DrSoolers, how do you reconcile this: With me and other waywards sharing that we have experienced the affair fog?
Look, the term "affair fog" gets tossed around a lot, as if it's a real psychologically accepted phenomena. But let's be blunt: while intense emotions certainly happen during an affair, this idea of a "fog" isn't some unique, distinct psychological state that mysteriously takes over. In fact, it's a problematic notion because it conveniently obscures the free will and deliberate choices involved.
When people claim to be in an "affair fog," they're describing intense feelings, warped thinking, and acting out of character. I'm not denying those experiences exist. However, framing it as a "fog" implies a profound lack of agency, as if someone's temporarily possessed or brainwashed, unable to see clearly or make rational decisions. That's a huge problem.
What they're likely experiencing is limerence. This is a genuinely recognized psychological phenomenon: an involuntary, intense infatuation and obsession with another person, driven by a desperate longing for them to desire you back. Limerence is characterized by obsessive thoughts, extreme idealization of the other person, and wild emotional swings based on perceived reciprocation. It's a real, measurable internal experience, and it can happen in any context—a crush, a new relationship, or, yes, even an affair. So, if someone in an affair is feeling intensely euphoric and obsessed with their affair partner, it's far more accurate to call it limerence than some vague, convenient "fog."
Frankly, the "affair fog" label is nothing more than a convenient metaphor or a societal construct. It bundles together well-understood psychological effects but does so in a way that subtly, yet profoundly, diminishes accountability.
For instance, the distorted thinking and self-serving rationalizations often blamed on "affair fog" are clearly explained by cognitive dissonance. When your actions (having an affair) clash directly with your beliefs (being a good, loyal person), your mind scrambles to resolve that discomfort. It will actively invent justifications for the affair, deliberately downplay the immense harm it's causing, or even shift blame onto the primary relationship. This isn't a "fog" blurring vision; it's the brain actively constructing a self-serving narrative to avoid internal conflict. This takes deliberate mental effort, not a lapse of consciousness.
Similarly, acting "out of character" isn't some automatic response to a "fog." It's often a direct result of making conscious choices under intense emotional pressure, or perhaps a calculated, albeit misguided, attempt to fulfill personal needs. The idea of a "fog" conveniently pushes the focus away from the deliberate decisions being made, even when those decisions are influenced by powerful emotions. It allows the narrative to become "I wasn't myself," rather than confronting the reality: "I made choices that actively betrayed my values and harmed others, driven by strong feelings and a desire to maintain personal gratification."
Ultimately, labeling infidelity as "affair fog" dangerously implies that individuals are somehow stripped of their free will, that they magically lose the capacity to choose or understand the devastating impact of their actions until this supposed "fog lifts." This is a deeply flawed and self-serving simplification. While emotions are undeniably powerful, and limerence can certainly be all-consuming, people remain capable of making choices. Attributing harmful, deceitful behaviors solely to a "fog" directly undermines the essential concept of personal responsibility and the active agency involved in choosing to engage in, perpetuate, and continue an affair.
So, while the intense emotions and skewed thinking within an affair are very real, let's call them by their actual names: limerence, cognitive dissonance, rationalization, and conscious choices. "Affair fog" is just a flimsy, descriptive umbrella term that, quite frankly, serves to detract from understanding the deeper, often uncomfortable, psychological drivers and the continuous exercise of free will inherent in every step of infidelity. It's a convenient excuse, not a valid explanation.
Personally I'd be far more comfortable if people were to say: 'I acted like an entitled, immoral fool because I had a crush on someone else' Maybe that's just me.