breathing, roll your head from side to side, simulate a slight asthma attack and die a little. (Candice Bergen)

Positive illusions, namely, illusions which describe us in a positive manner, are important to our well-being. Unlike the view (common among many psychologists) that contact with reality is a hallmark of mental health, illusions are greatly important in our everyday life.

There is no doubt that positive illusions are central to romantic love. Lovers are often blind to the beloved's negative traits and tend to create an idealized image of the beloved. We often love the idealized object rather than the real one. Indeed people say that they are living their dreams with their beloved. Sustaining a sense of security often requires weaving an elaborate, and often fictional, story that either embellishes a partner's virtues and overlooks, or at least minimizes various faults. Accordingly, some happily married couples avoid unpleasant topics, lie about their feelings, and deny their own or their spouse's statements. Enhancing a partner's qualities seems critical for maintaining the belief that this partner is the "right one" and for protecting the relationship from doubt. This attitude is not that of faking, but rather of "making belief," or "as if" attitudes. Like other ideologies, the Romantic ideology encourages its believers to take the attitude of "If you don't believe in miracles, then you aren't realistic."

The importance of positive illusions in romantic relationships does not imply that there is no place in such relationships for accurate understanding of the partners' real strengths and frailties. It is obvious that profound illusions can easily ruin the entire relationship. A love based on the premise that all of the partner's traits are perfect will inevitably prove to be fragile. In fact, spouses who entertain such a premise put their partners in the uncomfortable position of having to live up to an identity that by definition they can never uphold. Moreover, positive illusions can easily lead to self-deception. Many divorcees testify that they cannot understand how they overlooked their partner's characteristics. This failure is not necessarily due to misperception of the beloved's traits; it may stem from attributing too little weight to these characteristics. Most married people are able to indicate their partner's character defects, physical defects, and bad habits. Robin, a married woman in her forties, who has had several affairs, says she never let her lovers speak about transforming their relationship into a formal, public one: "I know very well that such exciting relationships can exist only in an emotional euphoria that can only be found within our (illusory) bubble." (Cited in In the Name of Love).

Imagination is also central in sexual desires, as it offers an effective way of coping with personal limitations, normative boundaries, and external constraints. One can always fantasize the most outrageous encounters done in exactly the way one wants and with precisely those who one most desires. Given the affective powers of imagination, it is no wonder that many women say they can achieve orgasm by fantasy alone, with no physical stimulation at all. In Helen Fisher's study of lovers (Why We Love?), about 70 percent said that they fantasize while making love.

The play between imagination and reality is complex. Consider, for example, the fact that while having sex many people fantasize about a different person than their current partner. This may be the case even when the person in their arms is the one they really want to be with. In these circumstances, people improve their affective state by imagining what they consider to be a better alternative. The woman who fantasizes about another man-even a faceless man-while having sex with her partner may love her partner, but still he is not the person she craves to have sex with. The wish to have the delightful feeling of sexual satisfaction often requires the help of the imagination, which transforms the current mundane circumstances into what is perceived to be a heavenly experience. The role of positive illusions is even much greater in cybersex. Thus, a 32-year-old woman, married for the second time, claims: "The sexual release from cybering has been a great experience and the arousal factor is just magnificent" (Cited in Love Online).

Positive illusions may help people to fly together "on the wings of love," but quite often the wings are not strong enough to carry them both together.

Enslaved by the possible—"Ready for the times to get better"

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:49:53 -0700

"Pretty women ought to be left to men without imagination". (Marcel Proust)

"Take my hand, I'm a stranger in paradise, all lost in a wonderland". (Tony Bennett)

Imagination may be broadly characterized as a capacity to consider possibilities that are not actually present to the senses. The imaginative capacity forces us to be concerned not only with the present circumstances, but also with past and future circumstances. Indeed, people think about the future more than about the past or the present, and many potential events are more pleasurable to imagine than to experience.

One of our greatest advantages over animals is our capacity to imagine complex circumstances that significantly differ from our present ones. However, the capacity to imagine, which unchains us from the present, chains us to the prospect of the possible.

