Читать книгу Cyber Infidelity - Dr Eve - Страница 6

Since Noah released a pigeon from the Ark to see if the flood was over, pigeons have been glorified as messengers of important epistles: including love letters, both licit and illicit. Long distances, protective fathers and men out hunting in dangerous conditions for long periods created a hunger for love messages. Talking about love, romantic customs, dating rituals and tokens of love all form part of courtship. People have found ways to communicate love and sexual feelings to each other, be it by pigeon, messenger, airmail letter, telegraph or fax. Historically, people have always wooed and courted each other with words and language.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) continues this tradition but, uniquely, changes the dance of courtship and intimacy by providing a large, instantly accessible group of people available in an environment which, as you will see, enhances and speeds up the process of intimacy, making it faster than the fastest pigeon can fly.9 Courtship is a necessary part of mating. Ask any primate, who will tell you of their love for grooming, caressing, hitting, licking or biting a potential sexual partner. You will hear them screaming, grinding their teeth or barking to capture attention. You will see them staring, raising their tail and exposing their bright red bottoms, and even expelling a strong smell, to get the attention of a sexual partner. People on online dating sites do this with well-considered descriptive words, reflective profiles, selfies and Snapchat. As Albright so charmingly states, ‘[w]hen the subtle power, instant gratification and almost universal wish to be found interesting, attractive and desirable come together’,10 relationships accelerate – and there is nothing as accelerated as the Internet. This is the power of courting online.

On the African savanna, men and women roamed equally, courting each other and many others to gather seed and semen. As man civilised himself into larger communities, villages, towns and cities, however, his courtship behaviour towards women became more uncivilised.

In ancient times, mating consisted of men capturing non-consenting women as spoils of war. The Middle Ages saw the ritual and rule of arranged marriages – business relationships in which voiceless women were forced into fusions that strategically improved families’ property, monetary or political alliances. And here begins our first taste of formally recognised system of infidelity: the romance, rules and art of courtly love allowed knights and ladies to show their admiration regardless of their marital status. In medieval times, love became important; since you did not get it inside an arranged marriage, it was acceptable to get it outside marriage. Here’s the kicker: as long as the rules of fidelity and chastity were observed,11 a separation between love and sex was formally given the nod. Love was deified, forcing people into secret sexual activities – infidelity.

Technology has robbed me of any romantic notions I may have had of this courtly love period in history. In the brilliantly produced television series Game of Thrones,12 blood, sex, scandal and infidelity reflect a violent society that Steven Pinker, in his book The Better Angels of our Nature,13 believes will never again rear its ugly head.

Then the courtship rules changed again. The Victorian era romanticised love and made it a primary requirement for marriage. Courting became more public and formal. Courtship involved ‘one man and one woman spending intentional time together to get to know each other with the expressed purpose of evaluating the other as a potential husband or wife’.14 Those were the days in which your world consisted of a small community with limited choices of suitors and maidens. No one even vaguely considered same-sex courting – oh dear, pass me the smelling salts! You were courted in your own home by a man who lived across the road from you under the watchful eyes of Mom and brothers. No one could imagine a World Wide Web in which you had personal agency within the privacy of your bedroom, office, or local hangout, dressed or undressed, to choose your own partner from a virtual community of billions of people across the globe.

Burzumato describes four cultural forces that assisted in moving mate selection to a courtship system that includes ‘the date’.15 Firstly, as discussed, courtship moved from public acts in private spaces to private or individual acts conducted in public spaces – from gaining parents’ permission to sit on the porch with you, to taking you out to dinner and a movie, for example. And perhaps a cuddle in the back seat of the car. The car revolutionised dating, being a small space, private and intimate, filled with possibilities. Now, it is the Internet that has revolutionised courtship and dating. All you require is a profile and a mobile device or computer: man and machine meeting and making out in the car, workspace and marital bed.

Dating was normalised as the conduit for courtship. Technically, dating is when two people deliberate and consensually agree to meet socially and publicly to engage in a social activity. The intention is more than friendship. It provides a real-life, face-to-face opportunity to market yourself, and to assess each other’s suitability as a long- or short-term partner. Back in the day, you went on a date as your mother made you or you were flattered by his attention – or, first prize, because you were really aroused and interested in who he or she may be. Social media has short-circuited this: by the time the date happens, you know an awful lot about this person. I know that before you go on an In Real Life date you Google the person – or are you a Google-abstinent dater?16

Burzumato’s second cultural force – namely, the early-20th-century rise of the ‘agony aunt’ giving advice about dating and courtship – stereotyped dating rules. This ‘higher authority’ determined what was ‘normal’ for you. It was ‘normal’ for the man to invite the woman on a date, to plan it and to pay for it. The inverse was not contemplated, continuing the belief that women needed to be wooed and seduced and men needed to hunt them down.

In 1994, I entered the world as an agony aunt as Dr Eve, and changed this script. Maybe it was my training at the Institute of Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, my feminist agenda or my own liberal upbringing that disallowed me to consider these dating rules to be normative. Mostly, it was the many people who wrote to me, who taught me their dating needs: an open environment in which fun, respect, consent and equality prevailed. And sex. My new dating suggestions were inclusive of the woman wanting to have sex on the first date. Withhold sexist stereotypes and judgements – your responsibility is to ensure there is a condom handy, I advised.

