Here is an article Dr. Harley wrote about the dangers of opposite sex friendships: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8119_friends.html

I've read the article. Lots of good points.

The problem here is DH thought his interactions with this girl were harmless and I see them as risky, especially since I wasn't standing there with him. He said he considers it "a lesson learned" about needing to reinforce his boundaries.

Any suggestions on how we can better handle a similar situation in the future? He's feeling ashamed and a little depressed. Neither one of us want me to continually be put in the position of being his accountability coach. I tend to sense danger before he does and am definitely the more cautious person in this relationship.

I suggested a sort of code phrase we could use such as "The Terrorist Threat Level has been elevated" to encourage him to be careful around someone that I perceive as a threat. I want to throw up the caution flag before lines are crossed.

I don't want to beat him up. He's really trying.

But you ARE his ultimate accountability coach. It's you and him in this marriage. You should both depend on each other to stay on top of protecting your marriage. That's not unhealthy.

If your method works to protect your marriage, good for you!

There was a discussion not too long ago along these lines. Instead of accountability the discussion was about the "contrast effect." It applied Dr. Harley's philosophy on the dangers of using porn to gawking at real live women (perhaps younger, more voluptuous, whathaveyou).

The idea was that one astute poster was noticing that he found himself more attracted to his spouse when he ignored other "eye candy" women.

So, if you encourage your husband that he will be MORE In Love with you when he treats these temptation girls as if they simply don't exist; he will feel the benefits directly also. Not just as a protection for you specifically or your marriage but also for himself and his personal feelings of contentment/"in love" feelings in your relationship.

I have applied the approach with success. Although I'm not married, I have a committed relationship with a wonderful woman my age. She's beautiful. We both have our over-40 physical flaws which we've earned and I wouldn't trade for anything. But, being essentially "single" the radar was up for a while; until I read that post a while ago and realized I was only causing myself anguish by "checking out" or "second looking" a pretty girl on the street. My GF is truly the only woman in my world and it's very satisfying. I don't get any pleasure speaking with another attractive woman or even looking, because I now know the backlash effect is not a nice feeling.

hope that makes some sense. I'm rushing,


opt

I simply wish his boundaries were a little stronger so that the second he sensed an attraction he would have avoided contact with this person.

And if he didn't "sense an attraction", which is apparently what his response to your accusation was, what would you demand he do? (I skipped "asked", because you're obviously well past that.)

You have carefully presented this young lady in unflattering terms that suggest you disapprove of her beauty and talent ("strapless tops and short, short shorts" while Hula-dancing at church? Wow! Some church!) and would condemn/forbid his speaking to her on that basis alone - outside of the church, before service, with an attentive witness.

Well, if MB teaches us nothing else, that fact that not all affairs begin based on physical attractiveness is well documented here. Therefore, would you forbid his communicating with women who are accomplished, personable, conversationalists? Would such bans be imposed against any women who are extraordinary cooks, or highly efficient income providers, or the organ player/choir soloist of great gift? Those are equally strong attractors to men having ENs of different relative strengths. Why is your concentration on physical attractiveness?

Such high-handed restrictions would quickly become LBs, my friend. It may be that the dynamic of your marriage is such that hubby can accept your overcontrol. If so, he's a remarkably devoted husband, and probably worthy of more belief by you in his fidelity. If he is NOT as willing to be treated as a child, then your actions will be disadvantageous to your union, whether or not he voices his resentment. ("The tighter you squeeze something, the more it slips between your fingers...")

Of course, this advice, coming from a male who can appreciate the varied qualities of women WITHOUT having any interest in conducting affairs (so why should it have any legitimacy?) will be unwanted, and predictably assaulted by the assembled "sisterhood". But, just before firmly covering my ears, I'll hit "Submit" anyway.

NG, my testosterone-steeped comrade, your points are good ones. SC would be most assured of having a husband who wasn't tempted by women if her husband was locked in a closet in the basement of their house 24/7.

There's really no sure-fire way for SC to keep him on the narrow path. He's responsible for the care and feeding of his fidelity. But she identified what she perceived as a threat to them in this case and wants to know how to address it.

Her H needs to tighten up his boundaries. SC's first return post indicates that:
We do not know her or her family and I�ve never had a conversation with her, except maybe hello or thank you for your dance in passing. I could tell DH finds her attractive and he acknowledges it. He has engaged her in casual conversation a couple of times without me present and told me about it.

he saw the girl as she arrived and told her we�d seen her picture and asked about it. They talked about it and he told me later.

While he admits he finds her attractive, he didn�t think he was doing anything wrong by being friendly to a 21-22 year old girl at church that he has no intention of communicating with outside that setting.

Whatever his motivation, I am uncomfortable and feel dishonored.

The last sentence is the most important one to me. I believe SC's intuition is giving her a little tug, and I think it's wrong to dismiss that little tug as just being insecure or jealous. Many are the betrayeds on this site who felt that little tug and dismissed it.

She's right to act on her concerns and address those with her H. I think it shows honesty and care for her marriage to do so.

MB, thanx for your response.

You highlighted the exact area that confounds me about SC's concern in this area:

I could tell DH finds her attractive and he acknowledges it.

