Jennie - an unapologetic OW

[hoping2heal]

The split self affair is not a "pop psychology thing". Therapist Emily Brown has contributed with a chapter in the book Handbook of the Cliinical Treatment of Infidelity, which presents "a current review of empirical and theoretical work designed to identify successful clinical strategies for addressing infidelity" (Todd Shackelford, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University). The editors of the book (Fred P. Piercy, PhD, Virginia Tech; Katherine Hertlein, PhD, Assistant Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy, University of Nevada-Las Vegas; Joseph Wetchler, PhD, Professor and Director of the Marriage and Family Therapy Program, Purdue University) have a long list of credentials, and as I understand it work with educating family therapists at university level. So it seems Emily Brown's work is well respected among her peers.

 

Emily Brown describes the dysfunctional family where both spouses want "to do the right thing". They have lost contact with their emotional selves. Just like in the dysfunctional family where the anorectic child shows the symptoms, in this family it is the unfaithful spouse who shows the symptoms of the dysfunctional family.

 

This model of explanation of infidelity suits me. It speaks my language. I believe you can have many different perspectives of the same thing. Imagine you were looking at a diamond. There are so many angles to look at it from, no angle shows it all.

 

I see the split self affair as an explanation, a kickoff from where you can take action, not as an excuse.

 

Understanding why the people we love are doing what we consider "bad" things, like alcoholism, gambling, infidelity, helps us let go of our obsession of their issues and concentrate on ourselves and what we need to work on.

 

 

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "This model of infidelity suits me." The thing is JJ, you have mentioned that you grew up in a bad childhood, as well as had some very bad relationships. Wether you recognize it or not, your self esteem has taken a major plunge as a result. Day after day you make excuses for and justify the behavior of a man who has left you hanging on the line for 5 years, meanwhile he gets to go home and have a partner to help raise children with and have someone to sleep next to at night. What you describe as contact on a daily basis really does not sound to be any different than what I give my platonic female friends.

 

He is at work, making money and doing something productive with his day. He pencils you in, too. Meanwhile what are you doing? In order to keep contact with him in the manner you have stated I imagine you do not go to work. From the sound of things he just does what is easy, which is give you contact when it's convinient for him. The other half of things - is you sitting around and making yourself available for him wherever and whenever and that has included cutting into time with your children.

 

What the two of you are living is extremely dysfunctional in and of itself. Yet you are so desperate for some attention and affection that you are willing to accept a MM who throws you the leftover scraps of himself. Then you tell yourself you just got to eat a grand feast.

 

You have mentioned that your MM has never lied to you, yet either it is you - or it is you sharing what he says - that is riddled with contradiction and believe me, that is the last thing that comes out of truthful communication. You also said you don't believe he lies because you two have an "arrangement" Well honey, what do you think that was when he showed up for his wedding and recited vows. Wether you choose to see it or not, the way people treat others IS the way they will treat us too when similar circumstance arises. Your MM did not wake up one day and say "Well, because her name is Jennie, I am going to tell her the truth when I know it will make her upset and hurt her feelings, instead of lie to her." It just does not work that way. You mentioned that MM only has sex with you, but the one time she made a pass at him this Summer he did not turn her down. What does that tell you? If he is having sex with you exclusively, it is because she is not trying to have it, but the moment she did - he threw his "exclusivity" to you, out the window.

 

Yet here you are, and admit you would put yourself through this another 5 or 10 years. JJ it is just sad and it reflects how desperate for attention and human affection that you are, and I understand that it can be hard to tell the difference between a good relationship and a bad one when people have treated you like crap all of your life. A woman with a healthy self image and healthy self esteem would never in ten million years settle for a situation like this.

 

Is that something you acknowledge to yourself?

 

You could have a relationship with a man who treats you well AND comes home to you, shares a life with you and your children and is completely open with you. That is what you could have and yet you settle for less. Yet you say you focus on what you DO have instead of what you don't. You could have more so why short change yourself? If I have money to buy a steak, I don't buy a balogne sandwhich yet that is exactly what you're doing and then focusing on the fact that "hey, at least there is SOME meat in there."

Edited December 20, 2010 by hoping2heal

[Ellin]

Yet here you are, and admit you would put yourself through this another 5 or 10 years. JJ it is just sad and it reflects how desperate for attention and human affection that you are, and I understand that it can be hard to tell the difference between a good relationship and a bad one when people have treated you like crap all of your life. A woman with a healthy self image and healthy self esteem would never in ten million years settle for a situation like this.