From the original religious script dictating rigid courtship patterns to the familial script, the dating script that has grabbed people’s attention the most, and that continues to hold it until this day, is the media script. Think Kardashians and you get the picture! According to this script, dating happens in public forums. We receive these courtship messages passively via reality shows. We really believe that the way to find a partner is to be accepted on to The Bachelor or The Bachelorette.

The third major influence on courtship was the sexual revolution of the 1970s. Why should a man marry you if he could be sexual with a woman without the commitment? In addition, the oral contraceptive arrived in the late 1960s, concretising the idea of free sex for everyone and, most importantly, separating forever the joined-at-the-hip team of reproduction and marriage. With free love available, there was no need for private spaces as courting once again became proudly public. Women liberally invited men or women on dates and paid for themselves – then took them home for a pregnancy-free condom-covered sexual experience.

Finally, in the late 20th century, the influence of capitalism crept into our courtship language and dating behaviour. Words like ‘competition’, ‘scarcity’ and ‘abundance’ were used in private spaces. Courting became a marketplace: men and women had a price on their heads and were up for sale to the highest bidder. We began to become commodified.

I felt this most strongly standing at the bar of the Four Seasons Hotel in New York, a well-known, high-class bar that serves expensive drinks and attracts single, corporate women wearing black and heels and men in Wall Street suits, who stop over on their way home to the domesticity of Long Island, the wife and a couple of kids. The most I got was a once-over glance, a ‘Hi, how are you?’ as each man standing in front of me gazed around the room, seeking greener pastures and, with an easy rhythm that seemed acceptable in this community, moved on to the next woman – who greeted him as if she were working on an assembly line. Who’s next? I remember thinking, There have to be easier, more dignified ways of meeting men in New York City.

I went online. It was 2010.

Online dating sites have been around since the early 1990s, reflecting our natural inclination to connect – an inclination that both married and single people display. In 1999, 2% of American singles had used some form of online personal services. By 2002, 25% of singles had used Internet dating services. By 2008, Internet dating was a $1 billion industry.17 Technology has, indeed, improved – but, as you will see, it is the de-stigmatising of online dating that has contributed to its massive uptake as a primary form of mating and courting.

Remember those early bulletin boards and forums for singles? When I launched my first website in 1995, I realised that people did not want to chat about my posts; rather, they wanted to chat and flirt with each other. I followed the massive success of America Online and offered chat rooms.

Match.com was born in 1994. Perhaps it will surprise you to know that despite the founding of Facebook in 2004, Americans spent over $500 million on online dating in 2007, making it the second-largest industry for paid content on the web, next to pornography.18

By the time I signed up for my online dating adventure, eHarmony had created algorithms to promise you a perfect match. I created a profile on a dating site for single people. This profile is pivotal to dating and future courtship success. I was the pigeon carrying my own message to a million strangers. I found it laborious, boring, dishonest, and wondered why I or anyone else would spend so many hours having superficial chats when, actually, I wanted to meet as soon as possible and do a real-life check.

It seems many others felt the same. But, as you know, it took many more hours of trite (and sometimes meaningful) online chats before IRL (In Real Life) became even more possible via a new form of technology.

In 2012, the world of mobile online dating applications was born with Grindr and Tinder leading the pack. As you will read, this has changed the face of dating. You may still long to meet a real-life person at a real-life party. Chances are that the party is in your own lounge, and consists of you and a group of friends giggling over photos on your mobile dating apps. Or – more likely – of you alone in your lounge, late at night on your laptop, scrolling through profiles and photos, as your partner sleeps soundly in your king-size marital bed.

The Internet is triangulated into our offline relationships. We spend less time watching TV, socialising offline, relaxing and thinking, and 100 minutes a day online just for leisure.19 Social networking is the most popular and time-consuming online activity. Users spend more than one fifth (22%) of their time engaging on social media channels.

Consider how much time you spend online. Think about what you do online. Track yourself as you see the rabbit hole of infidelity appearing oh so casually on your screen – the innocence of a Facebook post, a skanky tweet that you return, or the more deliberate decision to create a profile on www.AshleyMadison.com.

Stay with me as you stare at that rabbit hole.

It is my passionate belief that dating, courtship, love and sexuality will never be the same again. The pigeon has flown the coop forever. We have entered a new sexual revolution. Our cyber world is our real world. And cyber infidelity is the most scandalous and salacious seduction.

Before you bury yourself in the CMC of online dating and infidelity, let’s go offline and see how the rules of courtship have changed. In other words, what are you – male, female, married and single folk – doing for sex and love offline, In Real Life, in face-to-face encounters?

Hook-ups, no strings attached, friends with benefits, booty calls

After many heartbreaks, I have decided to have a ‘friends with benefits’ type of relationship.

This way I can focus on my career and daughter and still get my sexual needs met.

I met a single guy online who is up for the same. We have chatted about my rules – condoms, no videos, no photos and no threesomes. There is beauty in the honesty that exists in this type of relationship.

He wants to use sex toys. And, as I have never tried them before, I thought it would be an adventure. I said I’m not happy to use his sex toys for hygiene reasons, which he thought fair. So I guess we’re going shopping (yes, I know about your shop ).

