Suzet is actually correct about most of this.

Except there is no such thing as a Romantic Love Bank.

Romantic Love is triggered when the LB reaches a certain threshold.

Everyone we know has an "account" in our love bank. Our interactions with that person control the balance and if enough love units are deposited (through meeting EN's) we can fall in love with that person.

In my interactions here on MB I am not trying to build my account in anyone's LB except MrsK's.

Well BigK I will certainly not fall in love with my family members or friends of the same sex and they with me unless they are homosexually or bisexually orientated! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> For that reason, I will not try to fill the love banks of people of the opposite sex or allow them to fill mine (except blood related family members and my father-in-law). I restrict my attempts to fill love banks accounts to my H, family members and friends of the same sex. But I do avoid certain love busters like DJ’s and angry outbursts with ALL people...simply because as a Christian, I have a obligation to treat fellow human beings with basic human decency and respect...even during my interactions with them here on MB. That (trying to treat fellow board members with basic human decency and respect) have nothing to do with trying to fill a love bank with them.

So although I agree there is not really such thing as a Romantic Love Bank (I can see how the use of that term is not correct) I do think there are different types of love banks e.g. with some love banks romantic love can be triggered when enough love units are deposited and with others not...depending on ones sexual orientation. Basically that was what I meant and tried to convey with the term “Romantic Love Bank”... With some love banks Romantic Love will NEVER be triggered no matter how many love units are deposited.

Dr Harley makes no such distinction Suzet.

The key point is that Meeting the MOST IMPORTANT EN's, some of which are INTIMATE EN;s should only be met by your spouse. That way you only fall in love with them.

There are no different types of "love banks". That does not make sense and is not what Harley says. If you ensure your most important needs (the ones that deposit the MOST love units) are only met by your spouse, no other person will be able (permitted by you) to reach the Romantic Love threshold.

Now, "Love Busters" - DJ's, AO's etc relate to the LB in that they WITHDRAW units and cause you to be the cause of your spouses's unhappiness. This is a far cry from "pissing" someone off on an anonymous Internet message board. Some people on this board are truth averse and need a good kick up the [censored] to get their head on straight.

Sorry about your sit Kamamura. Being where I am now, I would say cut your losses.

Obviously, a poster made a good point about motivation for change. But for me, there is also another.

How could I stay in the M and ever bring children into the M?

I can save money, buy houses, cars etc because these are all material possessions. Certainly, there is risk of going bankrupt or whatever. But, in the end, it is only money. It is not the life of an innocent child we are talking about.

Therefore, after the pain of the A, I don't know how with good common sense I could bring a child into this world considering the inherent risk of the M.

It depends on the circumstances - there are IMO no hard and fast rules. Not all, maybe not even many FWS's will be serial offenders. It isn't a character issue with most IMO.

You are saying it is hopeless and I vehmently disagree. (I have grown kids and no barrow to push here BTW)

[color:"blue"] Inside all of us is a Love Bank with accounts in the names of everyone we know.

We like those with positive Love Bank balances and dislike those with negative balances. But if an account reaches a certain threshold, a very special emotional reaction is triggered -- romantic love. We no longer simply like the person -- we are in love. It's a feeling of incredible attraction to someone of the opposite sex.[/color]

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3200_love.html

Bigk, IMO Dr Harley does make a distinction above in the sense that he specifically refers/focuses on love banks accounts that can reach a certain threshold that will trigger romantic love with an opposite sex person (or same sex if homosexually or bisexually orientated). So obviously there are differences in the type of love we can develop for certain people and that’s why we will never be able to feel romantic love for a person of the same sex if heterosexually orientated or for blood related family members even if they also meet some of our most important EN’s like conversation, affection, creational companionship, admiration, honesty & openness etc.