 

Is that something you acknowledge to yourself?

I find it strange how you are trying to convince someone who says she's ok, that she is in fact desperate and how you are attempting to re-write her own perspective of her own situation.

 

I listen to what Jennie is and have consistently been saying in all her posts and I definitely don't see someone desperate (there definitely are posters that could be called that on this forum but Jennie is not one of them).

 

I see a person who has quite good self-esteem and great wisom and understanding of herself and others, having worked through many difficult issues. A person who is confident and strong and knows exactly what she wants after she carefully thoroughly thought it through.

 

In fact, women who cope well in As are those who don't have low self-esteem and fragile egos and have made a conscious choice to be in that situation and deal with whatever comes.

 

This is what Jennie has been clearly communicating.

 

Do you find it hard to see that someone else's perspective and way of experiencing certain situation can be completely different from your own?

 

Strong, confident women who have their own opinions can choose any type of R they want and see it as their conscious choice of something that works for them, not settling. You and probably most people see a situation like hers as very bad - she doesn't.

 

Sorry Jennie I ąm writing about you and not to you, but I wanted to describe the impression I get from reading your posts.

[donnamaybe]

I get the same impression, H2H. How can anyone with any self respect accept the scraps, especially for THAT long?

[Owl]

I'm curious Jennie...you've noted that the "split self affair" isn't a "pop culture" thing, that Emily Brown has contributed to other works...etc...

 

Does any other psychologist/therapist/etc... subscribe and publish works around the "split self" concept?

 

She's been the only proponent of this concept that I've seen...which makes is suspect in my mind at least.

 

And I have to agree with others....to me...it's the "perfect out" for you.

 

It gives you the perfect excuse to accept behavior that otherwise you'd be forced to admit and acknowledge was unacceptable..

 

It gives the perfect "excuse" for the situation to remain the same, for him to act like pretty much every other MM we've seen on the board, for no discernable change (or change that occurs at such a slow pace that it's taken 5 years for pretty much nothing to happen).

 

I don't buy the theory, frankly. I do understand that you do, and you embrace it....and I feel that the reason you do is because it gives you what you want, rather than being a real "condition" that prevents any real changes occuring at a pace that anyone would consider reasonable. You want to have a "reason" for your situation to exist the way that it does...and this is what you found that fits the bill.

 

From your thousands of posts, and countless descriptions of your situation, I don't see anything that tells me that he's any different than all the other MM's we've seen described here.

 

He's not changing, because he has everything he wants right now. A wife and a mistress, one ignorant of the situation and therefore not 'making waves', and the other willing to accept a pretty far-fetched theory on why change doesn't have to happen.

 

His reasons for not telling his wife, for not truly changing the situation aren't because he's "torn" or conflicted...his reasons are much, much simpler. He doesn't have an onus for change, and reason to cause the situation to potentially tip away from him having needs met by both women.

 

He doesn't change because he doesn't have to.

 

You accept the situation in front of you because you want to...not because Emily Brown says this is the way it's gonna be.

 

Everyone has their own mental gymnastics to rationalize what they want/do...they just rarely admit to themselves what they're doing.

[OWoman]

In fact, women who cope well in As are those who don't have low self-esteem and fragile egos and have made a conscious choice to be in that situation and deal with whatever comes.

 

......

 

Strong, confident women who have their own opinions can choose any type of R they want and see it as their conscious choice of something that works for them, not settling.

 

I do not understand why some people persist in seeing an A as some kind of booby prize that loser women fall into because they can't get "a man of their own", despite several examples here of women who have chosen (for one reason or another) to be in, or to stay in, an A because it suits them to do so.

 

It would be analogous to me considering marriage as a loser option that weak people fall into because they haven't the strength to forge their own lives on their own terms, and so buckle to societal pressure by conforming - and then posting all over the M&LP forum telling every MP that they really ought to be honest about how toxic their M has to be (after all it's a M!) and that they really ought to think more of themselves and aim higher...

[Dexter Morgan]

I am starting this thread because I want to discuss my relationship with LS posters. Although many posters' views differ from mine, I find discussing with you helps me understand myself and my situation better.

 

sorry, this isn't why you started this thread with the title "an unapologetic OW"

[Owl]

I do not understand why some people persist in seeing an A as some kind of booby prize that loser women fall into because they can't get "a man of their own", despite several examples here of women who have chosen (for one reason or another) to be in, or to stay in, an A because it suits them to do so.

