I saw some discussion on this on another thead. Most of us say Emotional Needs while someone else mensioned preferences, not needs. I wondered about this. Don't have the answer.....just thinking out loud <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

I have been here a while, and I always thought….."needs...hmm...yah, they are needs".....Now I am wondering about this again.


I think about the last year. I have been alone. Did my EN get satisfied by another person? NO.

If it is a need, then why have I been able to survive for a year without them?

Lets look at the list:

Affection
Sexual Fulfillment
Conversation
Recreational Companionship
Honesty and Openness
Physical Attractiveness
Financial Support
Domestic Support
Family Commitment
Admiration

I can see how I can live without any of the 10. Is it not the case that *I* should be happy with my life as it is before I bring another person into it?

If that is the case, would it not be true that I really would LIKE to have affection and SF and conversation etc with a SO, yet I find my life fullfiling as is (I recover it no matter if I recover the M or not), so I find happiness in my life without another person.

It seems that I can live a fulfilling life without anyone, and hence without getting these EN met by a SO. Of course the fact is that people usually go out and look for someone at some point. They want someone to share their live with. So, can we not say they WANT to receive Affaction, SF, conversation etc. from a SO? Is it really a need? Is it a NEED that drives us back to the ‘dating scene’ or is it a DESIRE to have SF, Affaction, etc?


It seems that once in a relationship we have all these ‘needs’ that we WANT and EXPECT the other person to meet, yet we were perfectly happy to have NONE of them met when alone.

Once in a relationship, I am not happy unless I do get Affaction or SF from my partner. It seems that I enter a relationship having some EXPECTATIONS of what I’ll get in that relationship.

If I am alone, go on a date, and then MR. X tells me (for some unknown reason <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />) that were we to become a couple that none of the 1-10 would get met, then I am likely to GET UP and leave right away, get angry, think him an a$$, etc. Yet, what he is offering (in a really bizarre way <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />) is exactly what I already have.

Of course, in that case there is no POINT in being with that person as they don’t add anything to your life.

So, if MR. Z does step up and says I will do my best to fulfill 1-10, we are more willing to make a commitment.

Yet, when MR. Z falls short on some of these, meets 1-5, but is not full on board with 6-10, we feel unhappy. Yet we are getting more then we were when we were alone, and we were happy then.

This is why it seems to me sometimes that really these are WANTS and EXPECTATIONS (expectations of being LOVED by the other person), not necessarly needs.


I don’t think it really matters at the end if you call them needs or wants, yet these two do to a certain degree suggest different things. I want something, implies I can do without. I need something, implies I cannot do without. And when we do end up in a relationship where we are not getting 1-10, we cannot DO without it.

Just some random thoughts <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />…..as I am sure you can tell…… <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I am thinking about my own EN and wondering about if I really NEED my H to satisfy them, is it essential for my survival or do I just WANT these met.

Of course what occurs to me is that perhaps I don’t need them for MY survival, but I NEED them for OUR M to survive.

Any thoughts....am not looking for a 2x4 <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />....
Daisy
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

The whole EN thing is stupid to me. I know that people would like someone to come along and meet all of their needs, but it reminds me of a baby. We are talking about adults here.

I believe that a person needs to be responsible for getting their top needs met, and not necessarily through their partner - except for SF of course.

I have a big conversation need, and frankly my WH NEVER met it. So I joined a women's Bible study group. I also have nurtured my friendships with other women, and over the years that was sufficient.

It is a little bit impractical to think that one person can meet all of your needs IMHO.

For domestics needs, I could hire a cleaning lady. A dog is great for affection. See my point?

I married my WH because he was a good man and I loved and respected him. I never expected him to be everything to me.

Aughh. EN's as the cause of an A.

Don't get me started.

Believer and I agree in this, I think.

