The openness is worse in certain settings but the setting really doesn't matter. That is why to me, a POJA about the setting is not going to solve the problem.


I feel like my point is getting lost in back and forth about semantics. I don't fault you for wanting to make sure I am on the right track, though, when I use wrong words.

No, Harley did not utter those precise words. And by "limiting", I do NOT mean any sort of limiting by my power. I am referring to the POJA. Always. ONE of the things the POJA does is limit what we do, by bilateral agreement in which both spouses are happy. That is the form of limiting I was referring to. Believe me, NO ONE knows how "powerless" I am over my wife than I at this point.

I am absolutely positive that I have heard Harley discuss this topic of wife contact with men. There have been several radio episodes that mention that topic. Joyce made it a big point to state that she has male friends and contact with men in the office and at different times. And that she has conversations with them. She just does not allow the conversations to become "personal". However, this does NOT address more subtle problems of flirtation or "openness" as I describe it.

In fact, Dr. Harley makes a point to say that he is not easily offended by her men friends' behavior. And in some fashion or another, I am very confident that they have stated on the radio show the position that it is "unhealthy" for the wife to not have social contact with women for sure. I just can't remember what else was included in their comment about "unhealthy" with enough certainty to quote it.

Bottom line though is that I have come away from those episodes with very much a picture that the wife is not to be subject to any sort of POJA that is socially "unhealthy", nor should it be a problem for wives to have men friends and conversations with men.

That is very confusing in light of what y'all are saying.

I think I can probably find at least one of those radio episodes. I will take a look.

Then the POJA would solve the problem. Never do anything without the enthusiastic agreement of your spouse.


There is no semantics at all. Dr Harley has never even said anything like that. I have listened to every radio show.


You keep saying you can limit her. You cannot. The POJA does not. The point in question is WILL SHE stop doing anything that hurts you? The POJA is all about free will. It speaks to MY behavior. I willingly eliminate any behavior that hurts my spouse. He does the same.


Not sure what this has to do with your marriage. Joyce and Dr Harley do what feels comfortable to THEM. The subject here is your marriage.


They have never said that, but the subject here is your wife's relationships with MEN. One does not need to socialize outside of marriage to "be healthy." That is ridiculous.


You have misunderstood entirely. It is "unhealthy" to do things that hurt your spouse.

There is no such radio show. Dr Harley has said over and over and over again that the only thing that is exempt from the P0licy of Joint Agreement is:

here

Flirting with men obviously does not fall into any of those categories.

Can you provide an example of what the POJA you are referring to might look like? What I am saying is that the only solution I can see that you are providing is to POJA an agreement where Azurite agrees to not be exposed to men. That is not practical, which is fine if that is all you are offering as a suggestion. I am just trying to figure out what you are suggesting that the POJA agreement might look like in this specific case.


Well, what I believe I heard became part of my understanding of this topic, so it will be worth my time to go back and locate the episode(s). I will post it when I find it. If you were to say that he put things a different way, I might just take you a face value but I know what I heard and it was "something like that".


Yep, I get it. Again, no one knows more than I just how much free will my wife has. The POJA is all about free will for sure. If you are saying that the POJA has no limiting effect on the person who submits to it, then we just don't agree on that (and I'm OK with that). To expand on this, I am not saying that the POJA is a negative tool for limiting people. It is a positive tool for achieving extraordinary care.


It has to do with my marriage because they were defining global standards in that broadcast. Not just for their marriage. But let's just set this point aside for now until I can find that broadcast. I understand that you disagree that they said that.


Surely I am misreading something. This sounds like me 15 years ago. Are you saying that one man and one woman, married, are complete in themselves in terms of marriage, and they don't require any sort of social contact with any other humans to "be healthy"? I used to believe that, and have paid a dear price for that belief. At the time I believed it, it felt like the whole world was against me. I must be misunderstanding you somehow.

Ironically, I am the one in this relationship who has a tendency toward that kind of isolation. But having experienced what I have, I can no longer agree that isolation within a marriage is healthy. There has to be a balance.

It would be up to you and your wife to find a solution that makes you BOTH happy. However, anything that makes you unhappy should be taken completely off the table as the default position is to do nothing. You would need to brainstorm solutions to find communications with men about which you are enthusiastic.

I am not sure what you mean by "not practical."


I would suggest you misunderstood him then. I have listened to every show, been through his course, met him in person and he has never suggested one must have opposite sex friendships to be "healthy." I have none myself and I am very "healthy" and have an integrated happy marriage.


What I said is that YOU don't have ability to limit her. If she CHOOSES to engage in the POJA, she would be agreeing to eliminate behavior that hurts you. I CHOOSE to eliminate behavior that hurts my husband and vice versa.



No, they were not. They were defining what works for THEM. You are not THEM. What works for them might not work for you.


Absolutely. My husband and I are more than "complete." We are very judicious about any time that we sacrifice to "socialize" with others because it takes away time from US. One does not need social contact with others to be "healthy." Sure, we socialize with others occasionally, but it is rare.


We are not "isolated;" we are together all of our free time. Most couples who are in love don't desire or need to socialize a lot.

It sounds like you NEED to socialize a lot and that is not healthy. Perhaps if you got more satisfaction out of your marriage you wouldn't have such a critical desire to be with others?

If Azurite does indeed flirt with everything male that moves, then yes, it is indeed practical for the two of you to not socialize with other men.

Very likely.

