PI, you are making things up that we both know have never been asserted by Dr Harley. If is so important, then why doesn't Dr Harley ever bring it up? In fact, he says the exact opposite.

Do you have a link from Dr Harley that supports your assertion that that there is some "direct link" to childhood that is so important that it must be discussed?

I would like to see it.

I agree we should teach our children good practices for marriage, but there is no reason to muddy the waters with an irrelevant and imaginary "link" to childhood. If Harley says to leave the past in the past why would you say otherwise?

Link or page number please.

I am not making anything up. Why are you so hell bent on denying the fact your emotional needs are shaped during your childhood, as a teen, during dating, and as an adult? Do you just turn 18 and all of sudden wake up with emotional needs?

There is nothing wrong with discussing why you have certain emotional needs and they are that way because of the way you were raised?

Page 173 of HNHN discusses "Confidence usually begins at home"

Why do men love Football?
Why do woman love to Cook?

Could it be because of the way they were raised?

He says leave it in the past when it deals with adultery, not emotional needs.

Why do woman usually have a high need for financial support?

Their fathers ... and how they were raised!!!

Or could it be because they are hardwired? It is impossible to know. Harley says people's personalities are formed through a combination of hardwiring and nurture, and it is anyone's guess which has the greatest influence. My point is that one doesn't have to know WHERE or HOW they were derived and trying to figure it out is a waste of time. I have been through the MB course, have counseled with Dr Harley and know others who have counseled with Steve or Jennifer. The subject of HOW an emotional need came to be is not ever brought up because it is not relevant. What is discussed is what they are and how best to meet them. THAT is the kind of thing that is good to teach children about marriage.

Again, no link. Where does he say to delve into the past when it comes to emotional needs?

Maybe, maybe not. I know women who were raised without fathers who have a high need for FS. But how is that relevant to the present? How does knowing that help anyone in their adult life?

Page 129-131 of HNHN for parents discusses learning lovebusters and emotions in childhood and how that is brought into marriage.

Again you miss my point of this entire thread. I am shaping my children's emotional needs by how they are raised. It is my job as their parent to help them understand these emotions as they age. Their EN's will change over time, and it is my job to help them understand how to handle the changes.

I feel it is perfectly acceptable to help MB folk understand why they have a need and how their spouse can meet that need. Most come here with the illusion they don't have to change ... they should just sacrifice. If you want to help someone figure out what recreations they enjoy most often they go back to high school and college. Why is admiration important for men because of the praise they received as a child and hence they need their wife to now be their biggest fan.

But how does that prove your point? You said that he advocates delving into childhood when it comes to emotional needs. Those pages you noted are all about not role modeling independent, thoughtless behavior to children. I agree that parents should not role model disrespectful behavior.

Once again, how is this relevant? And how is it possible to even know this? That is the point that you are missing, PI. Dr Harley does not place any relevance on how or why an emotional need might be created so I am unclear about why you do. In fact, he says that EN's are hardwired and can't be changed without immense difficulty.

As I have pointed out ad naseum, Dr Harley does not examine one's childhood when it comes to ANYTHING. Do you know this? So why are you placing such emphasis on it yourself?

I am not trying to be argumentative with you PI, but I don't think it helps anyone to place an arbitrary importance on something that Dr Harley does not feel is important. I have been through the MB course, and believe me, they NEVER once asked how or why my H or I had certain emotional needs.

The program is really very simple and straightforward. Why muddy the waters?

"Divorce permanently weakens the family and the relationship between children and parents. It frequently leads to destructive conflict management methods, diminished social competence and for children, the early loss of virginity, as well as diminished sense of masculinity or femininity for young adults. It also results in more trouble with dating, more cohabitation, greater likelihood of divorce, higher expectations of divorce later in life, and a decreased desire to have children.

Divorce leads to a decline in children�s ability to trust their fathers, which does not bode well for the lifetime happiness of divorced children. Young adults who feel emotionally close to their fathers tend to be happier and more satisfied in life, regardless of their feelings towards their mothers.

Men whose parents divorced are inclined to be simultaneously hostile and a �rescuer� of the women to whom they are attracted, rather than the more open, affectionate, cooperative partner, more frequently found among men raised by parents of an intact marriage. By contrast, the problem of being overly meek or overly dominant is much more prevalent in the romantic relationships and marriages of the daughters of divorced families than it is among daughters of intact marriages.

