Esther Perel - rethinking infidelity.

[velvette]

So your answer is no, "I don't wish to follow this thread or deal with the actual content in it...."

 

I have dealt with the actual content, as have others.

 

 

So, here's some actual content.........her statement that millions of people in A's cant be pathological.

 

 

I find that an intellectually dishonest statement.

 

 

No one(other than the small contingent who label every WS NPD) is saying that WS are pathological.

 

 

On the other hand, many experts in infidelity do believe that personal dysfunction underlies affairs. And, in fact there are millions of people walking around with wounds/issues that negatively impact their lives. They are not all in A. But, all you have to do is read this and other forums to see that many people in A have some fairly serious dysfuntion.

 

 

In fact this statement she makes is is a commonly employeed public speaking tool called exaggerating to make your point.

 

 

To understand her point, you have to go to her other material. Since you are not interested in what underlies her position you can stop reading here.

 

 

For those who are interested, her belief is that dysfunction related to childhood wounds/trauma or other FOO stuff is not an issue in infidelity. And further that American therapist are wrong to deal with any of those issues in helping couples wade through infidelity. Kind of ironic since the origins of that approach are European.

[autumnnight]

For those who are interested, her belief is that dysfunction related to childhood wounds/trauma or other FOO stuff is not an issue in infidelity. And further that American therapist are wrong to deal with any of those issues in helping couples wade through infidelity.

 

She's not the only one who believes this, and I agree; it's BS.

 

Of COURSE your FOO and childhood and significant life events shape you and influence you.

 

Just like people who are bitter from their wayward parents and become addicts are going to be tough on waywards and become cultlike in their devotion. It's 2+2

[velvette]

She's not the only one who believes this, and I agree; it's BS.

 

Of COURSE your FOO and childhood and significant life events shape you and influence you.

 

Just like people who are bitter from their wayward parents and become addicts are going to be tough on waywards and become cultlike in their devotion. It's 2+2

 

 

I'm not sure I understand. Cultlike in their devotion to whom? Can you clarify?

[autumnnight]

I'm not sure I understand. Cultlike in their devotion to whom? Can you clarify?

 

Sorry, that was unclear. I have a relative who is a recovering addict, and she tends to just change from one addiction to another. She no longer drinks, but she has gone through extreme exercise programs, extreme religiosity, extreme health kicks, etc. Whatever she does, she goes to the extreme, and I think it is that addictive personality, if that makes sense. Her mother was also an alcholic, so I am sure that influenced her. Her mother drank because her father was a big time philanderer. It is sad.

 

Sorry, that doesn't have much to do with infidelity.

 

I have read some more of Perel's stuff, and I can see some of the concern. I think there are other marriage and infidelity experts that are much more balanced and responsibility oriented, like Glass or Harley.

[velvette]

Sorry, that was unclear. I have a relative who is a recovering addict, and she tends to just change from one addiction to another. She no longer drinks, but she has gone through extreme exercise programs, extreme religiosity, extreme health kicks, etc. Whatever she does, she goes to the extreme, and I think it is that addictive personality, if that makes sense. Her mother was also an alcholic, so I am sure that influenced her. Her mother drank because her father was a big time philanderer. It is sad.

 

Sorry, that doesn't have much to do with infidelity.

 

I have read some more of Perel's stuff, and I can see some of the concern. I think there are other marriage and infidelity experts that are much more balanced and responsibility oriented, like Glass or Harley.

 

 

OK...perhaps I wasn't clear either lol.......its not so much her stance on the matter although I do disagree with her....its the fact that she misrepresents the other viewpoint while not explaining what her own is. If you need to mislead people to be heard, what you have to say becomes suspect to me.

 

 

And actually, imo, she misrepresents other things. Like people are getting divorced because they are happy but want to be happier. Makes a catchy soundbite, but has anyone ever heard someone say this is the reason they got divorced? People have A for that reason, but I don't see people getting divorced because they are happy.

Edited May 27, 2015 by velvette

[autumnnight]

OK...perhaps I wasn't clear either lol.......its not so much her stance on the matter although I do disagree with her....its the fact that she misrepresents the other viewpoint while not explaining what her own is. If you need to mislead people to be heard, what you have to say becomes suspect to me.

 

And actually, imo, she misrepresents other things. Like people are getting divorced because they are happy but want to be happier. Makes a catchy soundbite, but has anyone ever heard someone say this is the reason they got divorced? People have A for that reason, but I don't see people getting divorced because they are happy.

 

Yeah, getting divroced when happy to be happier seems...well like a stupid idea. If you are happy why not stay married? For that matter, if you're NOT happy why not try your durndest to GET happy before divorcing.

 

I also agree with the bolded part above big time. It is kind of hard to speak with any kind of moral ground on the topic of deception is one is being deceptive themselves.

 

All in all, I think after reading it has kind of confirmed what I thought: the best way to really get a handle on this stuff is to go to more than once source, but be really careful about the source. I like Harley, Glass, Pittman pretty well. There are some other things out there that to me are just too doormatty or too pro-A.

[velvette]

I read "Mating in Captivity" and I must confess, I do agree with a lot of it. I think that watching your spouse defacate isn't conducive to passion, even if it does indicate a high degree of intimacy.

 

 

 

 

Likewise, I think her TED talk on infidelity is useful in understanding the dynamic, and sign pointing ways to address it if you have such a problem. .

 

 

 

Huh? Who's advocating watching your spouse defecate as a practice of transparency or to create passion? No one I know of except people that have fetishes around such activities.

 

 

By all means if you have issues with achieving the proper ratio of closesness and distance in your M, buy her book or any one of hundreds of others on the subject.

 

 

As others have said this is not some novel idea as much as she would like you to believe she has come up with something new or that Americans have never heard of and don't understand. Its been written about in almost any text on marriage since the 1970's. Not to mention in can be found in most every issue of Cosmopolitan and any other type of women's magazine for the last 40 or so years.

[autumnnight]

Huh? Who's advocating watching your spouse defecate as a practice of transparency or to create passion? No one I know of except people that have fetishes around such activities.

 

 

By all means if you have issues with achieving the proper ratio of closesness and distance in your M, buy her book or any one of hundreds of others on the subject.

 

 

As others have said this is not some novel idea as much as she would like you to believe she has come up with something new or that Americans have never heard of and don't understand. Its been written about in almost any text on marriage since the 1970's. Not to mention in can be found in most every issue of Cosmopolitan and any other type of women's magazine for the last 40 or so years.

 

One of the experts I really like says something like this:

 

Privacy is fine (going to the restroom, puking in peace, etc.)

 

Secrecy is not.

[velvette]

Yeah, getting divroced when happy to be happier seems...well like a stupid idea. If you are happy why not stay married? For that matter, if you're NOT happy why not try your durndest to GET happy before divorcing.

 

I also agree with the bolded part above big time. It is kind of hard to speak with any kind of moral ground on the topic of deception is one is being deceptive themselves.

 

All in all, I think after reading it has kind of confirmed what I thought: the best way to really get a handle on this stuff is to go to more than once source, but be really careful about the source. I like Harley, Glass, Pittman pretty well. There are some other things out there that to me are just too doormatty or too pro-A.

 

 

I agree although I happen to think it is a non-existent problem in marriages anywhere in the world lol. So she can say it in all 9 languages she speaks and it will still not make sense.

 

 

I agree its buyer beware when it comes to "experts" of any kind.

 

 

One thing I noted in her credentials is that she lists neurolinguistic programming as a specialty. That is a largely discredited form of therapy that originally billed itself as able to cure anything from schizophrenia, to garden variety mental issues, to the common cold.