That’s why Dr Harley makes it clear on his video clip piece about infidelity and how to A proof a M that we should not allow any ember of the opposite sex to meet any of our intimate EN’s. There are some EN’s that can be met appropriately by more people than just the spouse for example through family members or friends of the same sex. According to Dr Harley (on the video clip piece) the four intimate EN’s are 1) intimate conversation; 2) affection; 3) recreation companionship and 4) SF. All of them (except SF and intimate affection) can be met by the spouse as well as same sex friends and certain family members.

Regarding Love Busters – I know on this website (with regards to marriage building) the purpose of avoiding those behavior is to prevent the withdrawl of love units from the spouse's love bank and be the cause of his/her unhappiness, but IMO the avoidance of some behavior on the Love Busters list like DJ’s and angry outbursts, also applies to basic decent and respectful behavior towards fellow human beings. A general desire and personal decision to try and treat all others with basic human decency and respect have not necessarily anything to do with trying to prevent the withdrawal of love units from someone’s love bank. That can play a role yes, but it’s not the main thing here. As a Christian, I have a obligation to treat people I dislike or who even treat me badly, with decency and respect too.

Well, as long as “pissing” someone off and “a good kick up in the [censored]” is not accompanied by posting in an abusive, attacking, insulting, inflammatory manner intended to shame the recipient, I will be okay with it… <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Suzet - it is you drawing that distinction, not Dr Harley.
The reason all our relationships do not reach the romantic love threshold is because, if we are smart, we don't allow people other than our spouse to meet our most important EN's, certainly not our intimate EN's which make the most LB deposits.

Perhaps we wouldn't be having this arguement if Dr Harley didn't call it a "love" bank.


Well not to put too fine a point on it, but your opinion of My posting style doesn't concern me in the least, nor does your approval or otherwise.

Big K
It may not be hopeless, each situation is different. It is also possibly not a charachter flaw. However, there is more likelihood of that since it is in the early years of M. It is much easier to get throught those than the later years

Regardless, would I hope that the M partner did not have a charachter flaw or move on? I would move on.

He does IMO Bigk, otherwise he would say that we should not allow ANY other person other than our spouse to meet our EN’s. But that’s not what he says, he say we must A proof our M by not allowing a person of the opposite sex to meet any of our intimate or most important EN’s. Obviously our spouses must be the ones who meet our most important EN’s the best and most often (that's common sense) but it doesn't mean that some of them can't be met by people like familiy members or same sex friends as well.

Agree, but the main thing here is that we should not allow a person of the opposite sex to meet our most important EN’s and intimate EN’s. Dr Harley says nothing about family members and same sex friends. He doesn’t because it’s not possible to develop romantic love for them unless one is homosexually or bisexually orientated. Obviously some intimate EN’s like SF and intimate affection should only be met by the spouse (that’s common sense too).

But I wasn’t talking about “posting styles” or even referred to YOUR way of posting bigk… I was talking in general...

Anyway, if posting in an abusive, attacking, insulting, inflammatory manner intended to shame the recipient is now called a certain “posting style” <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> then I agree with the following excellent post by another poster (taken from another thread):

[color:"blue"] Posting "Style". What an interesting phrase.

This morning on my way to work... I cut someone off in traffic, turned without using my blinker, and drove 30mph in a 50mph zone so that I could finish listening to a song I like on the radio before I reached my destination. A whole long line of cars formed behind me and boy did they look anrgy. But hey, I wasn't being self-absorbed. That's just my driving "style".

During movies, I like to talk to my friends nice and loud. Rude? Naw! That's just my moviegoing "style".

I love to chew with my mouth open, eat mashed potatoes with my hands and fart at the dinner table. It's not the least bit obnoxious. That's just my eating "style".

And I just love to ridicule, shame, and put down my kids... oh, and call them lots and lots of nasty names... when I think they've been bad.... or if I'm just in a "mood". It's not mean or abusive. It's just my parenting "style".

What a relief to know that I can do and say whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want... all in the name of... "S-T-Y-L-E"!

Love it.[/color]

IMO it’s possible to have heated arguments/disagreements or to get through to a person who acts wayward AND tell them some hard truths (what they need to hear) without being abusive, attacking, insulting, inflammatory etc.