The great human blessing—that is, our capacity to be aware of possible scenarios—is also our fundamental curse, as it affords us realization of our profound limitations as well as our imminent death. When Engelbert Humperdinck asks, "Please release me and let me go, for I don't love you anymore," he refers to the chains of the present. Granting his request is easy these days, as there are fewer formal, social, and practical bonds to impede desertion.

A more profound difficulty lies in the chains of the possible: We have become slaves to many tempting romantic options available in modern life—the Internet, business trips, and cell phones all facilitate various romantic and sexual possibilities. The chains of potential possibilities prevent us from enjoying or even being comfortable with our present lot and are often harder to escape from the chains of the present. We tend to get used to the chains of the present, as we really have no other choice. It is harder to cope with the chains of the possible, as this realm, bounded only by our imagination, is extremely exciting. The present may make us somewhat sad, but the realm of the possible makes us restless and continually disappointed. Coping with the mixed blessing of the possible requires us to establish a normative order of priority in the form of ideals and boundaries. As we establish a set of normative priorities, we shall often find ourselves giving up an ideal or violating a certain boundary.

The constant search for the possible often prevents people from finding love. Several love songs refer to this issue: "You can't be happy, while your heart’s on the roam, you can't be happy until you bring it home" (The Brothers Four). And, "My lonely heart wonders if there'll ever come a day, when I can be happy, but I can't see no way, because I let my mind wonder... (Willie Nelson).

The present is a kind of a confining shelter: it protects us from possible threatening events, but it also prevents us from enjoying possible favorable events. Leaving our narrow shelter forces us to cope not only with actual circumstances, but with possible ones as well. The existence of infinite possibilities emphasizes our deficiencies and limitations, since these possibilities could be better than the situation at hand. Imagination can make us acutely aware of desirable situations that are beyond our reach, morally improper situations, as well as undesirable but inevitable situations. Knowledge of such possibilities and of our inability to either approach or avoid them entails awareness of our basic human limitations. Rosa, a single mother involved in an affair with a married man but nevertheless insists that because of moral reasons, she typically "did not feel attracted to married men." In an interview cited in the book, In the Name of Love, Rosa expresses her grasp of the limitation resulting from the gap between her desires and her circumstances thus: "As long as I stay with the present gifts of our relationship (and there are so many), and I don't wander into fantasies about the future, I am much happier. I value our relationship and I would not try to terminate it just because of its built-in limitations. I am simply trying to navigate appropriately."

In the movie Adaptation, a married woman (Meryl Streep), says that adaptation is easier for plants, as they have no memory, “They just move on to whatever's next. With a person though, adapting is almost shameful. It's like running away.” Plants also do not have expectations for the future, and in general they lack the imaginative power; hence, they cannot consider values and possible alternatives. Referring to the potentially possible enables us not only to postulate moral ideals and rules, but also to undermine them by imagining ways to violate them.

Imagining the possible is a two-edge sword: It is a gift, but one that bites. I do not see a way to refuse the gift; I cannot think of a way to avoid its bites.

Hating the one you love—"I hate you, but I love you"

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:08:55 -0700

"Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hate wherewith he hated her [was] greater than the love wherewith he had loved her" (Bible, 2 Samuel, 13:15).
"Familiarity is the root of the closest friendships, as well as the intensest hatreds." (Antoine Rivarol)

Many testimonies, as well as fictional works, describe situations in which people find themselves hating the person they love. This might initially appear to be contradiction, for how can one love and hate the same person at the same time? A discussion of this problem requires making a distinction between logical consistency and psychological compatibility. Hating the one you love may be a consistent experience, but it raises difficulties concerning its psychological compatibility.

Love and hate are often described to be diametrically opposed; in this case, it is impossible to speak about hating the one we love without engaging in a logical contradiction. Two major arguments can be raised against this description. First, love is broader in scope than is hate, as it refers to more features of the object. Thus, while in hate the object is considered to be basically a bad agent, in romantic love the object is perceived to be both good and attractive. Second, there are many varieties of each emotion (and there are more kinds of love than of hate), and each kind cannot be the exact opposite of all other kinds of the other emotion.

Love and hate are distinct rather than opposed experiences: they are similar in certain aspects and dissimilar in others. In light of the complex nature of love and hate, it is plausible that when people describe their relationship as a love-hate relationship, they may be referring to different features of each experience.

