In the on-going discussions re the philosophy of marriage, and the fundamental strategy of meeting EN, there is the kinda unsaid assumption that each party will have their needs equally met (however one measures such a thing), but that is almost certain not to be the case. Life doesn't work with that mathematical precision, and indeed we are back the contract, quid pro quo, concept of marriage. Well if that is true, it is a quid pro quo, love is a decision, why would the spouse who is on the short end of the stick decide to stay? That would be contrary to human psychology. Love is a decision only works if you are the party benefiting the most, and therein lies again, more reason why we have marital disharmony, and why love is not a decision, nor is being happy (same analysis).<P>Any way you slice this, deciding always comes up short, feelings have to be in there, they have to matter, they are the reasons you don't keep score....that means we have to deal with the fact you will love some more than others, and if it is not your spouse, again there is trouble. Over and over again, it is so obvious, how you fit someone (psychologically) is of vital importance to happiness and marital success. And why all the ratrional arguments in the world will not make someone be in-love. Leaveing only the question of whether people should remain married if they are not in-love, something each must decide for themself, and why vows (contracts) do not work (at least as far as gauranteeing love).

SnL, <BR>Interesting thought. I wonder if the concept of Giver and Taker weren't modeled on that idea.<P>Is there a threshhold of needs that must be met in order for loving feelings to be deposited vs withdrawn. If 60% of my needs are met, do I remain in love? If 80% are met am I even happier? What if its only 30%? Am I then losing love for my spouse? I wonder if everyone has their own threshhold of needs -- it seems like there are a lot of BS's here who only get a small fraction of needs met, but still declare themselves to be in love. Why?<P>

And what about how people change over the course of their lifetime?<P>People (and marriages) tend to get into ruts. What if my H met my needs in exactly the same way 10 years ago, but now my needs have changed. His actions may not have changed, but how I react to his actions have.

Quote<P>" Well if that is true, it is a quid pro quo, love is a decision, why would the spouse who is on the short end of the stick decide to stay? "<P>Because for some, living the principle of faithfulness and steadfastness, in what they have promised, is at the core of their being, not to be compromised. It is who they are, despite getting the short end of the stick. For some, life is not about how much they get, but how much they can give and contribute and to how well they can hold to the principles they have chosen to live their life by.

SnL,<P>The lovebank is only an analogy, you know that, right. Feelings are not conscious decisions, but they are how you keep track of what's in the lovebank (analogy again). The feelings you have are your score! (at least in the lovebank analogy) <P>You certainly can do things rationally that will affect someones lovebank and hence their feelings. Like lovebust, for example. I can do that conciously and it will affect my W's feelings for me. <P>By the same procedure I can conciously show affection and it will affect her feelings. It certainly has that affect on my end.<P>Do I have any idea how full my W's lovebank is? How could I? I can't rationally compare our lovebanks (since they're only analogies anyway). <P>So, how will I know who's ahead?<P>If I feel good, do I care? <P>Do I think love is a rational decision? NO! <P>Nevertheless, rational actions can affect the amount of love I feel.<P>Some of my thoughts,<P>Jeffers

mthrrhbard..Because for some, living the principle of faithfulness and steadfastness, in what they have promised, is at the core of their being, not to be compromised. <P>snl..Why not? No human being does anything without a reason, a benefit (well some don't, but we call that mental illness). So what is the benefit? We know the benefits of an in-love marriage (live longer, happier while living, psychologically healthier kids, more productive, etc.) but what are the benefits of staying in a not in-love marriage? What is the nature of the promise, what if it is made with incomplete knowledge of yourself, or the other person? Since that is almost always the case, you are in effect saying the institution is what is important, not the people, is that true? And what if your spouse does not want to stay married to you, would you let them go? Or invoke vows (assuming you had such power) and make them stay faithful and steadfast.<P>mtr...It is who they are, despite getting the short end of the stick. For some, life is not about how much they get, but how much they can give and contribute and to how well they can hold to the principles they have chosen to live their life by.<P>snl....again why? And is not the fate of such folks to be taken advantage of? (since they do not value their own circumstances, and Christ did tell us to love ourselves). How do we know that a ridgid adherence to what you suggest is not essentially legalism, icon worship, and satan working on us through the sin of prideful behaviour. One can make the argument that any rigid position is prideful, and God has warned us not to act in such a manner. Marriage is a dynamic (not static) human activity, and also requires the cooperation of another human being. God clearly does not make marriage an absolute, nor is his references to adultery and unbelievers meant to be solely literal. Not to mention adultery is never actually specified, and IMO is symbolic of much more than sexual infidelity. In fact, I think a very strong case can be made for exactly what the harley's imply, marriage is essentially a poja activity, arising out of radical honesty. And that spiritual marriage, or covenant marriage only exists as long as the intent of both parties is pure. I suspect their are lots of people who remain married out of Biblical principles who deep in their heart (where God knows us) do not choose to be their, and therefore are in fact not married in God's eyes, although they may be in the eyes of the community. <P>Your views interest me, hope you don't find this offensive. I have been a Christian a long time, by choice, and that has not wavered, although life has take me to a place where I need to understand some things and so am questioning Christian marital doctrine, and Gods will for each of us, and how He may reveal that will. It seems only logical that if satan exists (and I believe he does) that he would work in many different ways re marriage, including influencing people to marry wrongly, not following Gods will, and therefore creating a non-covenant marriage. That a civil/church ceremony takes place is not nearly enuf, there has to be a lot more to it. I suspect entering a covenant marriage is much harder than people realize. Likewise God moves in mysterious ways, and if He is all-powerful He certainly has the power to dissolve a marriage, and may well do so. I cannot for a second believe God means for every marriage to be (otherwise all we Christians who say sure he does, but then look the other way when terrible abuse is present and we approve the divorce, are hypocrits), we have freewill, and people can and will make terrible choices in many things, including marriage. Each has to decide for themself whether they have a oneflesh marriage or not.