What other ‘rules’ or safety tips can you recommend? What about unprotected oral sex?

We are meeting this weekend in a public place for the first time and I am not planning on taking him home then.

www.dreve.co.za

I understand what courage it took this woman to put herself into the vulnerable world of the no-rules friends-with-benefits modern relationship. I guess that, like most women, she’d been raised on a healthy diet of traditional values dictating that women should not show sexual interest outside of a relationship, that all sex has to be intimate and that intimacy can only happen between two people who know and love each other and who are contained in this thing called ‘relationship’. She had probably absorbed that men only want women for sex and that, if she gave in to her desire, she would lose the man along with her ‘reputation’. Which is why female baby boomers married early: to keep their virginity intact, to have sex (finally) and to maintain their names in town.

What she had not yet anticipated was that she was about to jump off a precipice and free-float her way through a new form of relating. She hoped that throwing out the traditional expectations of a relationship would free her from heartache. Little did she know just how confusing modern relationships are.

I am, indeed, thankful that relationship choices, and the options for relating sexually offline, have expanded exponentially. Up to now, your options have been a significant relationship, engaged, married, divorced, widowed, cohabiting or single. In fact, I battle to keep up, and prefer my clients to describe their preferred way of relating rather than to have me box them clinically.

And herein lies the rub: there are no boxes, no scripts, no rules for these varied and interesting new forms of relationship. They are undefined by society, leaving people excited but vulnerable to being hurt or disappointed.

Let’s try to get some clarity about casual sex, the new form of relating that defines modern relationships, be they online or offline, or between men and women, married or single people.

Casual sex, the umbrella term I choose to use, is ‘a physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have casual sex or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting the extra commitments of a more formal romantic relationship’.20 Basically, the common denominator in all of these new relationships is sexual behaviour in uncommitted relationships.

What does this mean? A 30-something-year-old man consulted with me about his casual sex confusion. Shy, reticent and lacking opportunities and confidence to meet women, his neighbour upstairs casually offered him sex whenever he felt like it. She was bored, horny and in love with someone who was not reciprocating her affection. He tried it once, and naively and painfully fell in love. She put up a boundary: sex only. He was devastated.

He was stuck in the traditional expectations of wine, dine, beg for a kiss, pursue, send flowers, masturbate furiously before the next date to avoid early ejaculation. And once the woman gave the go-ahead, condom on, penis inside vagina and voilà! You were in a relationship.

This man was lost. The very pillars on which he depended for structure and guidance in a relationship had crumbled: monogamy, sexual fidelity and commitment were not there. Or, they were there, but in a different way. His FWB wanted commitment to sex only without emotional or sexual fidelity while she freely sought to pursue a monogamous relationship with a man she truly desired both emotionally and sexually. Do you see how interesting and confusing modern relationships become – before you even get online, get seduced and get led into an infidel’s paradise?

One would imagine that with all this consensual casual sex emerging as normative, reputations would not matter. Do you still care what people think about your sexual and relational behaviour? Do you label yourself as ‘promiscuous’ when you’re having sex with more than one person, or when you’re having sex both online and offline with different people? And mostly, do you care about your reputation when you’re married and playing online? Believe it or not, reputation still counts.

I was aghast listening to a group of female students from the University of Cape Town, South Africa – with an average age of 22 – sharing their offline relationship rules. They have what they call the 90-day rule, according to which penetration can only happen 90 days after the first ‘date’. I use this word – ‘date’ – with caution. As you’ll see, a ‘date’ can be anything from a hook-up to a booty call to friends with benefits to a fling. It may even be an old-fashioned date, which may involve being collected in a real-life car or consensually and deliberately meeting at a restaurant for dinner that has been arranged via CMC.

The reason for this rule, they tell me, is to protect their reputations and ensure that the man will stick around after sex. Now, isn’t that interesting! These liberated female students have old-fashioned reputation-saving systems in place to gain traditional, real-life relationships: systems that involve keeping men away from their vaginas for as long as possible to make them hungry for the woman as a whole person.

I went back to my students at the University of Cape Town, intrigued by their 90-day rule. I wanted to learn more about their offline rules of engagement. I wanted to know about casual sex. I was learning that these educated, enlightened women, who are digital natives,21 want real-life, old-fashioned commitment. They want a relationship yet, paradoxically, fear putting a fence around a casual situation and calling it a relationship. This would carry all the usual relationship rules: monogamy, sexual fidelity and commitment. But no one wants to admit to wanting this. So, it’s kept casual and called all sorts of names: hook-up, friend with benefits, NSA, booty call, hanging out. One student called it a sensationship!

Many studies on youth populations tell us how rampant casual relationships are, specifically on campuses. For example, 25% of first-time sexual intercourse happens with a friend, stranger or an occasional date partner. About half of sexually active adolescents have had intercourse with a nonromantic partner.22 The principles of commitment, monogamy and fidelity are being redefined. Or are they? As you’ll see, these students – like people from all age groups – eventually seek long-term relationships, even when they begin as hook-ups or friends-with-benefits (FWB) agreements.23

Grello24 asked American college students about NSA, to find that 60% of them engaged in it – mostly with friends rather than with strangers, as part of their transition into sexuality, in combination with alcohol and recreational drugs. These students stated that frequency of affectionate and genital behaviours was associated with expectations of the relationship. Many of these female students were depressed.