It's funny to watch a loser come here everyday and bemoan posting styles as if someone here has the power to do any harm(you know the kind of harm that results from a WS not informing a BS that she had an A with her H)....talking about being a Christian and then deciding to hurt someone every single day by your actions....or in some cases a FAILURE TO ACT is at the very least hypocritical. Actually, coming from some....it is pretty friggin hysterical...not that I am mentioning anyone in particular.

And the post from SB referenced here is ridiculous since it would impact everyone around the movie going farter....it isn't intended to reach a PERSON that is acting like a WS....or maybe it is no act.

He actually says anyone Suzet - certainly Heterosexuals are most at risk of opposite sex attraction but there are many here, not previously homosexual, who have affairs with members of the same sex.

Dr Harley does say you can be attracted to people of the same sex if their LB balance reaches the romantic love threshold. (as repulsive as I find that) I have read this in one of his books.

In any case, I'm pleased you are no longer distinguishing between different kinds of lovebanks.

Then such a person is neither homosexual or heterosexual IMO, but bisexual (even if they are not aware of their homosexual or bisexual tendencies at first).

Wow, as a heterosexual person I can’t imagine myself ever being romantically attracted to one of my same sex friends… Like you, I find the thought indeed repulsive. IMO a person must have tendencies towards homosexuality or bisexuality to become romantically attracted to someone of the same sex. I don’t think a person who is purely heterosexual is able to get romantically attracted to a person of the same sex. Romantic attraction first start in the thoughts before it follows through to actions and IMO a heterosexual person will not even have the thought process towards a same sex person to begin with.

Bigk, as far as I know, Dr Harley says our spouse should be the one who meets our intimate and most important EN’s the best and most often, not that we shouldn't allow ANY ONE else to fill any of those needs too (obviously he is referring here to needs that can be met appropriately by more people than just the spouse like conversation for example and of course SF and intimate affection is not part of it and should ONLY be met by the spouse). I remember on his video clip piece about infidelity Dr Harley did say that we should not allow a member of the opposite sex to meet any of our intimate EN’s e.g. recreational companionship, intimate conversation, affection and obviously SF.

It it’s true that Dr Harley says we must A proof our M by not allowing ANY person to meet any of our intimate or most important EN’s (and not only the opposite sex), then it means that we must live an isolated life where we can do absolutely nothing without our spouse... Then I will not be able to have any personal conversations with a same sex friend, no recreational companionship with a same sex friend like going for coffee, to the shops or whatever. That makes absolutely no sense and is ridiculous IMO.

Of course our spouse should be our BEST friend and (as Dr Harley says) the one who meets our most important EN’s the best and most often. Also, IMO, ALL friends (opposite and same sex friends) should be known to both spouses and be friends of the marriage as well...and of course nothing of ANY friendship (opposite or same sex) should be kept hidden from a spouse - there should be complete openness and honesty regarding ALL friendships, but in marriages with heterosexual spouses, the same rules for opposite sex friendships simply will not apply to same sex friendships IMO. For example, things that will be inappropriate with an opposite sex friend will not necessarily be inappropriate with a same sex friends like sharing time, e-mails or phone calls for conversation, doing some recreational companionship together like going to the movies, coffee or lunch etc.

I've asked S. Harley about this. As he put it, people have a "governor" that essentially regulates how much of a "deposit" goes in your love bank based on somebody's actions.

It makes sense to me, a birthday card from my W generates a different emotional response than one from my brother, or mother, or friend, or co-worker. i.e. the one from my WW may be worth 100 credits, while all the others may be worth 1. They can give me cards till they are blue in the face, I ain't falling in love with them.

IMHO, much of this has to do with one's perspective. Flowers for no particular reason seem to have a greater impact than flowers on a birthday or anniversary. The later can elicit feelings of this gift has no emotional meaning as they were done out of ritual or obligation. While the former can elicit much stronger feelings since the gift appears to be done solely for the purpose of caring for another.