If missing ENs cause As or set the stage for them, or whatever then:

you better never get sick,
you better never grow old,
you better never blink,
you better never miss a beat,
you better always be on call,
you better never work overtime,

you better live only for your needy spouse…

One slip-up and spouse is going to have another A. And it’s going to be all your fault. Again.

IMO, ENs are an engineered way for a WS who wants to come home to save face. I agree, they can make a good M better and more satisfying. But that’s about it.

My FWW’s VLTA lasted 10 freaking years. I never once had any EN whatsoever met, not even a little bit, during that time. In fact, I can’t remember any ENs being met in any significant way in my M, period.

But I did not have an A. And there have been many opportunities. Some blatant. Shoot, there’s one now. But I just don’t commit adultery. I do not break my promises.

And, BTW, I met all her ENs. She even says I did, without LBs. Yet she had the VLTA. Explain that as missing ENs?

Know what I did? I redirected my ENs. I changed as circumstances required. She doesn’t clean house? I learned to do it. She doesn’t do childrearing? I became Mr. Mom. She doesn’t cook? I learned to do it. She doesn’t like SF with me (she said OM was better), I learned to live without. She spends money like water on herself and OM? I supported the family on my salary. She doesn’t like any sports or social activities? I made lots of new male friends. She needs admiration? I poured it on from day one, and I meant it. She needs affection – I never let up.

And yes, to all you WS out there, yes it was freaking hard on me. Everything about this M is hard. I’m only now realizing it. I lost my identity in her stupid ENs. Now I want it back.

But I just don’t commit adultery. It is immoral, it is unethical and it hurts everyone involved.

The potential OW in my life right now is much too nice a person for me to do that to her. I would rather die than have her commit the sin of adultery on my behalf. And I would rather die than hurt FWW the way she hurt me.

Some of us keep our promises even when it hurts.

How do single people survive without someone constantly meeting their ENs, anyway?

Missing ENs cause As. Sorry, I just don’t believe it. Not for a moment.

If this were true I would be a long time serial adulterer.

JMO.

Well, since we all (so far) seem to be in agreement, let me toss this out for discussion:

[color:"red"] TO BE VULNERABLE TO AN EVENT IS NOT TO INVITE IT, March 23, 2002

If marriage counselors were emergency room doctors, they would always be asking questions like, "We need to understand why you stepped in front of that car, and why the driver needed you to do it." If they were cardiologists, they would be asking, "We need to understand why you needed to occlude your arteries, and why your spouse wanted you to."

An article of faith, not a fact that anyone has discovered or theory that makes any logical sense, the notion that infidelity always reveals something about the marriage continues to impose on couples demands that no one in any other realm of health care would countenance.

That an affair has occurred obviously means that the marriage was vulnerable to an affair--that the pattern of marital interaction allowed for an affair to happen. That does not mean that the affair is a function of that pattern.

Sometimes a spouse is mentally ill, for instance. Sometimes a spouse's early upbringing left him or her with serious ethical lacunae. Sometimes we just marry the wrong people, because we are young and naive or otherwise obtuse when marrying, and the person we marry chooses a dishonorable path. Sometimes we choose dishonorable ways of feeling better because of our own shortcomings. None of those are functions of the marriage.

If you try to fit your spouse's infidelity, or your own, into (conventional marriage counselor's) views, you may be taking on responsibility for managing someone else's mental illness or moral shortcomings, or you may be shifting your mental illness or ethical immaturity to your marriage, where they can never be fixed.

Nothing ever makes an individual trustworthy except his or her own good character. An affair need not show anything wrong with the marriage, but it ALWAYS shows unreliable character--a person who does not keep promises and engages in deceit is (by definition) unreliable. If you are the betrayer, you will never become a reliable partner without reforming the moral callousness that enabled you to use betrayal to make yourself feel better. If you are the betrayed, you make a serious mistake in believing that anything you can do will make your partner more reliable.

Yes, you might be able to decrease the partner's unhappiness[/color] (by meeting so called "emotional needs" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />) [color:"red"]; but then you will have taken responsibility for keeping the partner happy enough that he or she won't do what they should never be willing to do anyway.

