wrote:
> Sarah Lister wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 4:31 pm, Nellie wrote:
>
> >>I don't see any difference between "emotional affair" and "crossed a
> >>line". The former is easier to use and doesn't need further explanation.
> >>There are many lines that can be crossed, so saying "I crossed a line"
> >>without saying *which* line is ambiguous!
>
> > Well, my own objection to it is that I *do* think it requires extra
> > explanation, at least off the newsgroup and other specialized marriage-
> > discussion places.
>
> > I think in general speech, 'having an affair' = a sexual
> > relationship. If I told someone so-and-so had an affair, they would
> > assume I meant they had sex (or at least so I believe). So I couldn't
> > just say "affair", I'd have to say "emotional affair" to make the
> > point it was the non-sex kind, and I'm not sure your average person
> > would even know what that was. I'd have to say, "I mean a
> > relationship where he'd made an emotional connection with another
> > woman which was starting to supplant his connection with his wife..."
> > or whatever. And if I'm going to have to explain it, why say it in
> > the first place?
>
> Because next time you wouldn't have to explain?!
I guess. I kind of hope I'm not repeatedly having this same
conversation with the same people though! (Just kidding, I just had
this mental image of myself talking to the same friend week after
week... "Guess who's having an emotional affair NOW!")
> > Whereas if I said that so-and-so had really crossed the line of
> > acceptability in his behavior with another woman, I suspect that
> > statement would be readily understood, even if the person I was
> > talking to would want some specific details about which line I meant.
> > I guess to me "emotional affair" sounds sort of like jargon, and I
> > generally find jargon somewhat annoying when someone's using it on me,
> > so I try not to use it if I can.
>
> Yeah, there is something to that, but I don't have a problem with things
> that facilitate written communication with fewer words -- especially in
> newsgroups.
My objection to the phrase isn't as vehement as that of some, and I'm
not really saying people shouldn't use the term here. I wouldn't have
every brought up my own feelings about the phrase if it hadn't been
under discussion already, but once it came up, I thought I might as
well weigh in on why it didn't work for me either.
I'm okay with terms that facilitate communication, but in this case
I'm a little wary of the baggage that comes along with the word
'affair' when applied to a non-sexual but inappropriately close
relationship. Not so wary that I'm going to crusade against it or
anything, but wary nonetheless.
> If deep understanding is the goal, even saying someone had an "affair"
> wouldn't be descriptive. It could range from getting drunk and having a
> one night stand with a stranger (which some people say wouldn't be too
> devastating to them) to a full blown love affair.
Well, actually (again, I'm more kicking around the idea than anything)
I would never call a drunken sexual encounter 'an affair'. The term
that I'd use that covers both affairs and drunken-one-nighters is
'adultery' or 'cheating', which to me means any sex outside the
marriage. For it to be 'an affair' to me, it'd have to have both
components - the romance AND the sex.
Sarah