 

It would be analogous to me considering marriage as a loser option that weak people fall into because they haven't the strength to forge their own lives on their own terms, and so buckle to societal pressure by conforming - and then posting all over the M&LP forum telling every MP that they really ought to be honest about how toxic their M has to be (after all it's a M!) and that they really ought to think more of themselves and aim higher...

 

Owoman...how many posts have we seen here where the OW went into the situation wanting an affair, expecting nothing more out of it, and the situation remained that way throughout the entire relationship? Versus the number of women who come here describing what they feel is a "bad" or "depressing" situation where they "find" themselves in a relationship with a married man and want/expect it to turn into more than 'just an affair' but are hurt/depressed when it doesn't?

 

Far more of the latter than the former, from all the posts I've read.

 

There are a couple who come here (like yourself) with no other expectations...but most are hoping the affair causes the marriage to end at some point so that they can have a deeper relationship with the MM...even Jennie is no exception to that...her difference is that she's willing to wait years/decades/forever for that to happen. But her expectations that it WILL happen are the same.

 

This nearly always is about an OW accepting what she can get out of the relationship, rather than going into it with an expectation of nothing more than a good time and nothing else.

[donnamaybe]

It's not just ANY affair that people consider a "booby prize." It's the A where the OW/OM has stated they are not happy with the marriage continuing, therefore they are accepting less than what they want and need. HUGE difference.

[OWoman]

Does any other psychologist/therapist/etc... subscribe and publish works around the "split self" concept?

 

A quick scan of the literature found 817 scholarly works (in reputable journals, or textbooks) referring to the concept - of which 3 were by Emily Brown. There are probably more, but the authors have not listed that as a keyword for indexing purposes. So it does appear to be a concept with authority, currency and validity in the social sciences.

 

I've not personally read much on this, but what I have read did resonate for me with my H's situation. The description

The split self affair happens when the needs of others are put before those of oneself, and the deprivation catches up.

matches perfectly, although those As are described as being "usually a long term affair becausedecisions are avoided", and I guess in my H's case that was expedited by his turning to IC.

[jthorne]

A quick scan of the literature found 817 scholarly works (in reputable journals, or textbooks) referring to the concept - of which 3 were by Emily Brown. There are probably more, but the authors have not listed that as a keyword for indexing purposes. So it does appear to be a concept with authority, currency and validity in the social sciences.

 

I've not personally read much on this, but what I have read did resonate for me with my H's situation. The description matches perfectly, although those As are described as being "usually a long term affair becausedecisions are avoided", and I guess in my H's case that was expedited by his turning to IC.

What you've described IMO is conflict avoidance, not split self. Regardless, since there is supposedly 817 reputable references, I wonder what was the prognosis was in these refrences? My guess is that the poor, poor WS stays in the A as long as they can- either until they get caught or the AP gets tired.

 

Again like Owl said, not much different that most of what we read here.

[anne1707]

Plus just because there are 817 journals etc, it does not mean that they are all supporting the concept. They could be arguing against it/disproving it. Without actually reading all references, it is not possible to cite them as supporting the split-self theory.

[Owl]

A quick scan of the literature found 817 scholarly works (in reputable journals, or textbooks) referring to the concept - of which 3 were by Emily Brown. There are probably more, but the authors have not listed that as a keyword for indexing purposes. So it does appear to be a concept with authority, currency and validity in the social sciences.

 

I've not personally read much on this, but what I have read did resonate for me with my H's situation. The description matches perfectly, although those As are described as being "usually a long term affair becausedecisions are avoided", and I guess in my H's case that was expedited by his turning to IC.

 

Your search engine must work differently than mine. The vast majority of hits I get back when I do searches for this nearly all tie back to Emily Brown, or where she was quoted in books/articles.

 

Here's my question tho, OW. WHY did you your H seek IC? What specifically motivated him to do so? This seems to be the key differentiator between your situation and Jennie's.

[OWoman]

Owoman...how many posts have we seen here where the OW went into the situation wanting an affair, expecting nothing more out of it, and the situation remained that way throughout the entire relationship? Versus the number of women who come here describing what they feel is a "bad" or "depressing" situation where they "find" themselves in a relationship with a married man and want/expect it to turn into more than 'just an affair' but are hurt/depressed when it doesn't?

 

Far more of the latter than the former, from all the posts I've read.

