Cyber "affair" with married woman -- You will think me hurtful, but I had t

[Emma Anne]

Guilty Guy <Calgon@takemeaway.com> wrote:

Done. I stopped playing permanently a week ago. Vast distances all set up.

Good. This person is not good for you. Forget about her, her husband,
and the previous other man. Think no more about her morals or her
marriage. Be glad you aren't her or her husband, and move on.

How do you figure she played me? We were both involved in the cyber affair or whatever the heck it was. I did notice that I seemed to feel immense guilt over what we had done, whereas she showed none. I outright asked her about her guilt at one point and she believed it was little more than flirting. Since the time of my posting, I have read about "emotional affairs". I believe this is what the two of us had.

Yes, that is what it was. Your guilt was a good signal to you to not do
that. Find someone available to get emotionally involved with.

I am a little worried that you let yourself get so obsessed. I'd look
into that if I were you. Not healthy, aside from the moral issues.

[Guilty Guy]

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gaj8cg.3rshzg1myml9xN%mbjq@earthlink.net...

Guilty Guy <Calgon@takemeaway.com> wrote:

up.

Good. This person is not good for you. Forget about her, her husband, and the previous other man. Think no more about her morals or her marriage. Be glad you aren't her or her husband, and move on.

Heh heh, yeah, she was a slithery one. In a strange way, I enjoyed her.
The online infatuation began to wear off I think, and I started getting
annoyed by her quirks (like her self-righteous attitude about
friends/family's morality, despite what she and I were doing online!).

affair

or whatever the heck it was. I did notice that I seemed to feel immense guilt over what we had done, whereas she showed none. I outright asked

her

about her guilt at one point and she believed it was little more than flirting. Since the time of my posting, I have read about "emotional affairs". I believe this is what the two of us had. Yes, that is what it was. Your guilt was a good signal to you to not do that. Find someone available to get emotionally involved with.

I should have trusted my instincts. I believe it started with me looking
for a game friend, JUST someone to play the game with. I asked her "how ya
doin?" questions, just to engage in small talk, and she would spill her
life's problems to me. I felt a bit uncomfortable with what she would tell
me (probs. involving her marriage mostly), but I still felt sympathy for her
and drawn towards her. I don't know why exactly - probably the
loneliness/desperation on my part, maybe I'm soooooooo sensitive, lol.

I am a little worried that you let yourself get so obsessed. I'd look into that if I were you. Not healthy, aside from the moral issues.

I was worried as well. It seemed to be a combination of the game getting
boring for me, and always seeing her in the game somehow. I got annoyed
with her and what we were doing to the point where I politely refused to
play with her, and then she VERY subtly started to get standoffish, while
denying she was avoiding me. That's when I started obsessively putting
questions to her about what it was we were doing, and what it was she
THOUGHT we should be doing together in the game. I told her I just wanted
to play the game, and she found convenient ways of avoiding it, when in the
past she was available at the drop of a hat.

My obsession grew mostly because she would avoid confronting the issue of
what it was we had done and how she felt about it all. My frustrations grew
after she quit out of the game three times when I would greet her in
"person" (character to character, in the same public area) after she would
run in front of me from time to time. To sum up, I felt as if I was being
treated like ****, and though I think I'm a "nice guy", I got tired of
feeling like I was the only one who acknowledged he had done something
wrong. So, quite crudely and spontaneously, the third time she quit in
front of me and her husband remained in the game, I confronted him with what
bothered me.

I think what I needed for the relief of my guilt was to shift the issue from
one between her and me to one possibly between her and her spouse. I was
not her counselor or her priest, and I felt her husband had a right to know
about this "affair" and about who knows how many others she had.

This was more than just harmless fun, though I suspect she never thought
much about it all the way I did. I believe having a tooth extracted would
be more fun than this "emotional affair" was for me.

[Doug Anderson]

"Guilty Guy" <Calgon@takemeaway.com> writes:

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaj8cg.3rshzg1myml9xN%mbjq@earthlink.net...

up.

Heh heh, yeah, she was a slithery one. In a strange way, I enjoyed her. The online infatuation began to wear off I think, and I started getting annoyed by her quirks (like her self-righteous attitude about friends/family's morality, despite what she and I were doing online!).

