This was discussed on another thread and it got me wondering.

I have read either on this forum, or perhaps in one of Dr. Harley's books, that there is a definite difference between the lovebuster of IB and the natural course of Individual Behavior or Individual Activities, in a couple's life.

To me, IB means making a decision that can potentially negatively impact your spouse without prior discussion and POJA, even if that spouse were doing something in good faith.

Examples:

--Planning a vacation and putting down a deposit on a room.

--Making financial decisions (outside the POJA'd amount each gets to spend during the week on whatever he/she wants)


Individual behavior or activities to me would be things like:

--Work decisions. Not the decision of quitting a job, or even negotiating a raise, but writing a presentation, deciding to promote a subordinate, organizing ordering of lunch into the office, bringing coffee to a meeting.

--Putting gas in the car


I'm sure there are others.

Telly said this on another thread:


And I see where she's coming from, and I agree. To me, what happens during the work day in the office, goes under individual behavior, which is a slight semantic difference, but world's away from the concept of Independent Behavior.


Sorry to borrow another quote Telly, but this one resonated with me, too. Because if this truly IS the real application of MB, I don't see how I would be a good candidate either.

Would love to hear from the vets on this.

OH, if you read Why Women LEave Men, it's clearly important to invite your spouse and welcome them into all the rooms of your house. If they DJ once they get in there, you have tools for that. MB is *not* "I don't like this, so you must stop." It's more collaborative. Like the article says, applied well, neither partner feels controlled, they are both doing things they feel great about.

• Thoughtful Request: This makes me feel uneasy, and this is why. How would you feel about trying XYZ for a week or two?
• Respectful Persuasion: In detail, this is why I feel this way. How do you see it?
• Negotiation
  1. Set ground rules to make negotiation pleasant and safe.
  2. Identify the problem from both perspectives.
  3. Brainstorm with abandon.
  4. Choose the solution that meets the conditions of the Policy of Joint Agreement -- mutual and enthusiastic agreement.

Isn't practicing these tools a good thing, something to be happy about?

I can understand where Telly is coming from. Because if we're going to go from the point that if I stop and get a dozen donuts for work, then I should bring this to POJA otherwise it's IB, then truly everything is an IB...what I wear to work should be POJA'd, if I do the dishes or push in the chairs to the table first should be POJA'd, etc

Then we come to "Dear, I'd really like to X and Y!" He/she says "no, I can't be enthusiastic about that."

Then the spouse that is enthusiastically wanting or even just wanting to do X and Y cannot do it because we are supposed to do nothing. So the one spouse sacrifices to make the other spouse happy.

NED, if what you say is truly MB and what KT says below is true, then this is not the lifestyle to which I can adapt, either.


That's why I asked about the distinction between IB and what I call "Individual Action/Activities/Behavior". And why I was looking for a Harley quote on it, because I really do think he's addressed it somewhere.

I've spoken with Steve and I understand the concept of teammates and being your spouse's environment. I just think that this concept can be dangerous if not properly explained. Sort of like a WMD falling into the wrong country's hands. LOL

Being my spouse's environment and not wanting to do anything to hurt or harm them is one thing.

There is the other side of that, which is called 'owning your own issues'. Example: Let's say I have a phobia about peas and refuse to cook them and think they are evil and if eaten, will invade our bodies like some alien and cause all sorts of havoc. So peas are NOT welcome in our house. Ever.

Of course it would be unfair of H to make a selfish demand to say "cook peas for dinner tonight!" I could even go so far as to agree with it being a DJ and SD for H to go buy his own peas and cook them in OUR house.

But what if he decides he's going to have peas for lunch every day? I've already stated my issue and because I think peas invade the body and are harmful, and HE is my spouse, if he eats peas at the office, is he doing something to hurt or harm me? Does his lunch menu have to be POJA'd?

I could go to the extreme and say "yes"

But I think that's the wrong application of a MB concept. The pea thing is MY issue. In my house, everyone agrees to respect my issue about peas. Outside the house? It would be unreasonable and demanding (selfish demand) in my own right to insist he not eat peas just because I have an unfavorable opinion about them.

Oh my goodness, when you have 15 hours UA time together, there is a ton of time for talking about everything, you start looking for stuff to talk about I listen to not just my H, but my kids a d other friends talk about all kinds of small stuff, hemorrhoids, planning a colonoscopy, so why not talk about this stuff with your partner, too! I'm just not getting it.

It's not about asking for permission on every little thing, but about inviting your partner into your life as a whole and the parts. And then they mention the stuff they don't like, so you have the information you need to be more compatible.

Talking about it is fine.

I don't think you are understanding what I'm trying to say.

Where in the MB handbook does it say that if I have an issue with something (peas), it's OK to demand that my spouse not ever eat peas when he is out of the house, not around me?

That, IMO is carrying the concept of IB and POJA to the ridiculous.