I've seen marriages destroyed by well-meaning therapists who convince partners that something is wrong with the marriage, when there isn't, really--when some individual therapy or moral education for the betrayer could have saved the marriage. I've seen therapists ratify the betrayed person's broken sense of self by telling them they had a role in bringing it on themselves, thus forever warping their understanding of themselves and of the moral demands of marriage.

(The all too common belief that) both partners contribute-all in the name of dogma - makes no scientific or logical sense.[/color]

[part of a (not-to-flattering) review of a book purporting to explain why partners cheat]

but unmeet EN sure help create the invornment for A right?

or indidelity is just a result of lack of character of the adulterer?

Dont take me wrong, I am on your side, I mean I had never had my EN meet because meeting HIS EN was our goal, but he had many of them meet and he was the one cheating.

I would never have an A. But he did it.

I agree with Ron - YIKES! - it seems like I always do.

I think it makes sense to be sure you are doing the best job possible of meeting your partner's EN's, just to be sure.

I know my WH very well. His top EN's were SF, domestic support, financial support, and family commitment. I met those very well. But here's the rub - the kids grew up and were on there own, and his needs changed.

The OW completely abandoned her 12 year old daughter, so I guess family commitment wasn't important anymore. The OW was a stay at home mom and had never been in the work force, so financial support didn't play into the story. She is not into cooking or homemaking, more into partying, so domestic support was out.

And this all changed in a matter of months. He forgot to tell me.

Their relationship is very rocky with lots of fights and drama, splitting up and getting back together again. She never could have helped him raise his kids, but that is no longer important to him.

As I'm certain the "keepers" at Animal Kingdom try to keep the lions well fed. BUT, that won't prevent the lion from attacking if/when the mood strikes. The "beast" is what it is! Luckily, people can change. But it happens from within (and only when they want it). EN's (IMO) are not the answer.

hmmmmm.....<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Pure hogwash, Ron

The whole article revolves around the assumed premise that "the marriage" exists as a separate entity from the spouses. It doesn't.

Marriage is a condition...a relationship. It's a ephemeral as electricity. Mentally ill spouses cannot contribute to or protect the relationship, therefore, the marriage is at risk.

I do agree that ONE spouse can damage the relationship unbeknownst to the other. The "innocent" spouse can't be expected correct issues they are unaware of, however, when conditions arise that jeopardize the relationship, it's a time to step back and re-assess our commitment and contribution to it.

A misconception about the Emotional Needs theory is that these are "needs" for survival. This is untrue, as evidenced by one being able to live quite happily outside of a committed marital relationship.

No, the EN's that Harley talks about are those EN's that must be filled to nurture a strong relationship bond. There is a tremendous difference. They are the things you need from a person to allow you to engage and remain in relationship with them.

Some people need honesty. Some need financial support. Some need an attractive spouse. All of these a valid needs.

But need theory doesn't stand alone. The article does point out that patterns of marital interactions may allow for infidelity. This is addressed by Harley's Rules and Policies. The Rules and Policies are intended to foster a pattern of marital interaction that maximizes oppotunities to meet the needs of your spouse while defending against outside stressors (Rule of Protection).

What I believe what REALLY happens is that a strong emotional bond motivates spouses to really buy into the Rules and Policies. When EN's go unmet, commitment to the rule and policies wane, opening chinks in the armor of the relationship.

Well said, Low. You took the words right off my keyboard.

Let's not confuse needs for romantic love vs needs for survival! Hello??

JMHO

This is it!

The Harleys are referring to NEEDS in a ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP which would be different than my NEEDS in FRIENDSHIP with women. Notice SF is on that list, for example, and I am heterosexual. It would be like comparing your need for chocolate with your need for exercise..Maybe not a good analogy..but you get what I mean....

