Honestly, I dont understand why some ppl have a problem with this concept. If your own WS' affair did not happen becuase of unmet needs, then so be it. What is there to argue about?

I am always puzzled that when this concept doens't apply, that folks feel compelled to argue that the concept EVEN EXISTS. WHY? You know very well it DOES exist in many situations, so whats the problem?

Just say it doens't apply to you and move on. But don't you dare say it DOESN'T EXIST when I know it does! It is perfectly applicable in many situations.

In my H's affair, unmet needs were NEVER an issue. I know that, he knows that, our MB C knows that. So we accept that and move on. I don't feel compelled to come here and REJECT the very experiences of others just because I have not experienced it myself. I don't understand that.

On the other hand, in my last marriage, I treated him like a dog and withheld sex for months on end. The marriage was SO BAD because of unmet needs that he was vulnerable to an affair. I may as well have set up the date with the OW for him! He was a walking affair waiting to happen. As Dr. Harley said, "if you are no longer in love, you are vulnerable to an affair."

So, I have been on both sides of this fence. But even if I hadn't, why would I come here and tell someone they had not experienced what they claim just because I have NOT?

And one other thing. I bet it is not uncommon that we only hear ONE SIDE of the story around here. I referred a friend to this forum whose W was in an affair. I KNOW for a fact that he is the KING of LOVEBUSTERS and has been for years. But you would have NEVER known it from his posts. You would have thought he was the husband of the year who being plagued by his ungrateful, evil wife. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> I am just saying that sometimes we don't get the full story.

***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.***

Bull's-eye.

(Or maybe "hog's-eye.")
Mulan

THIS IS SUCH A GREAT POST, IMO that I am posting it again for EXCLAMATION...

DISCLAIMER: I'm feeling MUSHY and GIDDY today...

I JUST LOVE MELODY....

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

Thanks Mimi! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Using the dictionary definition:

NEEDS: A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.

Military training taught me Survival Needs are required to sustain life.

From that I would take Marriage/Relationship Needs to be a requirement to sustain the marriage/relationship.

Obviously not a life or death survival requirement, but a successful relationship survival requirement.

Hi ML,

The "problem" with the concept is that it's portrayed as the be all and end all of human relational theory (is there such as phrase). IMO, this is a dangerous belief. At one point in time, people thought the earth was flat. This "model" fit with the information available at the time, but caused all manner of difficulty because the model was wrong.

My fear is that current conventional wisdom re. "needs fulfillment" and "affair proofing" may be equally flawed. Even now we see far too many exceptions to this "conventional wisdom". Let's not be foolhardy enough to believe that there aren't a great many more forces at work, and that this "theory" answers all the questions re. why. It doesn't, and I respectfully submit, never will.

None of us should be required to take responsibility for keeping a partner happy enough that he or she won't do what they should never be willing to do anyway.

BTW, no one said these "need" forces don't exist, just that they are not the cause of infidelity.

This is an interesting discussion to me. Some considered opinions, based on my experience and observations:

Some people have ENs within a romantic relationship that are, for the lack of a better word, bottomless. Needs that are more like addictions. And like addicts, they come to feel entitled to have those needs met no matter what.

A great many WS have an epiphany of sorts about ENs shortly after they come here. You can actually see it happening. They realize ENs are a very good excuse to latch onto. It's like, hey, yeah, ENs. That's it, that’s why I had my A, or A's. ENs are a handy excuse for their decisions and uncontrollable actions early in the process. They can save face this way.

Later, after withdrawal and introspection, they start to sound different. ENs become less important and boundaries, morals and ethics start to rise to the top. It's kind of wonderful to watch, IMO.

ENs and LBs were not much of a factor in my FWW’s VLTA. It was a serious lack of boundaries throughout her life, morals and ethics that had never been seriously tested before, a blatant opportunity with a stud half way around the world where she knew she would never get caught, and in the final analysis she just wanted to try the experience on for size. But then she fell in love with OM, withdrew from the M and fence sat with the best of them. A strong sense of entitlement has always been part of her personality.