I’d be worn out having to code it: this many kisses means a relationship; this many penetrative acts means a hook-up; this many touches on the shoulder means a friends-with-benefits situation. Another study on young adults questioned their motivations for casual sex. Both genders stated sexual desire, sexual experimentation, physical pleasure, alcohol use and the attractiveness of their partners as motivations. Men had unique reasons: they did it to enhance their status and to conform to normative peer-group behaviour. It will come as no surprise that women had casual sex to increase the probability of long-term commitment from a sex partner.25 Point made by my UCT students! I wondered whether I would find this same need for commitment online.

FWB, one of the newer forms of offline courting, blends two relationships: friendship and romantic relationships. As a woman, I learnt pretty early on that people fell distinctly into these two groups. You liked your friend, but loved your romantic partner. One group was for sex and love, and one for friendship. You could have more than one friend at a time, but only one romantic partner. And each category had its own set of rules. Once a romance was over, a substantial amount of time had to pass before this person could become a ‘friend’. A non-sexual friend. And if you were friends and fancied each other, you should expect it to progress to a romantic relationship. It was considered sleazy and weak to have sex with your ex or with a ‘friend’ who showed no ‘romantic’ interest.

I’ve learnt through many of my radio shows and my Facebook page that sex with the ex can be more common than it was when the same couple was in a romantic relationship. It’s called ‘cycling’: relationships that end and renew, with lots of sex between the phases.26 Despite sex with the ex becoming less stigmatised and a more acceptable, new form of relating, I see emotional pain in these couples as rules of management are lacking. And, as worrying, I see high-risk sexual behaviour: how do you ask your ex-lover to put on a condom when you didn’t use condoms when you were together?

The primary task of a romantic relationship is to accomplish relationship development – that is, to initiate the relationship, move it to intimacy or bonding, and then keep it there.27 Friendship is a ‘non-sexual relationship of two people, based upon shared experience and characterized by mutual personal regard, understanding, and loyalty’.28 I choose this definition as it boldly states the non-sexual nature of friendship.

Yet almost every couple with whom I work aspires to be ‘best friends’: a non-sexual status. This is a remnant of the traditional romantic model in which couples are encouraged – even manipulated – to be one with each other. I know these couples because they seek my professional intervention for low sexual desire. And, to my surprise, my respondents on www.AshleyMadison.com expect marriage to offer friendship. Plus they go online to seek a ‘friend’. Ergo Facebook – but with sex! It is fascinating to see FWB emerging across all ages as a relationship model of choice.

I can see why it is so appealing. No heavy conversations analysing ‘the relationship’, no domesticity to deal with, your friend is a mutually agreed-upon phone call or – more likely – WhatsApp message away, no romantic dates, flowers on the bed, expected showers together, or any display of outward commitment, leaving both partners available for other attachments.

However, there is the unspoken little piece of heart that longs for the possibility of FWB turning into a ‘real’, committed relationship. This dichotomy underscores casual relationships. Dammit, I say to myself, can we never escape the need for monogamy, commitment and fidelity?

FWB has characteristics of both the Romantic and the Friendship traditional models, being, simply, friends who have sex.

My first exposure to FWB was a conversation with my very confused and disappointed 19-year-old cousin. A freshman at an American Ivy League university, he couldn’t wait to begin dating on campus. Back after his first semester, he discussed the dating conundrums he was facing. No one wanted to date. People wanted to hook up. Friends wanted to have sex. His mother had raised him as egalitarian and had vigilantly prepared him with dating etiquette.

It seems that people choose FWB for the perceived benefits of avoiding commitment, sexual exclusivity and monogamy and the convenience of sex, trust and safety while staying single. Sure, feelings may develop: someone may get hurt and we could lose our friendship.29 But this pales in comparison to the gains. It’s all very confusing.

A father stood outside my therapy room door with his 16-year-old son. He had brought him to consult with me about how to handle the hook-up culture. The teen was fresh-faced, athletic and keen to share his dating conundrums. In the previous week, he had been to his first underage club party. He vowed not to return to this uncomfortable place with its illegal alcohol and smoking and mass of young girls and boys on a dance floor, unable to speak over the loud music.

Peer pressure drove him back a few days later. He had learnt the rules: no need to flirt, converse or seduce. The best-looking guy gets to hook up. He wanted to hook up, to wear the badge of honour coveted by all his peers. He noticed a pretty girl on the dance floor. He moved over and began to dance in front of her. She responded with a smile, the non-verbal cue of acceptance. Soon, he leant in and kissed her deeply. The song ended. He moved off the dance floor. He woke the next morning feeling awful and ambivalent. He’d passed the test, been initiated into the hook-up culture. He was relieved and proud, but could not come to terms with not having spoken one word to this girl. He didn’t know her name. It flew in the face of his idea of the progression of a ‘real’’ relationship. He was, however, looking forward to his return to the club that same night for another hook-up – perhaps he would even get to feel a girl up, in addition to kissing her.

Penetration was neither his aspiration nor his goal; orgasm, in any other form, was. Penetration was being saved for a ‘decent’ girl he hoped to meet in a ‘decent’ environment, outside the club situation.