Children who experience divorce at any age will continue to be affected their whole lives, tending to �exhibit higher malaise scores at age 33 than their contemporaries whose parents remained married."

---
eta: �One study reported that persons raised in divorced families have less positive attitudes towards marriage, and more positive attitudes towards divorce. This negative attitude about marriage leads to decreased commitment to romantic relationships, which in turn is related to lower relationship quality.

Adult male children of divorced parents show more ambivalence than men from intact families about becoming involved in a relationship, though they invest more money and tangible goods in casual dating relationships. Women share this ambivalence and demonstrate even more conflict, doubt, and lack of faith in their partner�s benevolence and tend to place less value on consistent commitment

Unwed teen mothers, who have expectations of rejection and divorce in relationships, seem to retain negative attitudes towards men instilled by their parents� divorce.

Parental divorce is also associated with lower marital quality for their children. This manifests itself in arguing more about the family, increased rates of jealousy, moodiness, infidelity, conflicts over money, excessive drinking, and drug use.

Analysis of the 1987-1988 wave of the National Survey of Families and Households showed that children of divorce whose marriages were less than �very happy� communicated less and were more than twice as likely to argue frequently and to shout and hit when they argued. The child with an available father, both in the early and the adolescent years, is more companionable and responsible as an adult. In particular, �boys who feel close to their fathers, regardless of biological status, have better attitudes about intimacy and the prospect of their own married lives than boys who do not feel close to their fathers.

In addition to an increased likelihood of being sexually active, girls from divorced families are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, to have more frequent sexual intercourse, and to have more sexual partners."
---

Sounds to me like more than one screwed up EN going on here. But, the ability to be RH, negotiate and generally avoid love busters seems to be even more affected than the ability to sort out one�s ENs. Or one�s spouse�s EN�s - which is equally important.

I think you guys are talking about different things. EN�s vs, what, self awareness. The ability to feel and the ability to act in an intimate relationship�s best interests often get conflated.

By the way, Mel, I am pretty darn sure I no longer have any intimate ENs. I consciously suppressed them well enough and long enough now to probably make this state permanent. And I feel safe, finally. I am willing to testify ENs can be controlled, modified and probably eliminated entirely if will and incentive are strong enough.

I never said he advocates delving into childhood. All I said is he has stated your childhood helps shape your emotional needs. Again you are missing the point.

I stated earlier to Lost it is important to help his children understand their emotional needs because he is helping to shape them, just as his absentee WXW. It is important for the children to learn about their emotional needs so when they are older then can choose a partner who can help meet those needs.

I also stated when someone comes here to blame their childhood for their adultery, I can correct them by letting them know their emotional needs were affected by their childhood and the lack of boundaries was the only reason for their adultery.

When someone is looking to understand why admiration is their husband's most important EN it is helpful to see why, so they can learn how to meet that need. If a man is a mama's boy it is important to know what admiration supply she is giving him, so his wife can take over the admiration role.

I am done arguing this with you. I supplied you with two examples from Dr. Harley's books that discusses how childhood can shape needs and/or teach you how to destroy love. I have supplied plenty of examples of how domestic support, financial security, and recreational activities very often come from childhood, teens, dating, and finally adulthood.

But would they be suppressed if you were in a romantic relationship? I can fully understand why they would be suppressed since you are not in a romantic relationship, but that doesn't mean they are changed. How would you know they have changed if you are not in romantic relationship? To your point, though, I know people's ENs can change over time. Harley says it is harder to change an EN [reactions] than it is behavior.

Good point. I�d have to be tested to be sure. To see if I am contagious.

Well, I know I used to have them. And now I know I don�t. And, I don�t want to even remotely try to have them again.

Is there perhaps a chicken and egg thing going on here?

I don�t have intimate ENs because I am not in a romantic relationship, but I would have to have intimate ENs that need meeting to want to be in a romantic relationship.

Which comes first? Should one come first?

Hmm ... interesting .. especially since I am 33 and this has recently come to the fore front of me and my mothers relationship.

Perhaps if you post a new happy picture on your other thread?

eta: What happened to that thread anyway?

etaa: Oh, there it is. Languishing on page OT 2.

Yes .. i have been thinking about that actually ..

I guess it pays to remember where I am posting...