The difficulty that arises as a result of feeling hatred and love toward the beloved, not merely at the same instance but also over an extended period, is the difficulty of coping with profound emotional dissonance. Although the presence of mixed emotions is not necessarily puzzling, the presence of different emotions that are both profound and all encompassing, such as love and hate, toward the same person, seems to be psychologically incompatible.

People describe their relationship as a love hate relationship when the circumstances are such that the focus of attention changes under different conditions; hence the change in the emotional attitudes. When the lover focuses his attention on his partner's wisdom, he loves her dearly. When he thinks about the humiliation she brings upon him, he hates her guts. Thus people can say: "I hate you, Then I love you...Then I hate you, Then I love you more" (Celine Dion); "Sometimes I love you, sometimes I hate you. But when I hate you, it's because I love you" (Nat King Cole). Such cases can be explained in light of the fact that emotional experiences are dynamic and different external and personal circumstances may often change our emotional attitude toward the same person.

Love can become a fertile ground for the emergence of hate. When the intensity and intimacy of love turns sour, hate may be generated. In these circumstances, hate serves as a channel of communication when other paths are blocked, and it functions to preserve the powerful closeness of the relationship, in which both connection and separation are impossible. Consider the following testimony of a man convicted of killing his wife (cited in the book, In the Name of Love): "You don't always kill a woman or feel jealousy about a woman or shout at a woman because you hate her. No. Because you love her, that's love." No doubt, love can be extremely dangerous, and people have committed the most horrific crimes in the name of love (and religion).

The claim that love and hate exist simultaneously is a more difficult case to explain; here we need to understand how two such divergent attitudes can be directed at the same person at the same time. A woman may say that she dearly loves her partner in general but hates him because he of his dishonesty. Accordingly, people do say something like: "I love and hate you at the same time." In this kind of attitude the profound positive and negative evaluations are directed at different aspects of the person. In a similar vein, an unmarried person in an extra-marital relationship might love the married person deeply, while also hating the beloved for preferring to maintain the bond with the spouse. Likewise, we may hate someone because we love him and are unable to free ourselves of our love for him, or because this love is not reciprocated.

It is interesting to note that our desire for exclusivity arises in romantic love but not in hate. On the contrary, in hate we want to see our negative attitude shared by others. It seems natural that we want to share our negative fortune with others while wanting to keep the positive part merely to ourselves. In positive emotions, when we are happy, we are more open to being attentive to other people, but we guard the source of our happiness more.

To sum up: hating the one we love is possible from a logical point of view, as it does not necessarily involve a contradiction. This phenomenon, however, entails profound emotional dissonance, which in turn reduces the number of instances of such cases.

Does My Partner Belong to Me? The Justification for Jealousy

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:42:50 -0700

You don't own me, don't say I can't go with other boys. (Bette Midler)
It's hard to know another's lips will kiss you. (Hank Williams)

Romantic jealousy is often perceived to express our fear of losing an important human being who belongs to us; accordingly, jealousy is criticized for regarding another person as our property. However, it seems that the meaning of possession indicated here may not be mechanical, like when I say that I own a car, but a psychological one, which implies that I deserve to exclusively have certain types of relationships. The presence of the psychological meaning is indicated by the fact that the loss in jealousy is not accidental; it is rather an expression of a deliberate preference for another over me. Accordingly, jealous people do not treat their mates as an inanimate object, but as free responsible people able to make reasonable choices.

Exclusivity, which is at the heart of jealousy, does not necessarily mean the exclusion of all people. There are various types and degrees of exclusivity. A very strict jealousy forbids all types of social relationships between a married person and an unmarried one. A less strict jealousy may refer only to sexual relationships. There can even be some flexibility in the sexual context. Some people may allow their mate to have one short affair, say once every year, or to have an affair with people they do not know, without considering it as an abrogation of their exclusive relationship, and hence without giving any cause for jealousy, at least not of an intense kind. Consider, for example, the following attitude of Lynn, a divorcee, who interviewed for the book, In the Name of Love: "If I loved someone and wanted to be with him, and he wanted to be sexual with others, since I couldn't change his desire then I think I could simply allow it and see what it truly means. I don't have now the same need to protect myself from jealousy (like I did back then)."