Hmm. You are the one who strike me as self-righteous. You flirt with
her on-line, and then go tell her husband when she gets tired of you.

[Emma Anne]

Guilty Guy <Calgon@takemeaway.com> wrote:

I am a little worried that you let yourself get so obsessed. I'd look into that if I were you. Not healthy, aside from the moral issues. I was worried as well. It seemed to be a combination of the game getting boring for me, and always seeing her in the game somehow. I got annoyed with her and what we were doing to the point where I politely refused to play with her, and then she VERY subtly started to get standoffish, while denying she was avoiding me. That's when I started obsessively putting questions to her about what it was we were doing, and what it was she THOUGHT we should be doing together in the game. I told her I just wanted to play the game, and she found convenient ways of avoiding it, when in the past she was available at the drop of a hat. My obsession grew mostly because she would avoid confronting the issue of what it was we had done and how she felt about it all. My frustrations grew after she quit out of the game three times when I would greet her in "person" (character to character, in the same public area) after she would run in front of me from time to time. To sum up, I felt as if I was being treated like ****, and though I think I'm a "nice guy", I got tired of feeling like I was the only one who acknowledged he had done something wrong. So, quite crudely and spontaneously, the third time she quit in front of me and her husband remained in the game, I confronted him with what bothered me.

Actually, this further explanation explains a lot to me. If you have
ever read up on behavioral psychology you have learned that positive
reinforcement and negative reinforcement are very powerful tools in
shaping someone's behavior (training them). But the really knock-out
powerful tool is *intermittent reinforcement*. Let me give you an
example I read once:

Say you have a car that is hard to start. You often have to mess with
it for five minutes or so to get it to start (turning the key with
different amounts of gas and so on). Over tiame the car gets worse, and
you have to spend ten minutes or fifteen. One day you go out and it
just won't start. How long do you spend trying to get it to start? At
least twenty minutes, right?

In contrast, lets say you have a car that starts every time right away.
One day you go out and it won't start. How long are you going to spend
trying to get this car to start? You'll try once or twice and then give
up.

Both cars gave you positive reinforcement for turning the key and
stepping on the gas. Both started when you did that. So to start each
car, you go out and turn the key and step on the gas. But the first car
gave you *intermittent* reinforcement. *Sometimes* you got positive
reinforcement for doing what you were supposed to do. If you tried and
tried and did everything right, eventually you would get reinforcement.
That car has you trained!

Another example that is helpful in understanding this concept is
domestic violence. Why do women (for the most part it's women) stay?
It's because the relationships tend to be very intense and romantic -
sometimes. If the woman does everything right, she gets a "hit" of love
and attention. If things aren't just right, she gets pushed or yelled
at or slapped. Just as in the case of the car, she gets trained, over
time, to try harder and harder and longer and longer for more and more
infrequent "hits" of romance and attention.

So, back to this women. If she had been friendly and warm every time
you contacted her, and then one day she quit responding at all, you
probably would have wondered what happened, but you would have given up
pretty quickly. Instead, she had you trained to jump through more and
more hoops and try more and more things, to get her attention.

The good news is that you can declined to be trained in this way. As
soon as you see that someone is trying to get you to jump through hoops
to get her attention, you can calll her on it or just avoid her. You
can even use this knowledge yourself, albeit in a much more ethical way.
When you are being treated right, respond warmly and when you are being
treated wrong, ignore the person. She'll either learn to treat you
right, if she's a person of good will, or she'll go look for better
sport.

One other piece of advice: when a woman starts talking to you about
things she *ought* to be talking to her husband about, it's a good clue
to cut it off.

[Seeker]

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gaoo00.1yv4126555k32N%mbjq@earthlink.net...

One other piece of advice: when a woman starts talking to you about things she *ought* to be talking to her husband about, it's a good clue to cut it off.

Who defines what those things are? What *ought* a wife (or husband) be
talking to her (or his) spouse about? Who's the arbiter of "ought" in
this situation?

Ted

[Emma Anne]

Seeker <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaoo00.1yv4126555k32N%mbjq@earthlink.net...

Who defines what those things are? What *ought* a wife (or husband) be talking to her (or his) spouse about? Who's the arbiter of "ought" in this situation?

Most of us know it when we hear it.

[Guilty Guy]

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gaoo00.1yv4126555k32N%mbjq@earthlink.net...