I think you occassionally see this dynamic when people are trying to recover. The WS will view all of the attempts to meet EN's by the BS as obligatory, manipulative or with ulterior motives and this greatly reduces the magnitude of love bank deposits.

So in short, yes anytime anyone meets one of your EN's they make deposits to your love bank. But your perspective, determines the magnitude of those deposits, and thus regulates whether you fall in love.

Just my 2 cents.

I'd also like to point out the difference between "erotic love" and "in love".

I've seen cases where a spouse...especially women, for reasons I'll explain in a minute...is more "in love" with their best friends than they are "in love" with their spouse. That friends feelings mean more to them...their approval, their relationship, everything about them is more important to that person than even their own spouse.

There are no 'erotic feelings' attached to this...but its still a form of emotional affair. That friend is making more lovebank deposits than that person's spouse is...and it works in the same fashion as an affair does. Its EASIER for that person to make those deposits than it is for the BS to do so at that time too...just like it is when a spouse is engaged in a 'standard' EA or PA.

Again...there are no sexual overtones to this relationship. No erotic feelings, no thoughts of physical intimacy...but a deep emotional attachment, a feeling of "soulmates", and a higher value placed on that relationship than even the marital relationship.

Because women tend to need/want a deeper level of communication than men, especially with their friends...this kind of relationship tends to happen far more often with women than men. Not that it can't happen that way...but its more likely to happen between two women friends than between two men.

So that lovebank that SH talks about is NOT limited to between men and women, nor is it absolutely related to love between "lovers".

I get Suzet's point...that many of the BEHAVIORS that tend to generate lovebank deposits are ones that are not only benificial and desirable between marriage partners...that they also describe ways that we should behave with ALL of our relationships. Demonstrating respectful behavior, having a concern as to how what we say/do is taken...etc...is all part of 'civilized behavior'.

For what its worth, I agree with your thoughts, Suzet. However, you'll find that the vast majority of those that do not agree with what you're trying to say are those who don't place much value in the behaviors that you're advocating. They prefer not to use those behaviors, and will resist and resent any attempt at demonstrating the value of them.

Rprynne, this make a lot of sense and also explain to me why I (as a heterosexual person), will never feel romantically attracted to a same sex person or friend.

I remember when I received intense counseling and therapy from a same sex counselor a few years ago for serious childhood issues, I became emotionally very attached and attracted to her during the course of the counseling (also emotionally dependant for a while). I’ve completely opened up towards this woman and had the greatest admiration for her. She was so supporting, emphatic, helpful and genuinely caring. She was the first person (except for my H) I felt really showed true understanding and care for my issues and pain. For this reason I always felt very good when I have left a counseling session with her and in the process she filled some of my most important EN's. The emotional attachement and attraction I developed towards her was so intense that I know if it was an opposite sex counselor, I would have probably fell in love with that person (that’s also the reason why I will never make use of an opposite sex counselor). I felt emotionally attracted and attached to the counselor but never physically or romantically because of my sexual orientation.

Hi Owl, thanks for your post! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I understand what you say about the difference between “in love” and “erotic love” and that even two women friends who are both heterosexually orientated can have and EA with each other if they put more emphasis on their friendship and each others feelings than those of their spouses... That's very true and NO friendship should ever be more important than the relationship with the spouse.

According to your definition of “in love” where there are no sexual overtones...that’s probably what I’ve experienced toward my counselor back then. If it was an opposite sex counselor, I would have probably started to experience “erotic love” feelings (romantic feelings and physical attraction) towards the person as well.

SP - Back to your question.

I'm a little confused. At first you seemed upset that people would say end a M if you don't have kids. Now it seems like your asking if you want to have kids is it ever safe to do that with FWS.

IMHO, is it safe to do that with a WS? No. Is it safe to do that with a FWS? Yes. I think it all depends on the state of your M when you decide to have children. The future success of your M has less to do with the fact that their was an A and more to do with what happens from now forward.