People who accept a limited type of exclusivity may nevertheless be somewhat jealous of keeping this exclusivity intact. A woman in a polygamous marriage may not be jealous of any of the other women married to her husband, but she may be jealous of women outside the marriage. Similarly, a woman having an affair with a married man may not be so jealous of his wife, but be highly jealous if he engaged in an affair with a third woman. Thus, a married woman who has a long-term loving relationship with another married man says: "I cannot come into somebody's life and say, now you belong to me and I am not going to share you with anybody else. I have no right to do so, although certain aspects of sharing hurt me. And the problem of (in)fidelity is doubled here." Limited exclusivity takes into account existing circumstances and limitations and may therefore reduce jealousy.

The greater flexibility of romantic relationships in modern society is bound to have some impact upon jealousy. This impact will probably be in the direction of more frequent cases of jealousy with typically reduced intensity. Jealousy will become more frequent as opportunities to break a relationship and establish new ones continue to increase. (Jealousy is usually generated by the mere presence of threatening options, and not in the actual presence of infidelity.) However, as the prospects of establishing new relationships increase, people will become more accustomed to the circumstances associated with jealousy and its intensity will decrease.

In cyberspace, where obstacles to the nonexclusive romantic love are of lesser weight, jealousy is often less intense, but nevertheless it exists also there. Consider the following description by a woman having an online relationship that later developed into a successful marriage: "My feelings for him began to grow stronger and I could tell he felt the same about me. I began to get jealous if he talked to others in the chat room and he was doing the same with me. He finally told me he didn't want me to talk to any other men because they did not know me as he did. He didn't want his lady to be talked down to. I respected his wish and refrained from talking to other men."

Despite various challenges to the requirement for exclusivity in love, this constraint does have a basis, as it expresses a genuine psychological concern. Nonexclusive love may be accepted on a normative level, yet be quite painful on the emotional one. Married people who are having an extramarital affair may still feel intense jealousy if they suspect their lovers of having an additional affair. The bad news for our future is that jealousy will be part of romantic relationships for a long time; the good news is that people will gradually give less weight to it.

Cracking a Few Romantic Boundaries

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:51:38 -0700

It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then. As long as you don't break any. (Mae West)

Drawing boundaries is essential for human society: living with other people implies limiting our desires. Drawing romantic boundaries is particularly difficult since in accordance with the Romantic Ideology, many people perceive love as comprehensive (it refers to all aspects of life, as "You are everything to me"), uncompromising (nothing can dilute or impede such love, since "There ain't no mountain high enough, to keep me from getting to you"), and unconditional (reality is almost irrelevant to love and has scant impact on it, since “love will always prevail”). However, normative boundaries are often perceived to have no relevance to love: “all is fair in love and war.” Are we then allowed to crack a few romantic boundaries?

People in love occasionally feel chained by normative boundaries preventing them from acting in accordance with their wilder passions. When in love, people want to "fly on the wings of love," where the earthly boundaries do not exist. Yet, lovers are also ready to let their beloved rob them of their liberty. They are ready to be chained to the beloved and never leave. Lovers are happy to be in such a situation, as they consider acting in accordance with their loving heart as the greatest expression of freedom.

It is evident that we cannot entirely fulfill our ideals. Although less evident, it is also extremely difficult to always remain within the limited zone delineated by our boundaries. The Jewish sages knew that it is extremely difficult for people to comply with strict rules; they asked, therefore, that if such violations are unavoidable, they should at least be in discretion. Thus, Rabbi Illai the Elder taught that “if one feels that his passion threatens to make itself master over him, he shall go to a place where he is not known, put on black clothes and do as he pleases, but he shall not profane the name of Heaven publicly.”

The flexible nature of boundaries is indeed evident in love, whose significance makes the violation of boundaries "in the name of love" acceptable. As Rosa, a single mother, claims when interviewed for the book, In the Name of Love, “I have always been willing to take the kinds of risks involved in love; they don't really even feel like a choice. Love is always worth it.” In this view, violating boundaries is not necessarily an immoral deed. On the contrary, living by adhering strictly to such boundaries may be immoral, as it does not take into account unique, specific, personal and circumstantial features. In this regard, the philosopher Stephen Toulmin argues that “A morality based entirely on general rules and principles is tyrannical and disproportionate… only those who make equitable allowances for subtle individual differences have a proper feeling for the deeper demands of ethics.”

