I don't know if that notion will ever go away completely since everyone has an opinion but I do think more people are being open about infidelity in their Ms and that is a good thing. Considering infidelity affects the majority of marriages, chance are if a person has not had to deal with it in their own marriage, a close family member or friend likely has...I doubt most people would call their mother, father, sister, brother, child, best friend weak (assuming they aren't a marriage at all cost doormat) if they saw their pain up close.

I have only seen one episode but I did like that new show The Good Wife...she is not a weak woman. Who knows...maybe the tide will change. After the Tiger Woods fallout, I've read plenty of BSs saying bull to the notion of being weak if they stay...maybe some eyes will open.

Whatcho talkin' bout Willis?

Others on this forum would know better than I whether being a monk would have helped them avoid an affair, tst.

But for the record, no I don't think we should all be monks.

I'll settle for just staying faithful to our spouses, even if it requires avoiding unnecessary conversations with the opposite sex. Apparently for many, it does.


Your statistics are no comfort to this woman's husband, now are they? I'd bet she - and more importantly her husband - wish she'd never had that first .00000001% conversation she had with her OM.

Ottert, conversations will always happen. Conversations don't cause an affair, people's choices do. Mrs. Robinson could have had thousands of conversations with this man and lived to never have a single regret until the day she chose to commit adultery. I don't think Mr. Robinson will regret the first conversations that happened...... I think he will morn her choice to commit adultery.


I can only pray Mr. Robinson finds the MB program. He can find peace and become a stronger man if given access to the tools.

The part I like???

It had no emotional or lasting meaning... Tell that to her H and see how that flies. Why is it that people blow up their lives for "no emotional or lasting meaning" ?

This woman is still in the fog big time.

JL

From the Infidelity section of the "How to Fall in Love and Stay In Love" workbook by Dr. Willard F. Harley, used at the Marriage Builders Weekend.

C) Infidelity is so painful that extraordinary precautions must be taken to avoid it.

D) To guard against infidelity:

2)Don't ever let someone of the opposite sex meet any of your four intimate emotional needs (Conversation, Recreational Companionship, Affection, and Sexual Fulfillment).

Ottert, Dr. H was not saying never have a conversation with someone of the opposite sex.

At the MB weekend he talked about INTIMATE conversation as being the "off limits" conversation that MEETS ENs.

INTIMATE conversation is not the same as everyday, casual conversation with the opposite sex. I certainly don't expect tst to never speak to a woman. That would be a foolish, unrealistic expectation. I would expect him to never share with a woman his personal feelings about me (other than to rave about me ), our marriage, his dreams, disappointments, feelings, etc.

There is a difference between this type of conversation; and it is THIS INTIMATE conversation that deposits love units and can lead to an affair.

Ottert,

this is clearly a real bug-bear for you, and I feel so sorry that your wife is not yet doing what is requied to heal you.

Unlike the need for sex, conversation is not an emotional need that should be met exclusively in marriage.

Our need for conversation can be ethically met by almost anyone, but if it is one of your most important emotional needs, whoever meets it best will deposit so much love in your heart, you may fall in love with that person.

So if it's in you or your wife's top EN's, it's crucial to your marital happiness, and protection from an affair, that your partner is the one who meets it the best and most often.

The need for conversation is not met by simply talking to someone. It is met when the conversation is enjoyable to both.

Good conversation is characterized by the following:

(1) using it to inform and investigate each other,
(2) focusing attention on topics of mutual interest,
(3) balancing the conversation so both have an equal opportunity to talk, and
(4) giving each other undivided attention while talking to each other.

Conversation fails to meet this need when
(1) demands are made,
(2) disrespect is shown,
(3) one or both become angry,
(4) when it is used to dwell on mistakes of the past or present.

(taken from the writings of Lewis Biglar.)

So, rather than focus on the conversations your W may have with other men, why not focus on the conversations YOU have with her.

Incidentally, we live in a rural area and our postman has quite a trek to reach us. I talk to him virtually every day to ask how his day is, how his family are and what he is up to. No deposits have been made into my LB� as a result of our conversations.

I wish you well in your recovery.

Have you given any thought to whether deposits have been made into your postman's LB$ as a result of your conversations?

sere,

Dr. Harley is clear that NONE of your four most important ENs, which includes conversation, should EVER be met by someone of the opposite sex.

Do I understand you correctly to be saying that if your spouse doesn't meet your need for conversation, then you are free to have that need met by someone of the opposite sex?

ottert, two points. One, IMO you are confusing conversation with CONVERSATION.

When I ask the trashman if he's picking up trash on Christmas day, that is conversation. When I ask the trashman if he wants to come in and have some hot cocoa, I'm home alone, that is CONVERSATION.

