If you read Dr. Harley's basic concepts of the Giver and the Taker, you'll see that in a sense he advocates selfishness in a relationship. In fact on the radio he comes right out and says that getting married should be about the most selfish decision anyone ever makes in life. There should be something in it for YOU!

So I don't think that a person who uses this disrespectful and judgmental label ("selfish") is ready for a relationship.

Dr. Harley doesn't advocate a selfishness that wants to get its own way at the other person's expense, but he insists it is crucial that solutions in a relationship be something that you are enthusiastic about.

By the way, according to Dr. Harley, "space" is not an emotional need. An emotional need is something that is met by another person and causes you to feel good about that person when they meet it. Being alone doesn't meet emotional needs.

"Space" just means he is getting all he wants from you and doesn't want to have to do anything more for you.

I agree. I would date others and move on. He isn't ready for a relationship.

And the contrast effect will help you negotiate better for what you want if he does find that he misses you and wants to earn your relationship back.

Yes you are all right I should start seeing other people and not keep on running after my bf. Although I think I know that if I don't put in the effort to try save our relationship he certainly won't - it's not in his culture to "woo" a woman and he is too stubborn to meet my need for affection when I ask for it - it has to be on his terms and in his own time.

These traits will make him a poor marriage partner. A woman who has the EN of affection, and most do, will want her H to show he cares for her WITHOUT her having to ask for it. Affection is a habit that can be learned; a marriage without affection, which are acts that show one's care for another, will be an unfulfilling one for the woman.

Also, Dr. Harley is pretty adamant that a man should woo the woman, not the other way around. So, yes, you need to stop running after him and start dating other people. If he wants to pursue you, he knows where to find you. Meanwhile, move on.

Here's the show.
Radio Clip of 9-24-14 show on dating

I have been reading other posts on the forums and came across this quote:

""Stubborn" is just name-calling - a disrespectful judgment. Like all demands, disrespect, and angry outbursts, it's an abuse and control technique. It basically comes down to this:

"Why must you be so stubborn - why don't you just give me what I want?""


This is exactly what my attitude has been - that I was asking for love and affection and he was too stubborn to give me any and just told me that when I stop asking then he will start showing. I kept thinking why can't he just give me the affection that I want without making it a power struggle? I never called him stubborn - just thought it to myself.

Was I wrong to keep asking for it when he didn't show me affection?

I am probably beating a dead horse here because at this stage I don't know if I even want to be with him. I have taken your advice and have stopped asking for love and stopped trying to tell him my needs, and instead only reply to his emails when he feels like emailing me.

Something I discovered about my own anger was that it was closely linked to control; I was trying to 'make something happen' that was not in my power.

It wasn't until I came here and learned to let people be free to make their own decisions that I overcame a decades long battle with anger.

I mean; you two were just dating and you were filling out questionaires?! Stop trying to make this happen. It isn't a marriage and even if it were you can't demand someone meet your needs.

I don't think he has been a particularly impressive boyfriend and I wouldn't say he had earned the next date. That doesn't mean he has earned a lecture on what to do for you either!

You are trying to force him. If you were more OK with him failing to earn the next date/in failing to 'make this happen' you wouldn't be having angry outbursts.

You are using the R word - relationship a lot too. It's dating.

Dating should stop at any time it isn't fun and rewarding. It isn't marriage!

That's a good thing. A relationship (OK I do it too!) which survives a casual attitude and is still rewarding is the one you want.

Not the one you have to beat into shape.

I thought the whole point of marriage builders was that you should expect your partner to meet your needs? And yes, I know he isn't my husband, but I wouldn't want to marry someone who didn't meet my needs so I would hope that while we were dating he would demonstrate that he is willing to meet them?

I'm just so bad at relationships that I wanted to do it right this time. Im 34 and have been engaged a few times but not a single guy thinks I'm worth marrying. I really want a husband and a family and I can't figure out whats wrong with me.

I don't understand then - at the point dating no longer becomes fun you break up? Shouldn't you try and work through things first if you are committed? Or are you saying that a "relationship" should only be tested once you are married? If I didn't talk to him about my needs now before we are married and just pretended I was ok with no affection, then isn't that tricking him into marriage? Then after we are married I turn into a horrible monster saying how he never gives me love and affection and he wonders who on earth he married?

It is a tricky concept; but pretending you are 'committed' without a commitment is the crux of the problem. I got the gist of it much quicker once I realised no marriage= no commitment.

Unless he has stood up and made legal and binding promises; he owes you nothing. If he wants another date he has to earn it.

If he doesn't want another date that's fine too. Disappointing but he doesn't owe you anything and it is as well to know now.

No one is saying you should pretend or not communicate your needs. Of course not. But it should sound more like: "I didn't enjoy our last date because of xn, y and z and I don't want to repeat that experience".

That said; Joyce just told Dr H smilingly at the end of one date she wouldn't be seeing him again. No nagging whatsoever. He was crushed and worked out how to become a renter rather than freeloader.

It's exactly what my mother would do. She married at 21 and has been happily married since. She sees herself as a privilege her husband has to earn access to. She would walk off tomorrow if her needs were not met.

Since I adopted this strategy I've been doing pretty well myself. My relationship (arggh!) has been going smoothly for a year and a half without a single bad day and we are talking marriage.

If my boyfriend asked me for space; I would give it! Instead we know we both have to earn that next segment of time together.

See, you have tested the relationship. He isn't willing to abide by the renters' agreement of exchanging needs short term, so you know he isn't ready for the buyer's agreement to take any and all measures to meet one another's needs which will come after marriage.

If you are with a potential buyer it is obvious.

But even when married you can't force or cajole needs meeting without it being a selfish demand.

You can only state your need and the consequence, such as leaving, if no attempt to meet needs are met.

LOL this is all so confusing!! I read somewhere in one of the articles that the definition of a demand is that there is a threat attached.. so isn't saying meet my needs or I will leave, still a demand? Leaving is a threat - it's saying you will lose my love and commitment if you don't do what I ask?

I really want to become a better person - one who someone wants to be around and thinks is worth marrying, I just don't know how to do it. I don't know how to see myself as a privilege some guy would have to earn access to without having a "i'm better than you" attitude?

I know what you mean and I struggled with it at first.

At the heart of Dr H's philosophy is that love is a feeling created by association with what's happening when you are present. Sort of like the opposite of aversion therapy.

If you do/talk about fun things with someone - they will love you. If you suddenly disappear, they will miss you. Though your disappearance is unpleasant; it is not a punishment they associate with your presence. They won't solve it by leaving you; but by earning you.

Hence Joyce's coup d'etat. She excused herself from the relationship with very little lovebusting after a fun date in which she met all his needs. She inspired this whole programme while a teenager using nothing but feminine wiles!

Obviously if you threaten and force and use it as a stick over their head instead of gliding off it won't work because that will make you an unpleasant person to be around.

I don't believe for a second that you aren't an amazing catch.

I do believe you might have been setting your value too low. If a relationship is not fun, a struggle and you are not valued; then you settle for that? If you stay, you settle. Get a higher bar.

Don't do what I did and work so hard to get to the altar. You work four times as hard after marriage so YES the dating relationship should be very easy and fun.

All you will do is end up with an expensive divorce bill and perhaps fatherless kids.

Agree!!

You're a good catch. He was/is bad husband material.