To decrease the violation of boundaries, we may want to make our normative boundaries more flexible, yet this in turn may weaken the safeguards against further violation. Take, for example, cyberspace where the romantic and sexual boundaries are much more flexible than in offline circumstances. This flexibility did not reduce the number of offline violations of boundaries but rather increased it. Romantic and sexual cheating increased with the expanded use of the Internet.

Another attempt for dealing with the deluge threatening to ruin our normative boundaries is the “zero tolerance” policy, which strictly prohibits any type of boundary violation. In contrast to this policy, which essentially disregards reality and hence, is extremely harsh and hard to adopt, a Scottish proverb says: “better bend than break.”

It is easier to draw clear boundaries than to keep them. As one woman remarks while telling her story on the Internet, “I found myself truly surprised that mere characters on a keyboard could carry with them such an erotic and emotional charge. But the guy was married and although we did establish ground rules, I ended up ‘coloring outside the lines’ in a way I never thought I would.” Normative boundaries are supposed to guide our behavior, but reality is more complex than what can be prescribed by simply marking dos and don’ts.

Guiding principles should provide general directions, such as “drive safely”, rather than specific rules, like “don’t exceed 100 kilometers per hour.” What constitutes safe driving may vary considerably, depending on several factors, such as the competence of the driver, the conditions of the road, and how other people drive. Similarly, romantic behavior may vary considerably, depending on personal and contextual features. Guiding principles have no precise boundaries, and hence there is no golden rule telling us when to violate and when to stay within the normative romantic boundaries. Cracking a few romantic boundaries is sometimes hard to avoid, as only dead fish swim with the stream.

Hard Times for Modern Lovers

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:02:01 -0700

You can't be happy, while your heart’s on the roam, you can't be happy until you bring it home (The Brothers Four).

Modern times are difficult for lovers—perhaps more so than in most previous eras. Two major reasons for this: there are hardly any constraints preventing leaving the current romantic framework and there are many tempting accessible alternatives to the current romantic relationship. Accordingly, romantic bonds tend to be frailer and briefer than in the past.

Through much of human history, people hardly had an alternative and had to get used to their unsatisfactory romantic situation within the family. When no alternative is available, the current situation is accepted and its value is likely to increase. When many alternatives are available, settling for one's lot is extremely difficult. It is so hard now for those with no love to be happy with their lot. As Iris, a divorcee, says (in an interview cited in the book, In the Name of Love) "I know that after my divorce, while being with my lover of 7 years, I never had a moment where I desired to stray in my fantasies or with my body; my fantasies and actions were always with him. It took no learning or will-power; I only desired him. However, I was not virtuous in my marriage—because I desired to be, and indeed was, with others."

Nowadays, when there is greater freedom of choice, choosing the beloved has become not just a one-off choice, but rather an ongoing experience. Lovers do not simply choose a beloved and then rest passively for the rest of their lives; they are in a fluid state, which requires constant effort and deliberations. The hard times that modern lovers face consist not only of constant doubts about which road to take, but also of constant regret of the many roads not taken. The abundance of alternatives and the perpetual possibility of getting something "better" undermine commitment. The gap between the present and the potentially possible can never be bridged, although it seems to be so easy to do so. In this manner, the realm of infinite possibilities becomes a tyrannical force, keeping one from enjoying the present.

When the brave modern lovers go on the road and try to make the tempting alternative real, the probability that they will eventually be disappointed is not very high, since the alternative may not be essentially different from what one already had at home. The constant search for change often prevents people from nurturing love.

However, in some other cases, the fluidity of love enables people to fall in love for the first time in their life at any age. As Grace, a married woman, describes her attitude toward her married lover, "I was never mentally in the arms of anyone, as I felt so uncomfortable there; only now with him, I can feel what true love is. Nothing in this universe has ever touched and will ever touch me as deeply as his words, caresses, and love."