Maybe some folks have more of an overall need to be in a ROMANTIC relationship. I LOVE BEING IN LOVE AND WITH A MAN..and I think I would make that a priority in my life whether with my H or not...that's just me...

I Need someone to HOLD MY HAND..I like sitting on HIS lap with his ARM AROUND ME (Manly AFFECTION)..I NEED to hear HIM say.."You were looking so sexy this morning that I can't concentrate here at work" (ADMIRATION)

I Need his HELP with my life problems and around the house..he got the tax extension forms yesterday..washed the dishes last night...unstopped the toilet- DOMESTIC SUPPORT

Well we already know about SF...

I need to hear a man's perspective on world/community events, office politics here and American Idol..it's different than my girlfriends' views-CONVERSATION...

Who else in the world cares about our children like he does..shares their history with me..was there when they were born..is the primary breadwinner-FAMILY COMMITMENT

My H is FINE..HANDSOME to me..works out almost everyday..I love to see him when he is dressed up to leave in the morning and I love to see him with that towel around his waist at night after his shower-PHYSICAL ATTRACTION...

Got to go now..this says it...

I MISSED HIM MEETING THESE EMOTIONAL NEEDS WHEN HE WAS GONE...

He meets these needs and I AM SO IN LOVE WITH HIM NOW...It's about the ROMANCE....NOT SURVIVAL...

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

So , if they are not for survival , what are they for?

Choices? Preferences? or are they all apart of the BIG PICTURE?

Needs and Needs Theories.

I just Love um!


Max

Like the others pointed out, they are needs for ROMANTIC LOVE, not survival. You didn't have a romantic relationship in the last year.

And yes, the concept is very valid and I am, frankly, amazed at how very true it is. My H and I are passionately in love with each other by meeting each others needs.

I like White Daisy's thought process. If you are happily single with a rich life and you meet Mr X who tells you up front "I have nothing at all to offer you", hmmm, why would Mr X be dismissed. I think I tend to look at what people are draining from my life as opposed to how much they can add. There are many people in my life that don't seem to add alot to my happiness, but they don't cost me anything either. Kinda like cleaning a closet, does this thing take up more room then it is worth?? I am babbling <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

As far as my affair, it was not a case of unmet EN's. My EN's had not been met for 10 years and I wasn't out rutting around. I am not kidding, for 10 years, my H and I had a bi-annual "Is this really how we want our marriage to be?" talk. And nothing ever changed. So, I met my EN's by doing other things. I dug a nice pond, it bought my M another year and a half of fidelity. If I had built a bigger waterfall, I probably would not have had the A.

I did not have the A because H was not meeting my needs. I chose a pi$$ poor way of meeting my own needs. (A nice big waterfall would have been a much better idea <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> )

I worry about reconciliation since I am alone and happy. I am meeting my own needs, or adjusting my needs to match my life. If WH came home, what would he have to offer me? I would probably just feel drained running around trying to keep him happy and faithful.

But as a FWW, I do think that a decision can happen internally that takes infidelity off the menu of coping skills. I am also a alcoholic, so booze is not on my menu of coping skills anymore. I have dealt with major depression in my life and at a point, I decided that suicide was not on my menu anymore. Today, infidelity is not on my menu of coping skills anymore.

Maybe I am just getting old and cynical, but SF is the only EN that I just can't quite manage by myself. But my H told me that the only thing I wanted him for was a p3nis and a paycheck. Which seemed perfectly logical to me as he had never offered anything else in the way of EN's.

So now I would even have a clue as to what it is I need/want/desire in a relationship. It just seems that I look at the cost vs benefit analysis, and maybe it is just not worth it. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Not really sure I understand where you're headed there, Max...

But let me try to explain what I think the difference between a need and a preference is in the context of relationships...

A NEED is that which you require to continue the relationship. If neglected, will ultimately result in its dissolution.