Two, I think his instructions are more geared for those who have suffered through infidelity, all the jazz about extraordinary precautions and such. Because once you have established infidelity, you will HAVE to be on guard and monitor and all that; because trust has been broken. But you don't get married and instantly say 'ok, to make sure you never cheat on me, if I ever see you talk to another guy, I'll have to draw up a Plan B letter.'

Read SMB's post a page back. The difference is between "conversation" and "INTIMATE conversation:"
Intimate conversation isn't just "pillow talk," it's anything that becomes personal, IMO.

Yes, actually I have, and no I doubt very much at all that I am making any deposits into his LB�. That's probably because I engage in pleasantries and do NOT engage in intimate talk.

I think he thinks I am a nice person and I also think he thinks BB is nice because he often talks to him as well and BB was the one who gave him his christmas present from us.

If BB wasn't meeting my need for conversation, then I would raise that issue with him and address it.

I converse with many people, but I do not share intimate information with many people. I am intimate in my conversation with BB only - maybe my sister also, but not to the same level.

I would not share deep, personal or private thoughts with any man other than my husband.

I protect my boundaries suffficiently well to not even set off down a path that may lead to verbal intimacy.

We're not at a stage where BB is thinking of putting duct tape over my mouth every time I venture out of the house, lest I strike up a conversation with a member of the opposite sex.

I hope not anyway.

There's a WORLD of difference between intimate conversation which can only ethically be met by your spouse and day to day conversation with other people.

In his post on another unrelated thread (or maybe not so unrelated), here is GloveOil's account of how his affair began with casual, every day conversation that was not INTIMATE in any way, but eventually slid down the slippery slope.

I think it is an excellent illustration of my point of how opposite-sex conversation, in which neither party has any adulterous intent, can so easily progress from casual, every day topics to an affair before you know what's happened to you.

Notice how once the comfort level of having a "chat" about neutral topics such as songs they were working on was established, "it took nothing at all to start chatting about other things...and BAM!, there I was, hooked on her attention."

It's interesting that he had never given this woman a secod look or thought - "never had the slightest interest in her or attraction to her whatsoever."

He also emphasizes that when his email conversation began with his OW, he believed at the time his intentions were pure and proper. And who could disagree with him? After all, they were merely chatting about choir practice, church work. Nothing INTIMATE about that, right?

Throw in the ease of secrecy with email, texting and cell phones, and it's a combustible combination.

Ottert, you know I love ya man, but you need to seriously kick off your shoes, and get a bottle of some good ole' stuff and try to relax. No one here is your enemy, especially not me...... but man you are preaching to the choir on the infidelity forum about how important it is to avoid conversations that lead to affairs. We ALL get it! Some more than others, but we ALL get it. So please relax and enjoy the evening.

Exactly TST - everyone here knows how affairs start - and most if not ALL start innocently. But Ottert has an axe to grind about this for some unknown reason. I don't think anyone has ever said his wife's correspondence with an old lover was a good idea.

No, cat, I don't have it confused. I understand the difference.

My W talks to other men pretty much every day. Her boss is a man and she works around other men, so of course she has to talk to them. I have no problem with conversation that is strictly professional and mostly unavoidable.

I work with other women also, conversation with them is unavoidable, and frankly it would be ridiculous for me to never talk to them.

You can be pleasant and friendly and still keep your conversations with the opposite sex business-like.

None of this is what I'm talking about.

I'm not aware of anywhere that Dr. Harley makes the distinction between conversation and CONVERSATION. It is understood that conversation in itself is an INTIMATE emotional need. You don't have to be talking about INTIMATE subjects - personal dreams, disappointments, marriage problems, sex - to have this need met by someone of the opposite sex. We could be talking about politics, gardening, sports, whatever, and the mere fact that someone will listen to us and be interested in what we have to say can be intoxicating.

Read the example of Jill in Ch. 6 of HNHN. Most of the conversations she has with her neighbor Tom, who she eventually has an affair with, occurred while the two couples were TOGETHER! They weren't even alone, their spouses were apparently in the room with them, and there is no mention that their conversation topics were INTIMATE.

And she didn't have to invite him in for hot cocoa for Tom to fall in love with her. He was in love with her "almost from the first time we met." All because they liked talking to each other.

On your second point, I could not disagree more. The explicit reason Dr. Harley gives for guarding against having any of our four most intimate ENs met by anyone of the opposite sex is for the express purpose of AVOIDING INFIDELITY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Your statement that "all that jazz about extraordinary precautions" is geared toward those who have suffered infidelity is way off the mark. Dr. Harley has famously never committed infidelity and he credits his use of these very same extraordinary precautions.

The entire premise of HNHN is to meet your spouse's ENs so there will be less danger of someone else meeting them, so infidelity won't happen.

As you say, those hurt by infidelity will be more sensitive to preventing it from happening again. But I think we can all agree it's better to avoid it in the first place.

So...if your wife works in an office, she's not allowed to say to John, "Hey John, we need some more toner for the printer" now?