As a pioneer of sexuality education in South Africa, I hold an uncomfortable measure of responsibility for the changing heterosexual scripts that began to uncurl in the late 1990s. Fear of HIV/Aids was rampant; sexual ignorance, abstinence-based policies in the USA and South Africa’s mortifying ABC (Abstain, Be Faithful, Condomise) policy, together with political denialism under Thabo Mbeki, ensured that we placed a big ‘No Entry’ sign over vaginal penetration. Once we knew that HIV/Aids was not a gay man’s disease, we clamped down on vaginas, not knowing that unprotected anal sex actually has the highest risk of transmission. Young people were bound to find other ways to avoid transmission and still have sexual play. I joined the voices that advocated oral sex as a great safer-sex alternative. Young women who saw this as a way of keeping their virginity – and their reputations – intact, grasped at it. Inadvertently, I added to the vaginal shame that women carry and hyper-idealised vaginal penetration.

Quietly, a new sexual script emerged: one in which vaginal intercourse moved down the ladder of sexual activities and in which oral and anal sex became normative number-one choices for young adults.30 Many other forces conspired to bring about this change – first and foremost the accessibility of the Internet, which brought pornography and non-pornographic media into young people’s private spaces, but also a change of marriage norms and significantly more moderate rules in colleges and universities, institutions at which girls and boys were equally present.

I tell you this because the reordering of sexual activities, focusing on the so-called casualness of oral and anal sex, created a paradigm shift that resulted in the emergence of a new subculture: a heterosexual youth hook-up culture.

Today, the age of marriage has increased. Women marry at about age 27 and men at about age 28 and a half.31 And they consent to sexual activity from a younger age. Age at first sex is fairly consistent worldwide. For example, the mean age at first sex among young men and women in South Africa ranges from 16 to 18 years, depending on the age and type of sample.32

Think about this for a moment: this is a lot of years for young people potentially to be having and enjoying sexual activity. It is a historically unique and wondrously long window of opportunity for young pre-reproductive adults. And, into this window has climbed this new form of sexual relating. Kids just wanted to have sex; colleges and universities offered opportunity, privacy and permission to this overly sexualised youth group. The hook-up culture emerged.33

Picture the scene. You’re 20-something, at a college or dorm party. Alcohol and recreational drugs flow. Boy sees girl. Girl sees boy. Spontaneously, consensually they find a room and engage in heavy kissing and/or petting, oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation or/and intercourse. Once they’ve cleaned up, they part, knowing there is no promise for more. It is an uncommitted sexual encounter between two people. This flies in the face of what we expect from women, the gender that is supposed to want emotional connection, romance, love, commitment and monogamy. Garcia and Reiber studied the motivation of 507 undergraduate male and female college students for hook-ups.34 Of these, 89% said their motivation for hook-ups was physical or sexual gratification. Yes, women love sex! Over half of both men and women reported emotional gratification as motivator. I get it. Even a small piece of sex, read as attention and affection, fulfils our desire for intimacy. Or does it? Is a hook-up offline or online fulfilling? It seems that time and again, as this study shows, evolution kicks in and reflects the dilemma we face today: 29% of the men and 43% of the women said, ‘Well, actually, a traditional romantic relationship would be the ideal outcome of this hook-up. Maybe not now; I have years to settle down.’

And there it is, folks: our need for both casual sexual pleasure and attachment cannot be denied. This is beautifully mirrored in my online work with www.AshleyMadison.com (AM).

I asked single people on AM to share their current romantic and sexual activities. I was immediately struck by the egalitarian nature of casual sex: men and women are engaging equally in casual sex offline. Then: pow! Look at how this behaviour spreads across all ages across the globe. Casual sex is not a youth-driven phenomenon. Few people bother to ask people over the age of 45, less so people over 55, what they’re up to in bed. Does this mean that people no longer believe in the principles of monogamy, sexual fidelity and commitment? Keep reading.

I wanted to extrapolate this to other social media platforms. I posted this question on my FB page: ‘Have you ever had a satisfactory hook-up experience?’ The overwhelming response was yes!

I never used to think much about hook-ups, but I decided to give it a go one last time. It was awesome!

The lady and I met a while ago. Neither of us was exactly looking for a relationship, but we both had ‘biological’ needs that can’t always be satisfied by masturbation. So, we decided to rent a movie and have some wine at my house and just let things progress. I carry a lot of tension in my shoulders. She noticed me rolling my neck and offered a massage, which I accepted. A leg massage was also offered and accepted. I was beautifully relaxed after that. It got late, I started yawning, we retired to my bedroom. I changed into boxers, she disrobed and got into bed wearing underwear.

We lay there talking for quite a while, actually. It was surreal, but also nice. I felt movement and heard a bra being unhooked. Now, I have a lot of control over my body, but even I can’t keep behaving myself when a woman lies next to me in only knickers.

As I said, the whole experience was awesome. Being very relaxed before having sex is great. The next morning we woke, had coffee in my garden, chatted. Then I took her home, but before we got to her house, we stopped for more coffee. I dropped her off and drove home. No discomfort or awkwardness between us. We are still in contact today. We haven’t had a ‘meeting’ again as yet, but anything is possible. This certainly was one of the best sexual experiences in my life thus far. (Male, 31)

I’ve done the whole ‘hook-up’ thing and it wasn’t bad at all. I say, if the opportunity presents itself and all parties involved are sober, consenting and safe adults, why the heck not? (Female, 30-something)

I challenge you to recognise the stage of dating you are in right now. Online, offline, married or single, pick all that apply to you currently:

1.The one-night stand – random meeting, alcohol-induced sex, no intentions known or expressed.