 

There are a couple who come here (like yourself) with no other expectations...but most are hoping the affair causes the marriage to end at some point so that they can have a deeper relationship with the MM...even Jennie is no exception to that...her difference is that she's willing to wait years/decades/forever for that to happen. But her expectations that it WILL happen are the same.

 

This nearly always is about an OW accepting what she can get out of the relationship, rather than going into it with an expectation of nothing more than a good time and nothing else.

 

Owl, I'm not disputing the proportional balance at all. That still, IMO, doesn't warrant dishing out the same advice to everyone regardless of their situation, on the assumption that "most of the time" it will fit. I find it disrespectful to posters not to bother to engage with the specifics of their situation, and the specifics of their post and what it's asking for, simply because one assumes certain things based on "most cases". And there are a number of posters here who do just that.

 

Also, you mention that most OWs hope that ultimately they'll end up with the MM. That may be, but even among those, there are those that hate being in the A, those who would rather not be in the A but are prepared to stick it out a little longer in the hope of things changing, and those who are getting more out of it than they feel they are losing by being in it, and so are prepared to continue in it for as long as it continues to suit them - potentially, indefinitely.

 

The latter group are making an informed choice to remain in their situation, even if it wasn't one of their choosing, because they have analysed their situation rationally and see more benefits than costs for themselves (at least, for the moment). That is very different to an OW / OM who stays in an A from a position of low-self esteem or of thinking they have no choice. A choice is being exercised, on the basis of reasoned consideration - even if it's not the choice other posters may which for that person.

 

Are you familiar with literature on commitment - often used in the context of organisational commitment, and why people stay in jobs / with a company?

Essentially, they break it down to three kinds of commitment:

 

• Affective commitment - people who stay because they WANT to stay
  
• Normative commitment - people who stay because they feel they OUGHT to stay
  
• Continuance commitment - people who stay because they feel they HAVE to stay (ie, they have no options)
  

 

The OW / OM who stays out of a position of "weakness" (poor self-esteem, etc) is exercising continuance commitment. The OW / OM who chooses to stay because it suits them to, is exercising affective commitment.

 

 

They're very different beasts.

[OWoman]

Plus just because there are 817 journals etc, it does not mean that they are all supporting the concept. They could be arguing against it/disproving it. Without actually reading all references, it is not possible to cite them as supporting the split-self theory.

 

Absolutely - but reputable authors wouldn't waste their time engaging (even negatively) with a concept that had no currency or validity, because their own reputation would suffer. It would be like geographers publishing to take issue with Flat Earth Theory - why bother? Even if you could get a repectable journal to publish such a thing, it would do your own scholarly credentials any good and won't earn you tenure / promotion / win you funding bids.

[jthorne]

I would support an OW who wants to stay and I would support an OW who wants to leave. It differs from situation to situation. It depends on the characteristics of the MM, of the characteristics of the relationship, of whether the positives outweigh the negatives, if you want children, if you want to get married and so on. There are so many factors at play. The only one who can make the decision whether to stay or go is the OW in question herself. It would be presumptuous of me to believe I had the answer.

In my time here, I have never seen you discourage an OW from either entering into or staying in an A. If you have, I would appreciate a reference to it.

 

You say that some of us provide cookie-cutter "get out" advice, but I've not seen anything different from you- it's always "stay until you want to leave, until the positives outweigh the negatives" (paraphrasing of course). Therefore, I am wondering under what circumstances you would actually advise an OW to terminate an A? Perhaps if she were being physically abused? What specific circumstances are dealbreakers for you, where you would not support an OW's desire to continue an A?

[anne1707]

Psychologists when carrying out research will look beyond one narrow point of view - and will also argue very strongly against theories they can see weaknesses in especially if research highlights such weaknesses.

 

Again - 817 articles does not mean 817 articles in support of split-self.

[hoping2heal]

I find it strange how you are trying to convince someone who says she's ok, that she is in fact desperate and how you are attempting to re-write her own perspective of her own situation.

 

I listen to what Jennie is and have consistently been saying in all her posts and I definitely don't see someone desperate (there definitely are posters that could be called that on this forum but Jennie is not one of them).

 

I see a person who has quite good self-esteem and great wisom and understanding of herself and others, having worked through many difficult issues. A person who is confident and strong and knows exactly what she wants after she carefully thoroughly thought it through.