No this isn't what MB is about, No and the conversation stops. It's about two folks having fun together getting to know all about each other.

I mean, really, we all found the donut story caught our attention, and are all interested talking about it together, or we wouldn't have posted, right? Maybe cwmi and her H like talking about this stuff with each other, too.

I think it goes beyond one couple's specific experience.

That's why I started a new thread.

This is crucial. If a couple doesn't understand and/or misapplies these concepts, things could rapidly get worse than before.

If I'm misunderstanding this concept, then I need to figure that out now, so I can decide what my next course of action will be.

But MB is supposed to be about not sacrificing. So, let�s go with OurHouse�s peas story but let�s change it to sugar. I have a couple friend (well, had�they�ve since split because of diet issues) where the wife became so crazed about the dangers of sugar that she would not allow sugar or sugar products in her house. Nor did she want her husband eating sugar products because she was convinced that it would lead to candida growth and cancer. So the husband says �I think I�m going to get some ice cream at lunch today�
She says �no. I�m not enthusiastic about that.�
Now he has to sacrifice and give up ice cream because she is not enthusiastic.

In the respectful persuasion article, the wife doesn't want to wear a seatbelt. MB doesn't say that she has to wear a seatbelt she doesn't want. but it gives her H tools to explain how the seatbelt thing makes him feel, and he can make a thoughtful request. As they fall back in love, I think they would find POJA on this issue.

And again, no one said Dude needs to give up ice cream. There are probably a hundred solutions they would both be happy with. Like homemade ice cream.

But he has to give up ice cream because POJA says do nothing if the other spouse isn't enthusiastic. So she's not enthusiastic and he has to do nothing--not eat sugar products (ice cream). Her only allowance is for fruit sugar but it has to be fruit, it can't be straight fructose. One day there was a birthday party at work and he had some cake and ice cream. She felt betrayed and like her feelings didn't matter. She did not feel she was being unreasonable because she was concerned about the health of her family.

It doesn't say negotiating stops there though! Do nothing is a temporary situation that avoids either person doing something that can't be taken back while they come to an agreement. It is definitely not the point at which you stop talking.

Everyone has things that are important to them, for me if my husband was to smoke I would leave him. It wouldn't matter whether he did it only away from me, and I was never affected by it at all personally, but I vehemently do not want to be, and would never consent to stay married to a smoker.

In the example of the ice cream she doesn't get to dictate, but neither should he give her the impression he agrees and then go ahead and eat it anyway. He has to keep saying and keep talking to her and keep telling her that he is not enthusiastic about not eating sugar, she has the right to try to persuade him and to talk to him about her feelings about ANYTHING but not to demand.

I think the same applies to work situations, I want my husband to talk to me about his work, I love to know everything (even the technical aviation stuff of which I get to hear lots!) and if I have an opinion about something then I'm going to tell him. That doesn't mean I don't think he is capable of doing his job very very well on his own, it doesn't mean I think I can tell him what he should eat for lunch every day but I'm also NOT going to NOT tell him if I have concerns about something because that wouldn't be openness and honesty.

When money is tight I might suggest he takes a packed lunch, if he says he struggles to get time to eat I might suggest things that would be easy to eat quickly in a 5 minute break. Why wouldn't I want to offer help to him just because its a part of his life that I don't get to be there for?

This is exactly the kind of discussion that makes me think I am one of the people who should stop posting here.

There is a lot I agree with about MB, but there is stuff I disagree with. For one thing, I don't agree with divorce.

For another thing, I am totally a "win win" person. But that doesn't mean I think I have the right to put my own preferences in my husband's path on every single issue of our lives in the event I have a difference of opinion than him.

Nor do I think he should do it.

I saw a poster here once end up divorcing her husband because they could not come to an agreement she felt good about regarding DS. I'm sure there were other issues, but that was the presenting one... and they could afford a housekeeper if they wanted.

I believe the danger with POJA, if taken too far, and too rigidly is this: "You have to do only those things I agree with wholeheartedly in every aspect of your life, and I'm not willing to do any work to change any areas of myself where I may have issues. You will simply have to work around the landmine that is my emotions indefinitely."

I just don't think I can watch what feels like abuses to the concept--and to hear that Dr. H supports it (I wonder if it's Sr. or Jr) is deeply disturbing to me.

I wish Star*fish were still here. I believe she could shed some light on what has become truly problematic for my application of MB principles.

I agree totally, Telly. That's why I was bothered enough to start this thread. Back to my WMD analogy. If Dr Harley (Sr) meant something other than what you point out (and back to my analogy about peas...), then either he's not completely explained it to the masses, or some are misunderstanding/misapplying the concepts.

And reading about SH's support of some misapplied concepts is one of the reasons I have not continued to counsel with him. I am thinking about the MB online course for several reasons: cost efficiencies being the #1....but wondering about SH's advice is up there as well. I was deeply disturbed.