If your wife desires to socialize with others more than she desires to be alone with you, the real problem here is that you have not filled her lovebank to the point that she is in love with you. Judging from both of your posts, you have a pretty big problem with lovebusting her, which will DRAIN the lovebank.

You should focus on eliminating the disrespectful judgements, and start meeting her emotional needs, and you will find that eventually she will NOT WANT to socialize with other people because it interferes with her time with you.

What we seem to be looking for here is a consistency, right? In other words, if Azurite flirts with the entire male population then the consistency is the male population. If she does it at parties, then parties are the problem. And so on.

The trouble is that there really ISN'T a consistency. She can do perfectly fine in one situation, and not in another.

Another issue is that she says she has no idea she is being open or flirting. And that she has no awareness if a man is flirting with her. (Unless it is really blatant.) I am at the point that I believe this. I know she flirted intentionally during her affairs, but that is no longer occurring (the affairs).

She said that a college roommate confronted her about it years before we even met. She had ideas of why she got to be the way she is, but says she generally does not have much awareness of her openness toward men. So, at least for the most part I believe it may actually be unintentional. Nevertheless, I truly believe that in most situations I could point out some specific flirtatious behavior that I observe of her and relay that to a fellow man and he would be able to readily agree with the observation. It is a communicant able observation. (It is NOT in my head only and that is highly offensive when she suggests that.)

All of this is not to psychoanalyze Azurite. It is for the purpose of figuring out how in the world to POJA this.

Azurite has demonstrated and expressed desire to socialize with others over me since the day we met. This is nothing new. So you are suggesting what? That she never had a full love bank? And it's my fault for what was present before I even came into the picture?

But you are.

Strawman.

An independent woman will desire her husband's company over everybody else when she is in love with him. Period.

So this is where you can help her. You can point out behavior to her that bothers you and she can eliminate it. You and your wife can get into the habit of telling each other things that bother you so you can eliminate that behavior.

I am suggesting she is not in love with you if she prefers to socialize over your company. A person who is in love will GRUDGINGLY give up alone time to be with others. And if this is truly the case, Dr Harley would tell you to stop socializing completely until you are in love. The reason you would stop is because of the contrast effect. Apparently you are competing with strangers and friends as a source of recreation and you are on the losing end of that deal.

I shared statements made by Azurite, which if anything, are her analyses, and are relevant to figuring out how to POJA something agreeable to us both. Especially since she is not allowed to participate in this thread herself. So unless you prefer a one-side solution that doesn't benefit us in the end, I am not sure what else to do to paint a fuller picture.

If you can point out which specific statements you feel are psychoanalyzing her, and why, I can probably agree and accept that. Otherwise, I do not find the cute remark helpful because it only leaves me with more questions.

Please be specific.

If what you are saying is clinically true then she was never in love with me. That is entirely possible and of course would be very disappointing because I was surely deceived that she did love me.

On the other hand, you would have to exclude all other possibilities. Let's take one for example, such as a person who has such a strong need for say, admiration, that they would seek to get that met outside marriage even while in love. I understand and agree with your generality but I'm saying this doesn't seem to be as simple as just getting past the love threshold.

Again, what I am asking for is how to POJA this. Not diagnose. You seem to have come the closest with the suggestion that while we are not in love that all socializing with men stops. Sounds reasonable to me. She might agree to that until love threshold is crossed. I'd have to ask.

If that is true, clinically, as in, according to a professional, then I would have to accept it and say that she never was in love with me. Won't be the first time it has happened, I'm sure. I was sure in love with her though.

A person doesn't "NEED" admiration like they need air or water; this need must be met in order for them to fall in love. An emotional need, in this context, is something that when met in a relationship, causes an incredible attraction to the giver. If she is getting that need met outside of marriage, that is a problem. When one need is met outside of marriage, the others are soon to follow. [leading to affairs]


I am not sure what you are asking when you say "how to POJA this." You just tell her that her behavior around men makes you uncomfortable and explain in detail respectfully. She can then stop the behavior that upsets you. You would handle this like any normal complaint.

Are you in love with her now? If so, how would you rather spend your evening?

a. at a loud party with a bunch of friends, strangers [never getting a quiet moment with your wife]

b. a romantic drive to a great steak house for a lovely, pleasant dinner laughing and chatting with your beautiful wife all evening.

Erastis,

I don't know what else to tell you. We are shooting straight with you; we are not making cute remarks. We are trying to help you learn the same principles that saved our marriage.

But you question everything TO DEATH, my friend. Has anyone ever accused you of overanalyzing everything? Prisca used to complain that I "argued circles" around her. Has your wife ever made a similar complaint about you?

I would suggest that you need to take things at face value a little more. If we mention something to you it is because, in our experience, we have found it to be important. If we comment that something you've said is disrespectful to your wife, again, it's because we've found that learning to recognize this is crucial in order for men to be able to turn their marriages around. If you don't quite understand I'd say it's good to ask questions but your questions come off sounding like challenges and debates. Statements like "I would accept that if" are simply arguing, Erastis. Trust us - we know what we are talking about. Stuff like that doesn't help you and doesn't help your poor wife.

Shrug. What does that matter? You are here, now, and can create that feeling of love in your wife. Now. Dwelling on the past doesn't help either of you.

To do that, you will need to eliminate the disrespectful judgements and you will need to meet her emotional needs. I would make eliminating the disrespectful judgements my first step if I were you.