Another point of clarification� Please see my previous post before reading this one.
I made a separate thread because this is a separate issue.

When a poster shows up on the boards and reports their spouse wants out of the marriage and the poster suspects their might be an affair � is it wrong to suggest that the core problem in their relationship is most likely a case of unmet emotional needs and that the affair is an unfortunate, destructive and dangerous by-product or symptom of that core problem?

In my mind affairs most often happen in the setting of long-standing unmet emotional needs. Affairs are like an opportunistic infection in someone dying of cancer. The infection is a dangerous side problem that must be eradicated swiftly and completely � but it is not the root problem. Take away the infection, the cancer remains.

I see unmet ENs as the root problem because if you bust the affair but don�t fix the EN problem, you still have a broken, unsustainable and unappealing relationship. Considering root cause analysis, the affair then cannot be the root problem.

I acknowledge that no amount of marriage building will be effective while an affair is distorting the picture. I also agree that part of marriage rebuilding is creating and enforcing boundaries on the part of the wayward. But I have disagreed recently with other posters on what the *root* problem most often is. Others have suggested that the *affair* is the root problem and unmet ENs are secondary.

Why does this matter? It seems like if we suggest to Betrayeds that the root of their problem is the *affair* then they are likely to neglect fixing their contributions to the conditions that predisposed to the affair and thus shift a disproportionate amount of blame for the affair on to the WS.

Nothing excuses an affair. No amount of unmet ENs can justify the horribly destructive and selfish choice of an affair. Plenty of people go without their ENs met but do not have affairs. I realize this. But when affairs do happen - claiming the affair is the root of a couple�s problem seems contrary to Harley�s teachings in my opinion. It seems to me Harley spreads the responsibility for marital breakdowns, including affairs, pretty evenly between both spouses. We both contribute to the failure. We both must do our part in the recovery.

If I�m wrong on this, please help me to see it. I want to give advice that is consistent with MB principles.

Thanks
BWS

This type of philosophical discussion does not belong on the SAA forum so we are moving the thread to the Other Topics forum.

I would also caution you against telling other posters how to post. That is a surefire way to create unnecessary conflict on the board. Telling posters how to post is the domain of the moderators and not you. If you see a poster who is in violation of our TOS, kindly notify the moderators and allow us to handle it. That is our job, after all.

Thank you for your cooperation.

There is justification to not be happy.
Not being happy is not justification to have an affair.

There is no reason to justify having an affair.

Thank you for moving this thread appropriately.

I am not trying to tell other posters how to post or generate conflict. I am sincerely trying to ensure my interpretation of Harley's material is consistent with the group's. I find I'm getting some consistently negative feedback and I'm seeking understanding.

The feedback has been polite and cordial (via MelodyLane and Markos) but I'm still not dissuaded from my view so I'm looking for more input.

The Road - if I've implied justification for an affair I've been unclear. Nothing justifies an affair - but unmet needs help explain, in part, the dynamics that lead to many affairs... IMO.

I think you're discussing reasons for affairs

IMO - reasons don't really or aren't really explanations

neither reasons nor explanations are justifications


In most situations...the married couple isn't making love on a pile of money .... so EITHER ONE would have could have "reasons" for an affair. Neither are likely meeting the others emotional needs in the way they want them met.

Therefore...if one CHOOSES to attempt to save their marriage they may need/want to try to figure out what needs they weren't meeting and to the extent they can try to meet those needs to the extent they don't have to demean themselves doing so. They are to do this NOT in an some effort to "EXPLAIN" the affair but merely in an effort to bust up an affair and save their marriage and family. They may/should continue to meet the unmet needs in recovery in an attempt to rebuild a better marriage of extraordinary care and again NOT to "EXPLAIN" an affair....hopefully, by then, this analysis and meeting of prior to "unmet needs" is reciprocal.

Unmet needs might "explain" only why a marriage was unhappy and susceptible to an affair...never the affair itself.

Your mileage may vary.

But you're failing to acknowledge the whole program. The whole point of MB is to eliminate the conditions that made the affair possible. Properly following the program of recovery eliminates any chance of shifting 'blame' for the affair entirely on the WS.