 

Really? So, a woman with good self esteem and great wisdom willfully puts herself into a situation with a MM, where she stays for 5 years - despite wanting more and wanting him to leave his W and be with her? Don't you think a woman with great wisdom would enter into a R to begin with, with another human being who is available emotionally and physically? She has definately been through her share of pain and mistreatment, and as a result she falls hook line and sinker for a MM who can give her words, instead of actions and has mistaken the two for something of substance.

 

In fact, women who cope well in As are those who don't have low self-esteem and fragile egos and have made a conscious choice to be in that situation and deal with whatever comes.

 

Staying and coping are not the same thing.

 

This is what Jennie has been clearly communicating.

 

Do you find it hard to see that someone else's perspective and way of experiencing certain situation can be completely different from your own?

 

No, there are some women in affairs both here and else-wise who are very realistic about their affairs and what is taking place. That is what I would call coping, well. It isn't as though I get a door prize if JJ "sees things my way" . I already have a wonderful relationship that I'm blessed with. I have never been a BS nor a BGF. I'm not one some agenda simply because I can see through the situation. Her MM's actions talk, and so do hers. Now, if she simply wanted sex and flirting..as some women do - without a real relationship then my stance would be entirely different. It would make sense that she were in this position and I'd say nothing about it.

 

Strong, confident women who have their own opinions can choose any type of R they want and see it as their conscious choice of something that works for them, not settling. You and probably most people see a situation like hers as very bad - she doesn't.

 

Ellin, she is settling. Just because she is having an affair does not mean she is strong and confident. She wants to share this man's life with him. She wants much more than what she has, but he will not give it so she is settling for so much less than what a relationship with an available person could offer her. Why must everything be so split? So, either you have an amazing emotional/mental/sexual connection with a man..and accept an affair, or you get married and "settle" for oatmeal? The real world does not work that way.

 

Sorry Jennie I ąm writing about you and not to you, but I wanted to describe the impression I get from reading your posts.

 

I am sure it will be very much appreciated.

[OWoman]

Your search engine must work differently than mine. The vast majority of hits I get back when I do searches for this nearly all tie back to Emily Brown, or where she was quoted in books/articles.

 

I didn't use a search engine - those only access the stuff freely available on the web. Most scholarly journals are behind paywalls, so you need to access them through indexes / databases like ABI inform, or Swets, or Silverplatter... Unfortunately you need access (physical or online) to an academic library to access those - because someone, somewhere, is paying a hefty subscription for their use!

 

Here's my question tho, OW. WHY did you your H seek IC? What specifically motivated him to do so? This seems to be the key differentiator between your situation and Jennie's.

 

Was that "what" or "who"?

 

I think there are many differences.

 

One is that Jen is a far more patient and tolerant person than I am. If something isn't working for me, I leave - and that includes other people's issues. I'm not prepared (or capable?) of looking for the person behind the issues, and putting the issues to one side. If someone's issues are that big a deal for me, that it gets in the way of how I'd want to relate to them, then I call time on the R and move on. Jen doesn't, as she's said elsewhere in the thread - her background in Al-Anon has taught her to see beyond the issue to the person. I can't, or won't. I have a life to live and I'm not sticking around hoping one day someone will get their act together once I've decided what I want. They either get their act together, or I review my decision in the light of their inability / unwillingness to do so, and move on. Life's too short! Perhaps my greater sense of urgency (and options - Jen has stated elsewhere that if other options came up that she fancied, she'd review her decision to stick with her MM / the nature of the R, at the time; whereas I had other active options and he knew about those) acted as some kind of kick up the butt, who knows?

 

Also, he'd been separated from his then-W previously. He'd been told by everybody (almost literally) how toxic the M was, and how pleased they were that they were split... so he knew it was possible (and comfortable) for him to live without her. But he also "knew" that it was selfish - he took her back because she'd fallen apart, and because that took a toll on the kids, not because he wanted to take her back - and so he knew there was a big dilemma between what he felt was right, and what he felt was healthy. And that wasn't the kind of dilemma he thought he could solve on his own.

 

He's also an intellectual, and so he read a good deal about this. Of course, everything he read recommended some kind of counselling. As did his friends and family, and colleagues. He was getting it from all sides.

 

Which is another key difference - Jen's MM comes from / lives in a culture that considers As wrong, and divorce / desertion of the family wrong. My H's culture is far less hostile towards such things, and so we were able to be completely open as a couple with his family, friends and colleagues - and he knew he had their support unquestioningly. Jen's MM doesn't have that kind of social support to fall back on.

