Read this article that was in the Sunday paper across America yesterday. Pay close attention to items 6 and 7, totally contrary to everything we know here.

Where did this woman get her ideas???

7 Secrets to a Lasting Marriage

Ugh is right. It just amazes me how ignorant people are about marriage. They should visit the SAA forum and see the thousands of affairs that began with opposite sex friendships and separate leisure lifestyles. The belief that emotional needs should be met outside of marriage is a dangerous and ill-founded notion.

H just looked at this article. He said, "I think that's just asinine".

AM

"Ignorance is Bliss"

but then you learn better.

If she'd said it OS friendships were 'fine' or 'natural' I would put it simply down to ignorance,

But considering she described them as a 'sexy pick me up' sounds like she has personal experience of flirting and poor boundaries

That was sickening to read.

Number one was my fave - dont expect marriage to make you happy!

wow, to me that is a special kind of stupid...

And how many A's on here started because of an opposite-sex "friendship"....??? ugh....

Well,

Complain, gripe whine, and comlpain about this article. Why did you even post this? I intend to contact not only the author, but the media outlets publishing this to file a compaint.I agree this is absolutly anothoma, but if you are just here to complain, then now wonder you do not have the GUTS do do more~!

Tom

Excuse me?

I read the article, then trashed the newspaper. Too bad there wasn't a need to clean up after the dog.

AM

Allright guys,

The name of the Professor who published this article is Prof. Terri Orbuch, U. of MI,. Dept, of Sociology. I sent emails to both her and the Dean of Social Studies at U. of MI informing them that this is contrary and offensive to people of faith, and is seems to be a media intrusion againsst this for their benefit. I am fully aware that this email will be lost and disregared. However, now that I have taken this step I am also fully aware that contrary opinion has to be revealed per SC decisions in 1978, 1982, and 2004, that a publicaly funded U cannot coneal contray opinon. So, it will be intersting how this goes. At the very least, I will hope for a published recant by the author about oppositte-sex frinedships and separarte vacations can at all contribure to a healhhy marriage.

So, Indie, armymama, cd78, etc, you are all sitting here feeling impotent, and not like extending yourselves. Someone brought this up for a reason! Marriage is so sacred and it needs to be defended for that very reason, esp. against some prof. who may well influence others to treat marriage as nothing more than a casual and currnet relationship. Maybe you guys ought to rethink your comittment to marriage, nuch less MB, before you give your advice here again. As has been said actions are louder than words and I am taking action against this indult to M/

Tom

Here's the thing; why lend credence to a sociologist who decided to write an article about marriage? Is it her focus area or specialty?

I would say the same if it were a psychologist.

I find that marriage specialists have little variation from concepts found here, some of them going so far as to cite\credit Dr. Harley.

Consider the source. Were any marriage studies cited? Real science requires citation. Now, psychology does rely on practice-based evidence at times... But, even then standards at rigorous.

MB has practice-based evidence. This author does not.

We thank you for your efforts, Tom

HHH.

It is not my concern that she is a Socialogist or Psychologist, or that most here feel immune to this due to subscribing to MB. It is my concern that many who do not know about Marriage Builders or who are tentative about the commttment in a marriage may be swayed by this! Why are you people so tentaive in what you believe in? These articles, however scientific and all that, are self-serving and simply destructive.

Tom

Why are you insulting the board, Tom? I feel pretty confident that those who post here regularly do spread MB in their daily lives. I don't see anyone here being tentative in their beliefs.

CWMI,

The first email I send to Prof. Orbuch either was not anserwed or simply failed. So tonight I sent another as indicated below:

Dear Prof. Orbuch and Chancellor Craig,

I am emailing you with my complaint about Professor Terri Obuch's publication in USA Weekend on April 29, 2012, entitled "Seven Secrets to a Healthy, Lasting Marriage". I had attempted to email my objection a week ago, but I have not received a response, and that may be due to using an incorrect email address. The article was written by Madonna Behon, a USA Today staff writer.

My objections Professor and Chancelor are the following: 1) the article seems to be not documented with any scientific study, and seems to be based on Prof. Orbuch's own personal experience wihout any disclaimers , 2) the article contains some controversial and possibly misleading impications regarding Item # 6 - have strong ooposite-sex friendships, and Item #7 - spend time apart (my wife and I have been married for 43 years and neither of us have ever acknowledged these two admonitions are healthy for an intimate marriage, and 3) the article seems to allow a sensationaltreatment of marriage without regard to the sacrament and the intimacy. Basically, I feel I have to speak out that this type of publication may influence young (or even older) married couples to disengage from their vows.

I respect the U of MI as a prestige university. I did my undergraduate and graduate studies at your rival - the U. of W. I would hope we could discuss my concern.

Sincerely.

Tom

I feel strongly about this type of public expression that could adveresly affect many young people, and adverely our belief in marriage. You are too too sensitive - I was challenging, not insulting.

Tom

Impotent, tentative, too sensitive...those are disrepectful and insulting, Tom.

Good luck with your letter.

Not sure this is the right place for this, but I did not want to open a new thread.

I was reading some poetry by Ovid (actually, his Ars Amatoria) and was struck by how little evidently has changed since 18BC. Ovid advises young men who are interested in seducing Roman women (not excluding married women) as follows:

If you�ve given, you can quite reasonably be forgotten:
she carried it off, and now she�s nothing to lose.
But if you don�t give, always appear about to:
like barren fields that always cheat the farmer,
like the gambler who goes on losing, lest he�s finally lost,
and calls the dice back endlessly into his eager hand.
This is the work, the labour, to have her without giving first:
and she�ll go on giving, lest she lose what she�s freely given.
So go on, and send your letter�s flattering words,
try her intention, test the road out first.

Most of this segment illustrates the author's beliefs about why the "forbidden" OM, whatever his faults and shortcomings, can continue to act as a lure to WWs; they don't EVER get all he might have to give, so want what it is that do not yet have all the more. The first two lines, conversely, lay out the problem with being a dutiful husband - once you've given her everything, what more can you offer?

BTW: This bit of arrogance did Ovid no service. The Emperor Augustus was so incensed by Ovid's facilitation of adultery and fornication that he had him exiled to Armenia.

It also talks about rape. Not exactly a marriage model, and this was ancient Rome, where men raped boys, as well, without punishment.

Are you saying that being a dutiful husband is a problem?

CWMI,

Well, in a nutshell, you must be ultra sensitive. I criticised the complaints here because no one seemed willing to express any objection in person! I did, not because of MB, but because this type of advice offends me in that encouraging opposite-sex close friendships and separate vacations are detrimental to the sacarment of marriage.

Am sorry if my email seemed "Impotent, tentative, too sensitive...those are disrepectful and insulting, Tom." I believe that when you are filing a complaint you hit the point in a diplomatic and respectfull way. So, CWMI, where is your voice, or are you just here to express your negative personality. You seem to love to hit below the belt and then run! If you would like to discuss both of our philosophies, I would be happy to. Otherwise, CWMI, please refrain from posting to my comments.

Tom

Your email? I was talking about your comments here. My philosophy is to protect marriages, and to send every troubled marriage I know here.

I would like a reference to me "running" after "hitting below the belt". I do not believe that has ever happened, here or IRL.

But if you would like for me to not comment to you, I will respect that. I only ask that you not accuse me of "running". It is walking away graciously.