Greater of Two Evils: Emotional or sexual infidelity?

[Dionysus]

The two usually go together, but for the sake of discussion...

I'd say that emotional infidelity is way worse.

Sexual feelings come and go. If someone gives into a sexual impulse, I may be able to write it off as them being extra horny (if I'm not putting out for some reason), too drunk, wanting more sexual variety in their life or whatever. At worse, a lack of sexual compatibility between us.

But with emotional infidelity, I feel this is something more deliberate. It takes longer for emotional attraction to build up than sexual attraction, usually. If someone sleeps with another person, I would feel as if I were sexually inadequate. That would really suck, but if someone bonds with another person emotionally behind my back, I would feel that they are rejecting me AS A PERSON.

By the way, I read that men are more likely to be more upset about sexual infidelity, and women are more likely to be more upset about emotional infidelity.

[AOII Angel]

Emotional infidelity can't give me HIV.

[Drolefille]

Either, though at least at this point I'd understand emotional more than sexual infidelity. My significant other would know my views about relationships and be willing to talk about opening up a relationship, assuming it wasn't open to begin with.

You can't always help who you fall in love with, but you can help what you do about it.

[psusue]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You can't always help who you fall in love with, but you can help what you do about it.

I would say that I disagree with this statement. I think that you can't help who you're attracted to, sure, but you can help who you fall in love with. The distinction in my mind would be that falling in love takes time and effort-- attraction is typically instantaneous or happens after a short period of time. Maybe I'm just mincing words here, but I think in this discussion the difference is pertinent-- you can't help that you thought that guy/girl is hot, but you can choose to not give in and try to pursue interaction with them/choose not to react when they try to interact with you.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by psusue

I would say that I disagree with this statement. I think that you can't help who you're attracted to, sure, but you can help who you fall in love with. The distinction in my mind would be that falling in love takes time and effort-- attraction is typically instantaneous or happens after a short period of time. Maybe I'm just mincing words here, but I think in this discussion the difference is pertinent-- you can't help that you thought that guy/girl is hot, but you can choose to not give in and try to pursue interaction with them/choose not to react when they try to interact with you.

You need to go knock on wood after posting this. Seriously.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by psusue

I would say that I disagree with this statement. I think that you can't help who you're attracted to, sure, but you can help who you fall in love with. The distinction in my mind would be that falling in love takes time and effort-- attraction is typically instantaneous or happens after a short period of time. Maybe I'm just mincing words here, but I think in this discussion the difference is pertinent-- you can't help that you thought that guy/girl is hot, but you can choose to not give in and try to pursue interaction with them/choose not to react when they try to interact with you.

You can still pine for them from afar. Depends on how fast you think love occurs. Or how obvious it is. I ended up in a relationship without quite knowing how it happened, at some point in our chatting we developed an emotional connection and I fell in love, but I couldn't have told you when that happened.

I understand the distinction you're going for, I'm just not sure there's an obvious line or that it always starts as "oh s/he's hot; crap better avoid them" instead of "hey s/he's nice and is a great workout buddy or somehow fulfills a friendship role.'

[honeychile]

Am I the only person who thought of Bull Durham, when Annie yells, "Crash!" while in bed with Nuke? Her response: "Would you rather me be making love to him, using your name, or making love to you, using his name?"

But in answer to the question, they're both cheating, so why bother wondering which form of cheating is kinder? You can deal with a fantasy, but not an "emotional infidelity"; and AOII Angel is right about the affair.

[BluPhire]

By the way, I read that men are more likely to be more upset about sexual infidelity, and women are more likely to be more upset about emotional infidelity.

True, but since I can't quote the poll taken to support it I can only say most men I know are more affected by sexual than emotional.

I guess its because of the different love languages men and women have. For the most part, a man can seperate his emotions from his sexual libido (the infamous hit it and quit it) but (again for the most part) sex for women is an emotional experience.

Therefore if a woman cheats on her man, its more than likely isn't because she was horny and her man wasn't putting in work. The emotions were there to allow another man to be with her in that way.

On the other hand a man cheating sexually, it may be just because it was available and he is mature enough to understand that relationships have their ups and downs and that if you watered your grass once in a while, his grass would be just as green. Therefore if a man tells his woman that he is eomtionally involved with another woman..that's real serious.

[33girl]

It depends what you mean by "emotional infidelity." It's not really a clear-cut term.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

It depends what you mean by "emotional infidelity." It's not really a clear-cut term.

True, I'm interpreting it as falling in love with someone not just being really good friends who you talk to frequently and do things with.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by 33girl

It depends what you mean by "emotional infidelity." It's not really a clear-cut term.

This is the definition according to my wife and her female friends.

In a nutshell being intimate on an emotional level that is normally reserved for your spouse.

In other words sharing those emotional moments normally meant for your spouse and spouse only.

In a medieval sense....courtly love. (Guinevere and Lancelot minus the actual having sex parts of the prose)

[33girl]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

This is the definition according to my wife and her female friends.

In a nutshell being intimate on an emotional level that is normally reserved for your spouse.

In other words sharing those emotional moments normally meant for your spouse and spouse only.

In a medieval sense....courtly love. (Guinevere and Lancelot minus the actual having sex parts of the prose)

But that's so different for everyone. Some people (male or female) just aren't big "sharers" in general, no matter who it's with. And some people put EVERYTHING out there. Maybe according to Joe, a woman sharing her life story with him is "emotional infidelity" because he's a very reticent person...and he would feel like he cheated listening to her tell it...but maybe according to her, it means absolutely nothing because she has a big damn mouth and shares intimate details with everyone whose path she crosses.

Whereas intercourse, oral sex etc are pretty easily defined.

[agzg]

I would leave someone for either, really. I know I wouldn't be able to get over it by remaining in that relationship.

If I had to choose one, I guess I'd pick physical infidelity, because then I'd have to get checked for STDs.

[starang21]

men are generally territorial, thus many would likely say sexual off the bat.