In her case, she had an A because she could, and she stayed in the A because she loved him more than she ever has loved me.

My point is, she stayed in the M all that time because I was meeting her top ENs very well in spite of her resistance. She stayed in the A because she got one or two (not even in her top five) ENs met there too –she even admits these ENs were not even met very well by OM. Just enough to keep her coming back for more.

So, missing ENs are not the root cause of her A. I strongly suspect missing ENs are not the root cause in the majority of cases.

Otherwise, since none of my ENs were met for well over a decade, and I was being continually LB'd like crazy, someone please tell me where my A is waiting for me. Is it my turn now? You guys and your EN's imply it is.

No, it is more of a basic personality trait, IMO.

With prayers,

edit: clarity

Aphelion..you said...



But we are speaking of the specific needs met in a ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP..not ALL needs...



Read Mel's post again. Because it was not true in your situation, Aphelion, I don't think it's fair for you to assume this is not so in the MAJORITY OF CASES. I've been guilty of the opposite and I acknowledge that. It would be like me saying that MOST AFFAIRS are due to unmet needs because it was DEFINITELY TRUE in my situation. My H had high moral character before his A and does again now. My failure to meet his ENs definitely made him VULNERABLE to have an affair...He is now guilty and ashamed about it...because once out of HIS ADDICTION..he is now again himself...

I am not saying this to discount your experience...so why discount the experience of me and others...why not be open to what we are sharing...

Ron, I have never seen it presented as the be-all and end-all. Nowhere is it presented as the absolute cause in every case. Thinking people can discern for themselves if it has relevance or not to their situations. If it doesn't, no problem, no harm done; just move onto the next step. No call for alarm. Belief in its relevance does not rule out other mitigating factors.

Folks can ask themselves: "does this apply to me or not?" If not, they can move on to the next stage. If so, they can proceed accordingly. But is it profoundly silly to come here and argue about it. THERE IS NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT. It DOES apply to some and that can't be denied.

It is a generalization, and thinking folks know that every generalization has exceptions. But you don't throw out a generalization because you have discovered an exception, becuase that is the nature of a generalization.

And far from being "dangerous," Marriage Builders principles have been a livesaver for untold marriages in this country. That ain't dangerous.

If the theory doesn't apply to you, then so be it. Accept it and move on. But don't try to assert that it isn't very valid in many, many cases. IT IS. Just because you didn't experience it, doesn't mean others have not.

Also, I don't believe we SEE as many "exceptions" as we think we do. From my EXPERIENCE here, I have seen that we often get a very one sided story that may not closely align with reality. Dr. Harley claims that in his practice, MOST of the affairs stemmed from marriages that were in a vulnerable state from unmet needs. I tend to trust his clinical experience as he is better able to discern one's honesty than we are here because he hears both sides.

I started the post with, "Some considered opinions, based on my experience and observations:"

It is my experience, yes, but I also see it to varying degree in the majority of cases around here.

But not in every case, I admit.

I edited the other sentence since I did mean what you wrote.

From HIS NEEDS, HER NEEDS

p. 17

"When a man and woman marry, they share high expectations. They commit themselves to meeting certain intense and intimate needs in each other on an exclusive basis. Each agrees to "forsake all others," giving each other the exclusive right to meet these intimate needs. That does not imply that all needs are to be met by a spouse, but that there are a few basic needs that most of us strictly reserve for the marriage bond. Most people expect their spouses to meet these SPECIAL needs, since they have agreed not to allow anyone else to meet them.

Thanks, I get really annoyed when others tell me my experience is NOT VALID just because they didn't experience it. How silly is that??

I was told last week that my feelings about the death of my son and the loss of my 20 yr marriage [in comparing the gravity of each tragedy] were simply not valid and I didn't appreciate that one bit. I was told there "was no comparison" by someone who had never been through either experiences. Its' one thing to reject a principle, but another entirely to REJECT someone's experiences and subsequent feelings.

Mel,

I cannot even imagine the death of a child. DS may not even be mine, but I don't think I could go on any more if something happened to him.

Mimi,

The "needs model" works for you. With this there is NO problem. The problem arises when the "professional sector" holds this theory out (and a great many suffering BS's accept it) as gospel. It's one thing to accept a belief for one's self, it's quite another to "preach" this theory and portray it as fact when the theory flies in the face of so much evidence. That's the "problem".

Ron, it is gospel in many cases. What matters is that it is applied where it is relevant. If it's not relevant to you, then reject it and move on. Other folks are bright enough to make such a determination. No harm done. No problem.

Ron-you said:


What EVIDENCE are you referring to?

Oh ML,

I respect you immensely. It is NOT my intent to denegrate your thoughts, feelings, or experiences.

My difficulty is with the "professional community". My fear is that this community has latched onto this "needs fulfilment thing" at the exclusion of soooo much more. Soooo much more research, so much more understanding. The book, the websites, even Dr. Harley offer us the EN theory to the relative exclusion of so much. "The danger" is this relative exclusion and the unnecessary burden of guilt being shifted to the BS.

You're right, every situation is different, and yet how often is the new BS bombarded with the "EN stuff"...what were/are your spouses ENs...were you meeting your spouses ENs...have you done the EN questionaire...All too often the presumption is that the BS failed to meet ENs and this caused the affair. THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH!

Two people had an affair...only one of which comes from the marital union...IMO, EN's theory leaves the other marital partner holding some (if not most) of the responsiblity.

INFIDELITY IS A CHOICE, NOT A REFLEXIVE RESPONSE TO A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES


We're off track here somehow. The original discussion (I thought) involved the "why did it happen" question.

Mimi,

Take a married couple...BP/Squid, Believer/husband, WAT/wife, Aphelion/wife...pick a couple where one spouse has engaged in infidelity. Since both were in the same relationship, for the same amount of time, subjected to the same (more or less) "stressors", EN's (perhaps) not being met all around; why did only one cheat? No need to go into the area of serial infidelity, ONS, EAs through game rooms or chat, or so many other aberrations.

EN theory does not answer the "why" question!

EN theory may be useful for strengthening a marital union. It is not useful in answering the "why" question.

Ron-

It seems you're are only looking at one part of Dr. Harley's affair proof equation. What about eliminating LB's? POJA? 15 hrs/wk of undivided attention (which Harley stresses is a huge asset to a strong marriage). It seems that the argument is from the Taker's perspective. As someone else pointed out I made the committment to forsake all others, not only to have my needs met (mainly by my h) but to also concentrate on meeting my h's needs. I am already happy within myself and could stand alone if I had to. But I choose to meet my H's needs (whether reciprocated or not) because that is what I promised ten years ago infront of God and friends.

I agree that the argument of unmet needs for having an affair is fallible. But that does not make it invalid.

Dr. Harley's principles are based on the his experience as a counselor (so he his speaking to the majotrity of what he's seen come through his door). Does it work for everyone? Of course not. Every marriage/relationship dynamic is different. Again as ML has stated. If it doesn't work for you, move on, and hopefully you can find some guidance where it does apply.

I agree, Ron. There's a zillion different reasons as to WHY my H cheated and I did not.

One way of looking at this, IMO, is what will answering the WHY question do for the recovering the marriage?

MB is basically, in many respects a BEHAVIORAL SYSTEM..that is PRACTICAL..so to speak..saying THIS IS WHAT ONE DOES TO RECOVER THE MARRIAGE...

It takes ONE ASPECT of the EQUATION..SPECIAL NEEDS met EXCLUSIVELY between ROMANTIC PARTNERS COMMITTED TO EACH OTHER...When we marry, we promise to meet these needs only within the context of marriage. When we recover, we promise to do that again..thereby, THE RULES OF MARITAL RECOVERY...