A PREFERENCE are those things that you might enjoy having in the relationship, but you can take it or leave it. For example, recreational companionship is a valid need. I NEED for her to engage in recreation with me. I would PREFER that it be something I really, really, really like doing, like goat roping or base jumping. BUT...the POJA process may bring us to an agreement on an activity that I PREFER less, but ensures the RC NEED gets met.

Does this make sense?

Low

"The whole article revolves around the assumed premise that "the marriage" exists as a separate entity from the spouses. it doesn't."

Nein, Nein, my good friend. I view (and Harley treats as) a "marriage" as a symbiotic relationship. Two distinct individuals joining for the mutual benefit of both. This symbiotic relationship IS treated as a third entity, distinct and separate from the two individuals. Harley treats EN's as necessary for the survival of this third entity. Unfortunately, all too often, the presumption is made that simply "keeping this third entity happy" will "affair proof" the relationship. It seems to me that this theory ignores all the "issues" brought into the relationship by the individuals involved (ie. FOO, mental illnes, character flaws, personal morality, views on monogamy, etc.); and, most importantly, human nature. Humans are hardwired to propagate. There is no "fidelity gene" that some are lacking.

I would buy the whole needs not being met thing, if the WS mentioned that in passing somewhere. It would be perfectly reasonable to explain that needs weren't being met, time for some changes. But as we see over and over here, that is usually not what happens.

All of the time we see someone cheating in a fairly happy marriage. The spouse is meeting 4 or 5 needs, and the OP meets the another 4 or 5. That is one reason the affair is kept secret - the WS has 2 people knocking themselves out meeting "needs".

My WH never got around to telling me the truth, so I don't really know how long the affair was on before I found out, but I believe it was almost a year.

I think many (not all) WS's feel entitled to having all their "needs" met, like a hog at the trough, no matter what the cost.

The way I look at it are Needs are the requirements to be met (contract, if you will) in order to be in a reciprocal relationship w/me.

I think they are termed needs instead of wants (as opposed to the good old budgeting terms: need=necessity to live vs want=preference) to highlight the importance of meeting these specific goals (as defined by each individual) in order to maintain a healthy relationship. Happiness comes from within, and if my S wants to share in my happiness, I'd better be getting my R needs met by him. Whether or not he meets my "needs" doesn't "make" me happy (ok, a little bit <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ), but I'll sure not have any use for him if he doesn't.

Although it does seem that a disproportionate # of M's here have 1 S who is/was open to A and 1 S who would NEVER think of having one. Makes me think that Givers are naturally attracted to Takers. Givers can go a longer time w/o having their needs met, more accepting of status quo. Takers, well, I'm not one (although I'm working on it <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> ) so I can't really comment on their perspective... Maybe the adult equivolent of "high needs child". With this in mind, I theorize that some Ts are not so good at communicating needs, or the Gs may be reluctant to buck status quo (as "enough" needs are being met from the G's perspective to prohibit change). As T's really "want" to have their relationship "needs" met by someone, thus the environment becomes ripe for A's.

WD,

As you're no doubt aware, Dr. Harley's "Needs" are not to be confused with Maslow's physiological needs in his Heirarchy. They are not required to support human life. Harley's premise is that his "Needs" are necessary to support the healthy life of a relationship.

Perhaps the best way to look at Harley's Need theory is to think of them as forces...forces of attraction. External "forces" that may bring two individuals together, or may serve to hold two indiduals together in a relationship. While perhaps simplistic, this model does address certain dynamics of relationships. My "difficulty" with this theory is that too many other "forces" are ignored. Harley's "need" forces are NOT the only ones at work in the dynamics of human relations. To believe so, is VERY dangerous, and places far too much responsibility (and blame) on the shoulders of the BS.

***So , if they are not for survival , what are they for?***

They are meant to reinforce and strengthen the bond between a married couple on a daily, hourly, moment-by-moment basis, so that the marriage can thrive long-term.

That's what they're for.
Mulan

Ka-Ching!!!

Great Answer, Mulan!!!!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />