A Second Opinion

        Shirley Glass - Not Just Friends

 

   The misuse of our sexuality is a serious matter. Incest--having sex with a family member--is one of the strongest human taboos. Rape, and sex with a child, are criminal acts. Bigamy and other forms of sex through deceit have criminal consequences. Sex between patient and counselor, or student and teacher, is considered unethical.

   Churches have always viewed sexual intimacy as a prized act, reserved only for marriage. Nearly every religion and legal system allow the betrayed partner to leave the marriage because infidelity is universally considered a violation of the marital vows.

   Unfaithfulness violates social norms, emotional norms, and religious norms.

   Into this milieu steps Shirley Glass. Shirley's intention is to lessen, varnish, alter, and spruce-up infidelity's reputation.

   It isn't what you think, she says. Actually, there is a "new infidelity" in which "well-intentioned people who never intended to be unfaithful are unwittingly forming deep, passionate connections before they realize that they've crossed the line that separates platonic friendship from romantic love."

   In Shirley's lexicon, people don't commit adultery; they "slip into" or "drift into" affairs.

Glass's Study Misleading

   The heart of Shirley Glass's evidence is the 210 unfaithful partners she came across in 20 years of clinical practice. From her clinical sample she makes many misleading generalizations.

   About her sample, we know this much. The sample is not representative of Baltimore, where she lived, much less of the United States. But even if the sample were representative, the small sample size would raise questions about her conclusions.

Invalid Use of Statistics

   In addition, Shirley reports her results in percentages. Often, we suspect, when she uses a number like 38%, she is only talking about 10 or 20 people. When she compares the number of women having workplace affairs in the 1980s with those having workplace affairs in the 1990s, a swing of just 4 people in her sample may account for the result. This method of reporting results is extremely misleading.

No Data to Support Conclusions

   The book is more than 400 pages, with 20 pages of footnotes. There is more than enough room to include her data. Why isn't it there? The most obvious inference is that it would not be to her advantage. Shirley is like the basketball player who steps out of bounds before making the shot. She still wants the results to count even though she violated the statistical rules.

   There are so many logical and factual inconsistencies in Not Just Friends, it is hard to know where to begin. We'll mention just a few.

--Shirley Glass says a prime reason affairs go undetected is because so many people are "brilliant liars." In making that argument, she has just provided the best reason to leave the marriage. How do you live with a brilliant liar?

---If you are getting too close to someone on the Internet, she advises, you should sort things out with a professional. And what story has she told us only a few pages earlier? A story about a psychoanalyst trying to involve a married woman in an affair.

--Shirley tells how she sided with a wife whose husband was irrationally jealous in believing his wife could be unfaithful. Actually the only one in the room who didn't know the truth was Shirley. The wife was involved with a number of men, and the husband had good reason to suspect the truth. When the husband hired a private detective, Shirley was "stunned" by the evidence. So how much of the truth did Shirley discern from other clients?

--Shirley Glass offers no reliable evidence of a "new infidelity," and she redefines infidelity to include close relationships which do not involve sex. So how many of the 210 people she calls unfaithful were in a sexual relationship? We assume all of them, but not even that is clear. In addition, by varying terms like "in my clinical practice," "my clinical sample," and "among couples I have treated," it is impossible to know which data set she is referring to or if she is referring to anecdotal material.

   This book will be of more use to the cheating spouse than to the cheater's victims.

Inspector Gregory asked Sherlock Holmes:

--"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
--"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
--"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
--"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
         --The Story of Silver Blaize

Why didn't the dog bark in the night-time?
Why didn't Shirley include her data in her book?

Above all what Shirley Glass does in Not Just Friends is excuse the cheater. Assume you are a suspicious wife who followed her husband to an apartment complex. Two hours later your husband appears with a woman in a robe who gives him a lingering kiss. The woman disappears, and you confront your husband before he gets into his car.

Shirley gives your cheating spouse the perfect story to tell. It goes like this:

"Honey, I don't know what happened. Susan and I work together. I didn't know it would lead to this. She was upset, and I tried to comfort her.

"We were always good friends at work, but I think her feelings developed into something more for me. And I guess the same was a little bit true for me. I care for her deeply, but I don't think I love her. At least I don't think I'm in love with her because I know I love you.

"I don't know what we are all going to do about this, but I just can't turn my feelings off like a faucet. And I don't think you could love a man who could. I love you and never wanted to hurt you, but I'm going to need some time to sort this all out in my heart and in my mind."

This is what Tamara instantly came up with after Wayne read a single paragraph in which Shirley Glass excuses the cheater. Not Just Friends is another example of dumbing down and minimizing what is necessary in marriage.