I've always liked to distinguish between reconciling and recovering. Any M impacted by infidelity is going to end either in divorce or somewhere on the spectrum between reconciled and recovered. To me reconciling is more about saying I'm sorry, promising not to do it again. Recovery is more about getting to and addressing the big issues. Addressing both the internal and external problems that led up to this.

Reconciling seldom results in a FWS. At best its a (F?)WS. They end their A, but they are still a WS. Just hibernating. Recovery results in a FWS. A changed person.

How do you tell the difference. I don't know, I'm hoping that I'd know it when I see it.

All that said, it seems that you don't have to make that decision right now. You're in plan B. You arelegaly constrained as to when you could finalize a D. Isn't your only choice to cross that bridge when you come to it. I mean if your WS doesn't budge over the next year, its irrelevant. If your WS does want to come back to the M, you can assess whether it is to recover or reconcile. After you determine that, then you can decide on the question of children.

Owl - Its a good point. I think what it illustrates is that a good relationship or love is as much about your investment, your expectations, and your receptiveness. Three things that you can change totally independent of the actions of the other person.

Suzet - I would also guess that your feelings for your therapist changed over time, while the therapist had not changed at all. Somewhat illustrating the point that you can make choices that affect your feelings for another. i.e. the more you invested, the more receptive you were, the stronger your feelings.

SP-

Another reason why I tend to suggest that a brand new marriage (less than a year old) that has suffered infidelity is often not recoverable...

If you go to plan B...now, after being married and together such a very short time...there's little basis to draw your H back to you with.

Plan B is normally not effective at causing a WS to miss the BS if it wasn't preceeded by a STELLAR plan A. Plan A causes huge deposits in the lovebank, even if they WS doesn't want to acknowledge them at the time. It causes the WS to MISS the BS when they go to plan B. They feel the gap where their BS was in their lives...and often the OP is not ready or able to actually fill that gap.

And this is generally based on couples that have a solid foundation of several years of happy marriage prior to the affair. That foundation is key...because if it was a good marriage for most of that time, there's a huge history of positive things that the WS can look back on in their fog free moments and start to miss.

Less than a year's worth of marriage generally won't have that solid foundation. There's no 'base to build from' for recovery. There's no "why can't we go BACK to how we were" feelings generated anywhere...because the "how we were" wasn't long enough to make a tremendous impact.

I personally feel that plan B may well be a good step for you...it will prepare you to let go of your WS and help you be ready to stand on your own without him. I disagree with Believer in this case, however. I don't believe that a short term marriage prior to the affair is going to be sufficient base and "plan A foundation" to woo your WS back with.

I don't mean to be harsh, and I certainly could be wrong. But I'm giving you the advice as I see it.

Good luck to you, regardless.

rprynne

I'm not sure how my question got confused, but I am not wondering at all about if I should have children with my WH. This is not an issue with me b/c I cannot have children of my own (I found this out over a year ago).

But I do agree with you about the difference b/t recovery and reconciliation, and I will accept no less than recovery if WH decides to return to the M. Right now, all I am focusing on is a good Plan B. If he does not return by next summer a changed man, then Plan D it is. I'll be fully preprared for that by then (or as prepared as anyone can be...)

Owl--

My WH and I have been married 8 years, and we have been a couple for over 20 years. That's why I am trying to follow MB principles to save our M--b/c we have so many years invested with each other.

If we had been married for a short period of time (let's say five or less years for the sake of argument), I'd have dropped him like a hot potato once I found out about the A. I did a good Plan A (for two months, only b/c he was truly awful and cake-eating to such an extreme that I was quickly getting to a point where I was beginning to HATE him.) All he really wanted to do was get to OW--according to him all my positive changes only made him feel more guilty b/c he was not trying to give to the M on his side. And even though I explained about withdrawal and that I would do the heavy lifting for the M and try to help him through this period, he wasn't having any of it. He wanted to have OW for SF, Affection and Admiration and keep me around to meet his ENs for FS and the family/ respectable husbannd image when it suited him since we had been together for so long. (Trust me, this last statement is not an LB--he told me as much before he moved out.)