 

But I guess the key difference is that he was ready. He'd had other women hitting on him before, but had never even remotely considered the possibility of an A. So why did I get lucky? Somewhere along the line, he must have been receptive to the possibility that he would have (and did) reject out of hand previously, so something had changed to allow him that. And, being ready and open to possibility, he was ready and open to bigger possibilities for change - and willing to do the hard work to make it viable. Perhaps it was that his kids were older; perhaps it was his own realisation of his own passing life - a kind of MLC moment; or perhaps it was simply that he was in a magical place at a beautiful time, and that all spoke to his soul in a way that opened his heart. I can speculate, but I'll never really know. I'm just glad that things worked out for us the way they did, and I hope that other people are as lucky in their turn.

[jthorne]

Psychologists when carrying out research will look beyond one narrow point of view - and will also argue very strongly against theories they can see weaknesses in especially if research highlights such weaknesses.

 

Again - 817 articles does not mean 817 articles in support of split-self.

Totally agree, but jennie believes in the split self because it supports her rationale for staying in the A.

 

So my question is this: should Emily Brown (and others if there really are others) come out tomorrow and say that she's/they've done further research and her split self theory is wrong, what would jennie's rationale be then?

[OWoman]

Psychologists when carrying out research will look beyond one narrow point of view - and will also argue very strongly against theories they can see weaknesses in especially if research highlights such weaknesses.

 

Again - 817 articles does not mean 817 articles in support of split-self.

 

I don't want to draw this out into a t/j, but to clarify - 817 articles tagged with "split-self affair" indicate that it is a concept which has currency, validity and authority, or they would not tag their articles with that keyword. Given that one typically tags one's articles with 10 or so keywords, they tend to be descriptive of the major content or the theoretical position one is espousing (and yes, a good many researchers in any discipline operate from a single theoretical position - and declare it as such; research can easily become sloppy if you blur your theoretical frameworks or claim your research to be value-neutral). If you were merely going to dismiss a particular position, you would do that in a footnote, or at most a sentence or two. Dedicating an entire paper to it signifies that you take that position very seriously indeed, even if you're contesting some or all of it - which again indicates its currency, validity and authority.

 

Nowhere did I claim that there were 817 articles supporting the concept. But that 817 articles are tagged with that keyword implies that the concept is one with authority, validity and currency. Contestation, analysis, discussion or modification don't negate that, they strengthen it.

[OWoman]

Totally agree, but jennie believes in the split self because it supports her rationale for staying in the A.

 

So my question is this: should Emily Brown (and others if there really are others) come out tomorrow and say that she's/they've done further research and her split self theory is wrong, what would jennie's rationale be then?

 

:lmao: science doesn't work like that in the real world!! :lmao:

[jthorne]

I don't want to draw this out into a t/j, but to clarify - 817 articles tagged with "split-self affair" indicate that it is a concept which has currency, validity and authority, or they would not tag their articles with that keyword. Given that one typically tags one's articles with 10 or so keywords, they tend to be descriptive of the major content or the theoretical position one is espousing (and yes, a good many researchers in any discipline operate from a single theoretical position - and declare it as such; research can easily become sloppy if you blur your theoretical frameworks or claim your research to be value-neutral). If you were merely going to dismiss a particular position, you would do that in a footnote, or at most a sentence or two. Dedicating an entire paper to it signifies that you take that position very seriously indeed, even if you're contesting some or all of it - which again indicates its currency, validity and authority.

 

Nowhere did I claim that there were 817 articles supporting the concept. But that 817 articles are tagged with that keyword implies that the concept is one with authority, validity and currency. Contestation, analysis, discussion or modification don't negate that, they strengthen it.

I am really surprised that you would make that assumption.

[OWoman]

I am really surprised that you would make that assumption.

 

 

what assumption?

[anne1707]

I didn't use a search engine - those only access the stuff freely available on the web. Most scholarly journals are behind paywalls, so you need to access them through indexes / databases like ABI inform, or Swets, or Silverplatter... Unfortunately you need access (physical or online) to an academic library to access those - because someone, somewhere, is paying a hefty subscription for their use!

 

I would be interested in knowing what keywords you used for your search because I am getting nothing like 817 references when I search (and yes, that is on an academic library)

[anne1707]

I don't want to draw this out into a t/j, but to clarify - 817 articles tagged with "split-self affair" indicate that it is a concept which has currency, validity and authority, or they would not tag their articles with that keyword.

 

Hmm

 

The academic site I searched on with those keywords only gave 2 references - both were Emily Brown.