The Business of Affairs and Infidelity
In direct response to the continued growth in the number of available ‘clientele’, there are many ‘experts’ rushing to the trough to gorge themselves on ‘affair commerce’ in their own particular style.
As I wrote in Proof Can be Weaker than Truth:
It’s inevitable that someone will find a way to capitalize on the doubts and pain of infidelity – after all, therapists, life coaches, and counselors have been doing it for years. Television shows like Cheaters, or Unfaithful are popular ‘entertainment’. The myriad of chat shows that sensationalize affairs have all cashed in on the misery that affairs and infidelity can bring to a family. The bookshelves are filled with self-help books. Dodgy marital recovery programs are plentiful.
So, someone added DNA testing of the suspected female cheater’s underwear to the trough? No biggie. After all, we already have that trough stacked high with tasty tidbits in film and television, in the newspapers (face it, sex sells), in psychology, and in cheating sites on the web … so sure, let’s add in a DNA testing assay. It’s not an unethical business model, it’s simply selling its testing services to the general public in response to a continued trend of affairs.
I am sure that there are a slew of other things that we can heft into the affair and infidelity feeding trough too. There’s plenty of fodder to go around.
Affair Help: Marketing the Myth
One increasingly popular trend is the infidelity and affair websites that sell their services to save your relationship. While Infidelity Help Group makes affair help freely available to anyone who chooses to look for it, we are not living under a rock, subscribing to some Star Trek-esque idea of a Utopian society, free from the heinous capitalistic monster. I understand why people market items from infidelity websites and do not believe that anyone should be prevented from creating an ethical business around their own work, experience or knowledge about infidelity.
In short, I am completely in support of the concept of people making money! I DO though take a view against the sites that peddle unqualified infidelity advice for a fee, or that try to sell The Big Secret to saving your marriage in marital reconciliation programs, or that in some way hold infidelity support and information to ransom.
I also take a position against crafting deliberately controversial theories about infidelity that are specifically designed to secure a niche in the market.
In the posts Affair Help: Do Affairs Save Marriages and Affair Help: Reaction and Response, book deals were firmly in the cross hairs. Again, I see no problem with people making money from selling books, but let’s be clear: Being controversial sells. Being controversial and claiming to be an expert sells even better.
The jewel in the crown is being controversial, and claiming to be an expert while also being a psychologist … and this trifecta is really where this mini-rant was founded, because I think that people deserve some honesty about infidelity, especially from the professionals to whom they turn when an affair hits their relationship.
When I read articles like this from Dr Tammy Nelson (excerpted from her book) I find it difficult to believe that this isn’t partly (or perhaps wholly) a product of trying to find a new angle to sell.
Affairs: Collusion and Agreement
To be picky, the definition of collusion given in her own link does not state “secret cooperation” – instead it says “secret agreement”. Last time I checked, agreement to non-monogamy isn’t an affair or infidelity – it’s an open relationship.
Those who have experienced an affair in their relationship did not have the power of veto OR agreement, “secretly” or otherwise. The cheater made a unilateral choice without consultation with their partner. That’s not agreement even if I use the same dictionary as Dr Nelson.
Yes, yes we do. We don’t just ‘want’ to. We do it, and we do it loudly and without apology. Because it’s asinine to apportion blame elsewhere.
This concept that the faithful partner is to blame somehow for their cheater’s affair is tantamount to blaming the dog for being kicked. Are we really going to start down the road where we ‘collude’ (hey, she used it first!) to blame domestic violence on the victim (“She made me do it”) or alcoholism on the spouse (“He drove me to drink”)? Really? If this is how psychologists and therapists think, why should anyone ever seek their hideous version of help?
Yes -“even if unconsciously”- the faithful spouse clearly has incredible magical powers to be able compel their cheater into an affair against their will by some force of hocus pocus.
It’s difficult to discern the exact nature of the cooperation in which they were supposed to have engaged. Perhaps the idea is that they created an environment that forced the poor misunderstood cheater to take the only path available to them – an affair? There were no other choices. No. There was no other way to either exit the relationship, or seek help for the problems, or to even talk about it. Newp.
It was an inescapable path for the cheater, who was unavoidably compelled to take that road despite kicking and screaming in protest against it, at every step. (Excuse me while I mop the dripping sarcasm from my keyboard.)
Tying this to her other points, Dr Nelson is postulating that by simply having an awareness of an affair, it creates a ‘secret cooperation’ with it.
What an impressive example of a non sequitur argument! Last time I checked, a valid argument requires that one or more basic premises have some logical connection. What Dr Nelson is essentially saying is that knowledge of a partner’s affair means agreement to it, and cooperation with it.
Well, I am fully aware that my dog licks his butt but I am sure I don’t agree and I am damn sure I don’t cooperate! (My apologies – inane drivel sometimes prompts me to respond in kind.)
Now, I accept that all of this is designed to plug her book. I understand that she had to find a new angle to sell. I am not criticizing her for trying to make money by selling a book about infidelity.
However … I think that there is a schism of difference between suggesting that less than perfect interpersonal dynamics might make someone more willing to consider an affair and Dr Nelson’s assertion that a faithful partner secretly cooperated with an affair by their mere knowledge of it.
I understand that business is business. I won’t support an inauthentic premise just to sell a book, controversial or otherwise, especially where it can further damage the already injured and vulnerable.