2.The second glance – happens when there is no memory of whether the sex was good on the first night; known as ‘round 2’.

3.The booty call – the decision has been made that you are worthy of sexual pursuit. It is now acceptable to text at any hour, usually when you are intoxicated, and invite the person to come over. It may be awkward to do this sober as you’ve only ever been sexual.

4.Friends with benefits – it’s time to get to know the person with whom you’ve been having lots of sex. Talking is allowed, but forget about any romance – or intimacy, as in eye-gazing intercourse. You leave post-orgasm with a handshake.

5.The date – you’re not dating, but you’re on your first official date. Now you can eye-gaze over dinner or a walk as you talk. These dates decide whether you move into the next stages or delete each other from social media.

6.The fling – you see no future with each other but enjoy the sex and companionship. You’ve mutually agreed that you’ll continue to have fun in this harmless manner.

7.The stepping stone – one of you believes that there is a future together and the other sees you as an ‘in-the-meantime’ until the right person comes along. One of you risks getting hurt here.

8.The backup – you’re good enough to be with, but not right now. You’re kept around in case things don’t work out with anyone else. Neither of you wants to let go completely. This stage can’t be maintained indefinitely. Something has to give.

9.The boyfriend or girlfriend – finally, you are allowed to have feelings for this person you’ve been shagging for weeks or months. However, permanence or marital status is not guaranteed.

10.Lost in translation – you will be confused living through these stages. Communication is essential, yet it’s not high on the agenda. Sex is. Expect to be hurt and exhilarated, and to go back online to search for ‘the one and only’.35

Imagine being lost in this desert, having to make up rules as each new encounter occurs. Imagine having to check in with yourself, first of all, to ask a number of pertinent questions:

•Do I risk losing this great friendship because of the sex we lazily decided to engage in one rainy Sunday afternoon?

•Do I ask that we get tested?

•Do I insist on a condom?

•Dare I ask for fidelity, monogamy and commitment, the sacred pillars of modern-day relationships?

•Do I say, ‘Your breath smells’?

•Can I say, ‘I love you’?

•Can I bring him/her home to meet my friends/kids/family? My husband?

•Can I date other people?

I like these conundrums. I like that you are thinking out of the box. Let’s face it – you like casual sex because you like sex! It’s so liberating to go into a situation with no intention other than the mutual desire for sex. For orgasm. Who says that every sexual interchange has to be intimate, self-disclosing and important? Why not have as your goal just sexual fun? Who says that’s not intimate? It is! Just differently! Think about how you have sex with your significant familiar partner. You do it out of duty, or for a reward or to have kids; it may be mechanical, the antithesis of intimacy. Are you grown-up enough to manage the consequences of this new form of modern relating?

Globally, both single and married men and women of all ages are entangled in hook-ups, FWB and NSA. It’s so common that it’s become normalised. Why is this is so seductive to you? Not you, as a single person. I am talking to you specifically. You, who is married, attached, committed by laws and oaths and children and traditions; you, who so avidly – and even compulsively – goes online to seek sex and love. Why do you risk home and hearth, your heart and genitals, for the hook-up, FWB and NSA?

It’s so desperately seductive and tempting. Until you get caught out – then it’s just old-fashioned infidelity. Infidelity is about betrayal. It offends and hurts. Badly. It is considered one of the worst arrows that a significant partner can sling at a once-beloved.

Walk with me down your infidelity path strewn with roses, love, sex, seduction and salaciousness – and thorns. Let’s click through and untangle the web in which you find yourself. That is, the World Wide Web. Before we go online, let’s meander down the garden path of good, old-fashioned, face-to-face, genitals-to-genitals, heart-to-heart infidelity. I want you to see the differences and similarities between online and offline infidelity. After all, you’re doing both.

Old-fashioned, face-to-face infidelity

Here I am now, 62 years of age. Married to a kind, wonderful husband, who has given me overseas trips, a beautiful home, but has not been able to be sexually active for more than 22 years, of which we have been married for 25 years. My first marriage ended badly. I was left alone with a child. Struggling for seven years, I found my current spouse, who was well into his 30s, never married before. So, we married. He gave my son and me a wonderful life, and we are all close and successful. We live a very exciting life.

However, for nine years, before I retired four years ago, I worked very closely with my Japanese boss. As every story goes … we got very involved. He, too, is married. Neither of us wants to upset our home life. He constantly wishes to spend some intimate time with me – not always being sexual, but meeting for coffee. We are so suitable. I should have broken the relationship off long ago. I am unable to get my husband to commit to me, regarding touching me, kissing me. He just can’t and does not feel up to any of that, but adores me.