One factor that increases the likelihood of finding genuine love is that you have today more time to search it, as the romantic realm of people lasts longer. Compared with the past, people today live longer and have a greater capacity to materialize their romantic dreams at an older age. The invention of Viagra enables men to extend the period of their lives when they are sexually active and it has been claimed that older women reach orgasm more often than do younger ones. The introduction of the Internet enables young people to be aware and involved from a much younger age in the romantic realm. All of this encourages the search for love and casts doubt on the importance of rigid exclusivity.

Many modern lovers have then the cruel choice of staying within their loveless relationships or searching, often in vain, for the dim possibility of finding a long-term romantic paradise. Nevertheless, people may take their romantic relationships seriously and even hope for their eternal existence, but they should also be aware that the relationships will probably be much shorter.

Loving two people at the same time

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:08:23 -0700

"Torn between two lovers feeling like a fool, loving both of you is breaking all the rules" (Mary MacGregor).

Empirical evidence clearly suggests that humans are capable of loving and having sex with more than one person at the same time. Indeed, most people I interviewed for the book, In the Name of Love: Romantic Ideology and its Victims, said that they can romantically love, and actually have loved, a few people at the same time.

Esther, a widow who was a great advocate of Romantic Ideology, confesses: "In the seven-plus years that I have been dating since the death of my husband, I have never been seeing just one person." Also Iris, who was married to the father of her children for fifteen years, loved two people at the same time: "I got involved with another man while I was still living with my husband. We did it openly. My husband even supported it for a while and the three of us lived together—to see if we could make it work. During that brief period, I had sex with both of them—one upstairs and one downstairs."

Although both Esther and Iris have loved two people at the same time, each really craved the old-fashioned romantic love. Thus, later on in her life, when she had three potential lovers, Iris admits that "I don't like having three men from which to choose. I liked the simplicity of one." And Esther admits: "I subscribe to Romantic Ideology. I want the Perfect Guy...or one slightly imperfect guy. But my experience has been just the opposite. There isn't just one who has been able to satisfy me." Several songs describe this phenomenon; another example is the following: "I've got two lovers and I ain't ashamed, Two lovers, and I love them both the same" (Mary Wells).

Despite such testimonies, it is not obvious how to explain this phenomenon as emotions are typically partial and exclusive. This is especially so in romantic love which requires a lot of energy and resources. People sometimes express the difficulty in loving two people at the same time, by posing it as a logical contradiction: "He cannot romantically love both me and her at the same time."

A plausible way of explaining this difficulty is to claim that romantic love is based upon a few significant characteristics of the beloved, and hence loving more than one person at a time may not be entirely unfeasible, as the additional love would be based upon a different set of characteristics, and thus the two loves could be considered complementary rather than contradictory. Another context for such polyamorous love is having two romantic relationships which are at a different stage: one could be at the infatuation stage and the other at a later, more mature stage. It seems that there is no logical contradiction in romantically loving two people at the same time, and the issue here is psychological, as it generates profound emotional dissonance. The dissonance stems from the fact that by definition, emotions demand partiality, that is, the preference of one over another, which entails some sort of exclusivity. Emotionally, it is extremely painful to imagine your lover in the arms of another person. Indeed, most of those who told of being romantically in love with two people at the same time and pleased with the experience also claimed that they would not like to be at the other end of the relationship; that is, they would find it enormously difficult, if not impossible, to share their beloved with someone else.

How can human society cope with such emotional dissonances? One approach may be to adapt our accepted norms concerning romantic and sexual exclusivity to reflect the occasional dissonances of our reality, a change which has indeed begun to take place in modern society. People now allow their spouses to have more freedom in their personal relationships with others, and attitude is more flexible also concerning sex. In many societies, for example, extramarital sex is disapproved of socially; nevertheless, the transgressor is only mildly criticized for such activity. Indeed, extramarital affairs begin to be described in more neutral terms. Instead of the highly negative terms of "adultery" and "betrayal," some people begin to use the more neutral term of "parallel relationship."

The deeper problem, however, does not concern normative values, but rather emotional ones. Even if this process of relaxing of moral norms continues, and there is no reason why it shouldn’t, a major problem remains: the partiality that colors our emotional system, and in particular jealousy, fear, humiliation, and sorrow which are associated with realizing that your beloved partner is in love with someone else.