Guilty Guy <Calgon@takemeaway.com> wrote:

getting

boring for me, and always seeing her in the game somehow. I got annoyed with her and what we were doing to the point where I politely refused to play with her, and then she VERY subtly started to get standoffish,

while

denying she was avoiding me. That's when I started obsessively putting questions to her about what it was we were doing, and what it was she THOUGHT we should be doing together in the game. I told her I just

wanted

to play the game, and she found convenient ways of avoiding it, when in

the

past she was available at the drop of a hat. My obsession grew mostly because she would avoid confronting the issue

of

what it was we had done and how she felt about it all. My frustrations

grew

after she quit out of the game three times when I would greet her in "person" (character to character, in the same public area) after she

would

run in front of me from time to time. To sum up, I felt as if I was

being

treated like ****, and though I think I'm a "nice guy", I got tired of feeling like I was the only one who acknowledged he had done something wrong. So, quite crudely and spontaneously, the third time she quit in front of me and her husband remained in the game, I confronted him with

what

bothered me. Actually, this further explanation explains a lot to me. If you have ever read up on behavioral psychology you have learned that positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement are very powerful tools in shaping someone's behavior (training them). But the really knock-out powerful tool is *intermittent reinforcement*. Let me give you an example I read once: Say you have a car that is hard to start. You often have to mess with it for five minutes or so to get it to start (turning the key with different amounts of gas and so on). Over tiame the car gets worse, and you have to spend ten minutes or fifteen. One day you go out and it just won't start. How long do you spend trying to get it to start? At least twenty minutes, right? In contrast, lets say you have a car that starts every time right away. One day you go out and it won't start. How long are you going to spend trying to get this car to start? You'll try once or twice and then give up. Both cars gave you positive reinforcement for turning the key and stepping on the gas. Both started when you did that. So to start each car, you go out and turn the key and step on the gas. But the first car gave you *intermittent* reinforcement. *Sometimes* you got positive reinforcement for doing what you were supposed to do. If you tried and tried and did everything right, eventually you would get reinforcement. That car has you trained! Another example that is helpful in understanding this concept is domestic violence. Why do women (for the most part it's women) stay? It's because the relationships tend to be very intense and romantic - sometimes. If the woman does everything right, she gets a "hit" of love and attention. If things aren't just right, she gets pushed or yelled at or slapped. Just as in the case of the car, she gets trained, over time, to try harder and harder and longer and longer for more and more infrequent "hits" of romance and attention. So, back to this women. If she had been friendly and warm every time you contacted her, and then one day she quit responding at all, you probably would have wondered what happened, but you would have given up pretty quickly. Instead, she had you trained to jump through more and more hoops and try more and more things, to get her attention. The good news is that you can declined to be trained in this way. As soon as you see that someone is trying to get you to jump through hoops to get her attention, you can calll her on it or just avoid her. You can even use this knowledge yourself, albeit in a much more ethical way. When you are being treated right, respond warmly and when you are being treated wrong, ignore the person. She'll either learn to treat you right, if she's a person of good will, or she'll go look for better sport. One other piece of advice: when a woman starts talking to you about things she *ought* to be talking to her husband about, it's a good clue to cut it off.

Thank you, Emma. I sincerely appreciate your responses. I have found this
to be perhaps the most embarrassing part of my life, and I'm beginning to
understand why I treated this woman the way I did, when I've never acted
like that before. More importantly, I'm beginning to see why I allowed
myself to be disrespectfully treated as well.

And thank you for pointing out intermittent reinforcement to me. I was
unfamiliar with it and how it can be skillfully used in the art of the
tease.

[Emma Anne]

Guilty Guy <Calgon@takemeaway.com> wrote:

Thank you, Emma. I sincerely appreciate your responses. I have found this to be perhaps the most embarrassing part of my life, and I'm beginning to understand why I treated this woman the way I did, when I've never acted like that before. More importantly, I'm beginning to see why I allowed myself to be disrespectfully treated as well. And thank you for pointing out intermittent reinforcement to me. I was unfamiliar with it and how it can be skillfully used in the art of the tease.

I'm glad I was able to help! If you can't come to an anonymous
newsgroup to analyze your embarrassing experiences, where can you come?