We’ve been to therapy, I’ve told him about this other person. I cannot change him, nor will he change. My happiness depends on spending time with this other person, and each time I say yes to him, I seem at the last minute to cancel the arrangement due to guilt. Am I normal?

www.dreve.co.za

You got married. You did it in front of a group of people who stood witness to this formal, moral, legal and, probably, religious ceremony. You followed the rules of love dictated to you by society and your family, religion and culture, and found The One.36 During courtship and dating, your love for The One had been all-consuming; when you stood at that altar, you seriously believed that you would never want to look elsewhere for love. You also believed that sex with The One would always be satisfying – so satisfying that every fantasy of yours would involve The One. You stood at that altar of love and vowed to be monogamous, to love and be in a relationship with only The One for the rest of your life. You then swore commitment. Remember, you promised that you would love and protect this person ‘forever’ and, quite dramatically, you offered to do this until death. At that moment, you bequeathed your resources as well as your body and genitals to The One … for the rest of your life, ‘forsaking all others’. Implicit in this vow is sexual fidelity. You promised to enshrine your body exclusively to The One for the rest of your life. And you vowed to be honest, to be intimate. This model of Romantic love naturally expects intimacy to mean a total disclosure and revelation of your ‘true inner self’.37 Every thought, idea and feeling that you ever have is to be revealed to your partner because that is what is expected in this package deal. In other words, you offered – and, in return, expected – sexual, mental as well as emotional exclusivity.

I want you to begin to consider how useful this form of intimacy is to you right now in your digital world. I want you to think about all those vows and oaths you took, either formally or informally. If you could rewrite them, would you? Think really seriously about them as you consider the following facts.

Right now, irrespective of how long ago you made those promises or vows, you have committed infidelity, are considering it, or are in the midst of an affair, offline, online or in both places. If you’re a woman, in your 30s your chances of real-life cheating are the highest, with a high risk between ages 25 to 49.38 Understandable, considering the desperate need to escape children, career, boredom, depression and a husband who is sexually and emotionally unavailable – and online with pornography or his cyberflirt.

Research indicates that 20–40% of heterosexual married men and 20–25% of heterosexual married women will have an extramarital affair during their lifetime, while 70% of currently dating couples have reported engaging in infidelity.39 Then there is research that estimates that 50–60% of married men and 45–55% of married women engage in extramarital sex at some time in their marriage.40 Bear in mind this is offline, face-to-face infidelity.

Have you told anyone that you are being unfaithful to The One? I’m sure not. Infidelity is about secrecy, which always is accompanied by a measure of shame; in any event, telling removes some of the magic you are trying to create by having an affair. I’m damn sure you’re not going to confess to a researcher that you are unfaithful. My point is that we really don’t know how many people cheat. As you will see, we have such different definitions of cyber infidelity that it is even more difficult to measure scientifically how many people cheat online.

The traditional term ‘cheating’ is defined as ‘[a] sexual act or acts that violate the relatively agreed-upon norms within the relationship (e.g. kissing, oral sex, sexual touching, intercourse)’.41 You know that these less-explicit cheating behaviours of kissing, oral sex and even anal sex in which you’re engaging happen, and perhaps you don’t define them as cheating because they’re not the real deal, as in penetration by a penis of a vagina. One way or another, almost everyone agrees that when fluids are exchanged, when naked skin touches naked skin, it is real sex. And if you’re doing this exchanging with anyone other than the significant partner with whom you have created a fidelity, monogamy and commitment pact, you’re cheating. Read this man’s story; I’m sure we all agree that this is cheating as it involved real-life meetings, secretively conducted, leaving trails of pain and a broken pact:

I was involved in a relationship for about five years. We broke up three years ago because she was involved in another affair while we were still together. Now I’m in love with another woman. My problem is I found out that she was chatting with her ex-boyfriend and they even had an agreement that they were meeting in December last year. When I confronted her about it she told me that it’s over between them. Now whenever she’s not around I fear that she might be keeping in touch with him. My doubts might be real, or I’m just still disturbed by what happened to a previous relationship?

We need to relook this definition as it’s not sufficiently reflective of your current behaviour and attitudes. It does not even begin to cover the other part of cheating that you so enjoy and seek out, namely emotional and mental involvement with another – you know, all that secret sharing, fantasy exploration and deep thought exchange, as well as intimacy you enjoy alone with pornography, both online and offline. In addition, as I’ve said, the word ‘cheating’ feels offensive and judgemental to me. Let’s throw it out.

I propose we use the word ‘infidelity’. It includes sexual activities, emotional activities and viewing pornography. Let’s say it like it is: old-fashioned infidelity refers to ‘a situation where one partner in a committed relationship engages in a relationship with someone other than the spouse, whether that involvement is emotional, physical, or has components of both.’42

There is a catch in this definition, too. Spot it? You’re no longer having ‘relationships’ with others. As you’ve read, you’re hooking up, enjoying friends with benefits, booty calls, falling in love, and even attaching very intimately in real life with a person or people other than The One to whom you signed up for life. However, no matter how modernised the infidelity behaviour becomes, the process of discovery and resultant hurt remains the same, and has since the beginning of time. Even primates know the pain of infidelity and will defend and punish to the death.

I’m often challenged to admit that humans are not meant to be monogamous, usually by people who want me to give them permission to commit infidelity. While I acknowledge that men are evolutionary geared to spread their sperm and women to gather a variety of sperm to ensure continuation of the species, the pain caused by infidelity is so obnoxiously awful that I can understand why society puts punishing, shaming measures in place to ensure monogamy, fidelity and commitment.