I (and I'll bet you) find many people "attractive". In my case, I couldn't imagine my bride asking me about the attactiveness of another woman, but I would not lie, because PA is one EN, surely, but ONLY one. And being more or less adherence to a set of standards, PA is a close as any EN to a "fact".

Using some of the alternative EN sources above, would this be an issue if SC noted:

I could tell DH finds her organ-virtuosity exemplary and he acknowledges it. or I could tell DH finds her culinary skills remarkable and he acknowledges it.

SC's spouse has evidently disagreed with the SC's assessment that this 21-year-old-church-going-hula-dancer is a threat to his commitment to SC. As a matter of fact "He has engaged her in casual conversation a couple of times without me present and told me about it." Agreed that ignoring the little "tug" of concern is not advisable, but she seems to have addressed it with him, and he is aware of her attention, to the degree that he is pro-actively keeping her appraised. Good gracious, the guy's a boy-scout in this matter!

Feeling "dishonored" by one's spouse talking to someone with an elevated level of PA, for that reason alone, would, as I maintained previously, likely become a dissatisfier to the spouse. ("I've got to sacrifice normal, casual human interaction, for unjustified jealousy?" Sacrifice, remember is an MB no-no!)

Good lord, if I resented my bride talking to anyone more PA that I, her universe of conversation partners would be reduced to Ernest Borgnine, and "Gollum" from Lord of the Rings!

Strapless tops and short, short shorts are a behavioral choice.

And avoid talking to women who dress like that, myself.

Asking your spouse not to speak to some little hoochie mama in short shorts is not a "sacrifice;" it is a protective measure for the safety of the marriage. That is NOT how Harley defines "sacrifice." Asking your spouse to stop annoying behavior is not what he means by sacrifice. If it annoys your spouse, it has no place in marriage in the first place.

She did the right thing in telling him she felt threatened so he would have the opportunity to stop speaking to hoochies in short shorts.

Remind me during my next road-race to wear sweat-pants! I'd hate to be a temptation to any dames d'un certain �ge, and impediments to their marital situations!

And if the suspicions are unfounded, but the unjustified prohibitions are nevertheless compelled/mandated, sacrifice would most certainly be the definition of the resulting coerced acquiescence.

dream on, yankee boy! I have seen your scrawny legs!

First off, the issue is her comfort level, not whether a suspicion is founded or unfounded. She felt it was a threat to marriage and her feelings alone are justification enough. It doesn't matter if any suspicion were founded or not. She perceived a threat and when she feels threatened he should stop doing that thing. That is not a "sacrifice" in the context we use it here. If it is bad for the marriage it should be eliminated.

It is like child molesting. Sure it might feel sacrificial in some aspects to stop it, but it should have never been there in the first place.

It is not "coercion" to ask your spouse to stop doing something that makes you unhappy. The whole foundation of POJA is to:

Never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement
between you and your spouse

A man should not feel it a 'sacrifice' to stop chatting up scantily-clad women who are not his wife, whether in church or not. If he does, he has a problem.

It is not "coercion" to ask your spouse to stop doing something that makes you unhappy.

Here we go!

It took a while, but we're in the realm of "unhappy with reason" or "unhappy without reason"

How about if hubby were to decide to say "no", which is apparently what happened here. Evidently he believes his behaviour was not inappropriate and said so. The way this segment started was SC wanted, somehow, her husband to instinctively know to whom he was permitted to speak.

EXCUSE ME????

Normal non-wayward American male here saying, "Sweetheart, the request NOW is that you stop acting overly jealous and controlling about non-problems because you are making ME unhappy."

Go ahead ladies, tell me why it works one way and not the other!

I don't think she was asking for him to instinctively know; she told him she had a problem with THIS. Most women would. Especially with boundary problems in the past.

YOUR way doesn't work, NG, because it is dismissive of the original complaint and includes the darling word of the IBer who doesn't care about their spouse's feelings: CONTROLLING. Alkso dismissive: overly jealous and non-problems. If she has a problem with it, it is a problem.

The point is to care about your spouse's feelings and their safety in the marriage, and there is no way to justify a NEED to chat up little young hotties. It just can not be done. Telling a young hot barista, "I'd like a caramel soy latte, please" is a whole different animal from "Hey, I saw your pictures, you looked really good!" Why do you not seem to get this? He had NO REASON to even speak to this person. He chose to, and he can choose not to if he cares at all about his wife.

Here you go...........and there you STOP!!! Telling a spouse they have "no reason" to be unhappy is a DISRESPECTFUL JUDGEMENT. And a violation of the POJA. Again, the POJA states:


Never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement
between you and your spouse


And what is Dr Harley's answer to that?

NG, no one is asking the hootchie to wear - or not wear- anything in particular. SC is well aware of her H's ENs and knows a concern when she sees one. She is the ultimate authority over threats to her M. You're distracting yourself with the colorization of this particular event of SC's. I suspect that SC would just as quickly have perceived a concern if her H was overly impressed by a woman of their age who was able to untangle their checkbook account and was good with finances.

A man should not feel it is a 'sacrifice' to avoid any woman who is not his wife, for any reason.