I understood Steve's direction to be this:

You and your spouse are teammates.

You should not endeavor to hurt or harm your teammate.

You are your teammates environment.

Knowledge of those three things should guide your thoughts, judgements and actions.

I get all of that.

What I don't get is where individuality and autonomy fit in? If somehow, those aren't worked respectfully into a marriage, what happens to the uniqueness of each partner?

Scary stuff to think about.

Thought I'd repeat this:



If this situation exists, it's a ticking time bomb!

Does the axiom "Never do anything without the enthusiastic agreement of your spouse" mean "I can be entirely unreasonable in my standards/expectations and you have to simply work around it?"

I've loved Dr. Harley's books, and loved his program. But this has me stymied. I'm also a person who believes part of the purpose of marriage is to help us become more whole, healthy and healed people. I feel like the approach some take with POJA says "You can have issues, and your spouse should simply accommodate them by choosing things you can both feel good about--thereby never triggering any of these unresolved issues". In other words, oher than AO's, DJ's or IB, you don't have to change anything."

I don't see how that's healthy at all. And it has me quite troubled. If this is really what the program has morphe dinto, then I don't know why I'm here.

Only your wife can decide if the clothes you wear to work are annoying. It is up to each individual couple what should be negotiated. And keep in mind that this program is VOLUNTARY. There is no "has to" about any of this. You are a grown man and don't have to do anything.

But if you want to have happy marriage, you will avoid doing things that make your spouse unhappy. That is all up to you.

In regards to POJA, my H and I don't care what each other has for lunch so we wouldn't bring that up, but we DO CARE if the other goes to lunch with a member of the opposite sex. [taboo] And he does care if I spend $25 on my own lunch.

We have an agreement in place about things like that, via POJA. So we don't POJA it every time it comes up. We POJA it usually ONCE and then the standard is set in place.

I have posted the example of how my H had a meltdown in the store over a bag of lettuce that costs $2.99. That is micky mouse to ME, but it sure is not micky mouse to him!! So, we have an agreement in place over brands of lettuce, etc. We both know what brand preferences suit the other so grocery shopping is a breeze now.


from Effective Marriage Counseling pg 112-113

What about Resentment?

One of the most common objections to to the POJA is that it creates resentment when it is followed. I agree; it does usually create some resentment. But far more resentment is created when it is not followed. An illustration will make this important point.

George is invited to watch football with his friend Sam. He tells his wife, Sue, that he plans to accept the invitation. Sue objects.

If George goes ahead and watches the game, he's guilty of independent behavior. He is not following the POJA and Sue will be resentful. When George does something against the wishes of Sue, I call her resentment type A.

If George follows the POJA and doesn't accept Sam's invitation, then George will be resentful. When George is prevented from doing something because of Sue's objections I call this resentment type B.

Which type of resentment makes the largest love bank withdrawals: type A or type B? The answer is type A, and thats why the POJA helps build love bank balances. I'll explain.

When G violates the POJA, Sue has no choice but to feel the effect of the thoughtless decision [love bank withdrawals] for as long as memory persists - possibly for life whenever the event is recalled. But when George follows the POJA, the negative effect is limited in time. It only lasts as long as it takes to discover an enjoyable alternative that is acceptable to Sue.

George lets Sue know how disappointed he is with her objection but is willing to discuss other options. Sue wasn't invited to watch football and doesn't want to invite herself to Sam's house so she suggests inviting Sam and his wife to their house to watch football. George calls Sam, he and his wife accept, and the new activity puts an end to George's type B resentment.

Type A resentment can last forever, but type B resentment stops the moment a mutually enjoyable alternative is discovered. Those with poor negotiating skills may have trouble seeing the difference because they have not learned how to resolve conflicts. They may feel resentment about a host of issues that have been unresolved in their marriage. But after you teach a couple to negotiate successfully, unresolved issues are minimized. Then it becomes clear to them that the POJA helps build Love Bank balances by eliminating type A resentment.

Telly, how is it that someone can be on this forum for 6 years and not know anything about the POJA? Which books do you have?

I am not following you at all and I don't think you understand the POJA.. Who defines "unreasonable?" We each have our own standards of what is or isn't reasonable and in a happy, healthy marriage, those standards are accommodated.

For example, I thought it was very unreasonable that my H would even have an opinion about how much we pay for lettuce. To me, that is micky mouse. But to him, it is very wasteful and upsetting to spend $2.99 on lettuce.

Now, I am a big girl and can damn well buy any bag of lettuce I want, but if I want to avoid love bank withdrawals [which I do] then I will negotiate with him and find a lettuce choice that makes us BOTH happy no matter how "micky mouse" I think he is.

I stand to benefit much more from a happy husband and an intimate marriage than from a bag of $2.99 lettuce.