However, technology has turned this on its head. We’re not exchanging fluids, but texts in a format called CMC. We’re not crossing countries to hold hands and penetrate. We’re exchanging words, emoticons and photos. And guess what? It feels as real and as good as – even better than – real-life face-to-face relating.

Infidelity hurts so much because it takes the marital script I’ve just described and tears it asunder. It says that your partner is separate from you, that you are not, actually, joined at the hip, that this person has prioritised self-interest over you. It shows how little your partner cares about you and how willing your partner is to deceive you.43

Stop. This is the old-fashioned view of infidelity. As you’ll see, the pain of discovery is as real today as it has been since the beginning of time. Deception, betrayal and breakdown of trust, and a relationship that becomes starved of attention, intimacy and energy, are standard infidelity consequences. Yet in cyberspace, the infidelity’s intentions, actions and behaviours are markedly different.

There is a difference between cyber infidelity and traditional, real-life infidelity. Before we enter the cyber world, I want you to create your own definition of offline, face-to-face infidelity. For yourself. Not for your partner, as this may be different. Do this so you know when you break your own offline rules. Decide which of all the following items apply to your definition, and add your own items.

This is my definition of offline, face-to-face infidelity:

•Sexual intercourse

•Passionate kissing

•Sexual fantasies

•Non-sexual fantasies about falling in love

•Sexual attraction

•Romantic attraction

•Flirting

•Studying/having lunch/going to a movie with someone other than your partner

•Dating or spending time with a different partner

•Petting.44

I say your partner’s definition will be different: substantial research tells us that men and women think differently about infidelity both offline and online. Interestingly, both of you think that sexual behaviour with someone else is unacceptable, a greater betrayal than an emotional attachment to someone else. But she feels way more wounded when he discloses his secrets to another person, spends his time with this person and keeps it secret – much more wounded than if he were to have sex with this person. And, as you would expect, he says, ‘Go ahead and share your feelings with another, but hey, those genitals and body are mine exclusively.’

Perhaps you are wondering why you are thinking about offline cheating or why you have cheated face to face. Is it different offline to online? Indeed it is!

I know why.

When you decided to stand at the altar with The One, consciously or unconsciously, you considered four points. Based on these points, you called the wedding planner. Go on, reconsider them now – now that you may be at your infidelity tipping point (or have crossed the threshold already):

1.Commitment – how keen are you to persist in your current relationship, merging with and being dependent on this person on multiple levels?

2.Investment – how valuable are the resources this person brings to you? These resources could be financial, status or security.

3.Satisfaction – how satisfied does this person and relationship make you feel?

4.Alternatives – is there anyone ‘out there’ who is more attractive, satisfying, pleasing and resourceful than your current partner?

Consider yourself at risk of infidelity if you ticked all four boxes, both offline and online, and highly at risk if you feel your commitment waning and your satisfaction low. Men who feel sexually dissatisfied and women who feel emotionally dissatisfied will seek out an extramarital partner. For a complete infidelity recipe, add in a few personality traits such as a predisposition to novel and intense sensations and experiences often involving risky behaviour plus impulsiveness. If you’re the guy who needs to drive the fastest car/plane/boat, or the woman who is a cowboy on the stock market, you’re at higher risk of infidelity. Top this up with narcissism and, finally, add liberal sexual attitudes. Voilà! Infidelity, here I come!

Over 20 years of clinical practice, I’ve seen the face of offline infidelity change: traditionally, the man was the infidel. He looks guilty and remorseful, she’s in tears. They both know exactly what offline infidelity is: he has dated, spent time or had sexual interaction, including penetration, with someone different. She feels shattered. He has broken the contract, specifically by breaching the assumed exclusivity and privacy that she thought marriage brought her.45 She considered divorce. Her options were pitiful: leave as a victimised woman, single-parenting a couple of kids, older, dependent on a good settlement and, once again, seeking The One; or stay, carrying a heavy stone where her heart once was, never able to enjoy being sexual with that dick again.

Historically, men have felt entitled to cheat, and their wives have felt stifled to complain about it. The playing fields of infidelity levelled once women unshackled themselves from the kitchen sink. In the 1970s, women entered the workforce and greedily grabbed handfuls of cheating.

Today I sit quietly, witness to the new normal offline infidelity unfolding in my therapy room. It was the secretary. It began over the desk. She leant in for too long and he felt alive and throbbing with sexual excitement. He was sexually curious and biting at the bit for new sexual experiences. He had grown weary of his wife’s sexual withholding. He had a liking of fast bikes and pretty women. His wife began to feel his distraction, short-temperedness and loss of sexual interest in her. He was skittish about his whereabouts and went to the toilet with his mobile device. She believed they had a happy marriage. She began to poke. She got a break when he unintentionally left his mobile next to the bedside table. Her heart stopped as she saw the reams of WhatsApp messages. The mental and sexual exclusivity she had signed up for on their wedding day had been shattered. She confronted him. He denied and defended. She kicked the secretary out. He told her he was in love. With both of them. She was determined to stay in the ring for this fight of her life She never contemplated divorce. She did consider a revenge affair. She posted her profile on www.AshleyMadison.com.

It’s time for us to go online, to enter the world of cyber infidelity. Hold on for the ride of your life.