The church I grew up in was almost all senior citizens. The preacher used to speak positively about sex from the pulpit, with children present.

I dunno... I sure carry a lot of past religious baggage! ;-)

As a teenager in the Church of Christ, I was in a class taught by older, respected women in the church on the subject of sex itself.

It was definitely taught as being something beautiful.

My mother, who is deeply religious and an Elder's wife in the Church of Christ, taught me that it was a gift from God and should be cherished and enjoyed.

And I'm from a small, very conservative church.

I did look forward to a sexual relationship with Markos. Yet, after we got married and Markos started lovebusting me on a regular basis, I lost my desire for sex altogether. Came close to an aversion. Dr. Harley's right -- it's not your past or what you were taught about sex that determines your desire.

So, you were taught sex was bad and dirty. So what. They were wrong. Move on. There's no point in holding on to the past.

(BTW, we're not a cult, ok? ).

I have a personal theory about why some women grow up and believe that sex is "dirty," and it is not coming from the churches. It is coming from the feminazi, "freeee lurve" movement of the 60's. [I was raised by atheists and my mother was a feminist]

That degenerate movement taught women that sex is no more significant than 2 alley cats in heat going at it. They reduced the sex act to nothing more than a physical act and stripped it of all it's beauty by encouraging its use outside of a loving, respectful relationship.

Sex IS disgusting outside of the parameters of a loving relationship. It is reduced to no more than a barnyard act. That is how I was raised. And I always wondered what was WRONG with me that I couldn't get into the "free lurrrve" movement. The whole idea of having some jerk put his paws on me made me sick. And now I know why.

It was that movement that made sex dirty by cheapening it. I am WOMYN, hear me roar!!

Totally agree with you, Mel.

So why do they choose to emotionally detach?

After all, why assume the problem is with the husband? Kids are a great means to emotionally detach from a husband. If mom puts her energy into her kids, since there is typically a finite amount of energy, the one who loses is her husband.

It seems we assume that if there is this emotional disconnect, that it's some sort of failure on the husband's part.

What if it's because she's shifted her priorities from her spouse to her kids. He gets her left overs and she wonders why she doesn't feel emotionally connected.

Keep in mind, his desire for sex is evidence of his desire to connect emotionally. After all, it's called an emotional need.

So I don't think we can assume that the emotional disconnect is due to some emotional shortcoming on the part of the husband.

But we see that advice presented here all the time. If sex is broken, then it must be some failure on the part of the husband. If only the husband would do X, Y or Z and sex will return.

Really?

Meanwhile, take any wife who complains about not having an emotional connection with her husband. Suggest that the best way to make that connection is likely through sex and she'll balk.

So does she really want an emotional connection or not?

If she's refusing sex, from my point of view, I'd say no she doesn't. If she rejects the typical number one emotional need of her spouse, she is saying with her actions that she really does not want an emotional connection with her husband.

Dr Harley's program is about action. Refusing to take actions that make the biggest deposits in the love bank is the road to failure.

I agree. It can be. B ut isn't. Necessarily

I didn't say Coc was. Just that they made the watchlist. I have a good friend who's a Coc elder .. no offense intended.

Actually, EE, it's Dr. Harley who says that.

I think I even said that.

But is that a given? How is it the husband has emotionally disconnected when he's doing the same things he did when they were dating, presumably meeting her emotional needs, but now, instead of her meeting his needs, she's turned the bulk of her efforts towards the children?

I believe this is a very common, a very typical scenario. I think you will find few women who think their husbands come before their kids. I think you'll find far more men who think their wives come before their kids.

So who is really failing to meet the emotional needs of whom? Can we really apply a one-sized fits all, if the man would shape up, the marriage will get better?

Will she even notice him shaping up if she only has eyes for her kids?

Typically, yes.

This is why it is easier for the husband to win the wife back, than it is for the wife to win the husband back. She will typically respond to his unilateral changes, and then will herself be willing to meet his needs. It is much harder the other way around.

I'm not so sure.

Here is my thinking. It's not much different than an affair. As long as the wayward is in orbit with her lover, she probably won't even notice her husband's efforts.

It's probably not much different with the kids. If the object of her affections is her children, will she even notice, or give her husband credit if she does happen to notice.

It really seems that affairs are ended not due to betrayed husbands better meeting their wayward wive needs. Instead, they are ended because the OM loses interest in his lover. She's reeled in, hook line and sinker, she re-writes history, the problems are all with her husband, and this new man is the solution.

Aren't we just reading from the same script when we read Dr Harley saying the same thing. If there is a problem with sex, then if we would just get a better version of her husband, then things will likely resolve.

Seems to me, they are very similar thinking.

It also seems it's more likely an external event that changes things than any changes in his behavior. Something that bursts the bubble of the fantasy.

Be it the fantasy that the first priority is the kids, or the fantasy that the first priority is the OM. The abandoned husband holds little sway with respect to his actions changing her view. It takes some external event to pop the fantasy.

As long as the affair is on-going, his actions will have little effect.

I believe that's true if the affair is with an OM, or the "affair" is with raising her children.

That's odd, I was told it's much harder for a husband to win back a WW by Steve Harley when I worked with him.

I think you'll find that around here too. Far more BW's with husbands who came home than the other way around.

Women put up walls. They don't want to see the changes. They've emotionally shut out their husbands, and don't allow him to make deposits in the love bank.

The typical woman has only one account open. If it's open to the lover, she rejects all deposits from her husband. She closes the account and rejects any and all deposits. That's why the affair must end before his efforts are effective.

I think men are more likely to accept deposits from both their wives and their lovers. That's why I think BW's can effectively win their husbands back more often than BH's will effectively win their wives back.

I think you are quite right, and I think Marriage Builders has the solution for that.

So have you studied this or anything? Do you have statistics?

Thank you for your thinking. I'll stick with Dr. Harley's thinking, as it seems to be improving my sex life!

I did some Googling, and it appears that the FBI Cultwatch did list the International Church of Christ at one point in time, but not the regular/mainstream Church of Christ.

(ICoC, CoC, Disciples of Christ / Christian Church, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and United Church of Christ are often conflated.)

We weren't talking about WW in an active affair, now were we. We were talking about a wife obsessed with her children over her husband.

There is a difference. And Dr. Harley says it is easier for a husband to win her back.

Do you listen to the radio show much?

No, I don't listen much. I did work with Steve Harley in 2003-2004. I don't think the material has changed all that much since then.

Apparently Steven and his Dad are not on the same page if Dr Harley say's it's easier for a BH to win his wife back.

I know he's said it's easier for a man to perform plan A for a longer period of time. But I've not seen where men are more effective at winning their spouses back than are women.

It seems the opposite is true, for the reasons I've presented. The account is closed and no amount of effort on his part will re-open the typical account closed by the WW.

There are exceptions, but they are not the norm.

The other thing. All sorts of things are SIMILAR to affairs. Even Dr Harley says affairs are a form of addiction. So any addictive activity bears resemblance to an affair.

So if a mom is addicted to her kids, she will do whatever it takes to get her fix. Just like a drug addict, an alcoholic, or someone in an affair.

Their focus is largely on the object of their addiction. They see very little outside the addiction. Their efforts are focused on the object of their addiction.

This is true for those in affairs, those who put their kids before their spouses, those who put their work before their family, and those who put drugs, alcohol, or sexual addiction before anything else.

They are all similar in so much as they are all addictive behaviors.

You have to break the addiction before you can repair the marital relationship.