I'm not offended in the least! I've got to run get my kids from school. I will reply a bit later.

lexxy...Is there a threshhold of needs that must be met in order for loving feelings to be deposited vs withdrawn. If 60% of my needs are met, do I remain in love? If 80% are met am I even happier? What if its only 30%? Am I then losing love for my spouse? I wonder if everyone has their own threshhold of needs -- it seems like there are a lot of BS's here who only get a small fraction of needs met, but still declare themselves to be in love. Why?<P>snl...I wonder the same thing, if love is a decision, then even if you never get any needs met, you should be able to maintain the love. But since we all inherently know that has some kind of serious problem, what else might apply. The idea there is a threshold sounds good, kinda goes with the EN thingy, but again we have problems, cause it is a score thingy, without some other motivation. <P>lexxy...And what about how people change over the course of their lifetime? People (and marriages) tend to get into ruts. What if my H met my needs in exactly the same way 10 years ago, but now my needs have changed. His actions may not have changed, but how I react to his actions have.<P>snl...Again, a very real issue if love is only about EN.... also the whole issue of motivation is pretty much overlooked by the harleys, sure if you are in-love, and want to meet each others needs, wonderful, the jackpot. But what if you don't want to meet someones needs, then there is something wrong with you...which brings us back to makes no difference who you are married too..... but even worse, what if you don't want your spouse to meet your needs? Do you have to let them? Or is that your psyche telling you you don't fit.<P>I am becoming more and more certain, that in-love is 3 things...... it is first and foremost a fit a psychological/spiritual fit, a fit where 2 people literally merge into each other, and taking care of your spouse is the same as taking care of yourself, and the Bible makes this clear as well....oneflesh. Out of that fit arises the motivation to meet your spouses EN, it is not work, it is effortless, because you are taking care of yourself..... and lastly it is a synergy, it only works when the spouse is doing the same to you....it is a perfect vulnerability, no gaurding, you cannot just do it, rather you cannot NOT do it. You do not find, choose, decide, love...it chooses you, even when you might not want it too, hence the affairs (albeit small in number) that are heartbreakers. And the eternal question, why can't you just be with who you love (and who loves you). Now being messy humans, and always having freewill, you may well be married to the right one for the right reasons, but act poorly and get lost, IMO those marriages will recover, will recognize and reconnect. But I do think it does a disservice to all, to promote that love is just a decision, and just do it, there are many bs (and probably ws), who seem pretty clearly to not be married to people they fit. I suspect they hang on out of fear, and dependentcy as often as not.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>snl...So what is the benefit? We know the benefits of an in-love marriage (live longer, happier while living, psychologically healthier kids, more productive, etc.) but what are the benefits of staying in a not in-love marriage? What is the nature of the promise, what if it is made with incomplete knowledge of yourself, or the other person? Since that is almost always the case, you are in effect saying the institution is what is important, not the people, is that true? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>OK, S_N_L, Here's MY take on your "CHRISTIAN" view of M.....We are human beings, made in the Image of God. NOT animals.....animals do things strictly out of instinct, OR because it "feels good" to them. <P>No, we, as humans, have a unique ability among all creatures on earth. We can communicate our NEEDS to our mate. We can TELL them, "I'm unhappy, and here's what would make me happy." THIS - to me at least - is the CORE of what makes MB so successful in restoring M's.<P>Other animals on earth do mate for life (not all, but many). But they do it for different reasons....all of them valid (for us, too, but we'll forget that for now). They do it because it keeps the young safe. They do it because it keeps the "family unit" (pack?) safe, and strong. With clear-cut leadership, goals, etc. They choose from among the strongest, swiftest, wisest, most beautiful, etc. WE, however, choose for different reasons. If YOU ever figure THAT out, I think you could BOTTLE it and SELL it!!!! <P>MY take is that we make the DECISION to stay, based on SOME (maybe not all) needs being met, or have been met in the past, and we HOPE that they will one day again. Most of us have periodic "bad times" during our M's (prior to this one really BAD one, I mean!) but we didn't bolt at the first sign of trouble. No, we held on, knowing that things would get better again, and we would be "happy" again, and our needs would be important to our spouse again.<P>It all boils down to COMMUNICATION between 2 people. Period. WIthout that ability to communicate with each other, then I guess I would have to be reduced to AGREEING with almost everything you say! <P>I posted once before that I believe almost ANY 2 people could marry and be happy together. The reason is that they could LEARN how to make the other happy, communicate with them, and learn what they would have to do in order to meet that person's needs. It's pretty basic, really. It is what makes us separate from the animals in God's kingdom.<P>Lupo

lupo, ok let's go with communication, and simply choosing to meet each others needs as a theory . Where does the motivation come from? What if you don't want to meet someones need? Or want them to meet yours? Surely there must be people in your life past or present, you just do not "fit", and cannot imagine being friends with, much less married too. If you find yourself married to one of them, and can't see yourself in their bed the rest of your life, what do you do? If you have no motivation to continue on, how do the mutual needs thing happen?<P>Ya see, we always make an assumption here, that we all married the right person.... after all we married them, so they must be right...... that of course is circular logic, cause you may just as well married the wrong person. For example the boards have a number of women here who did not find out till after married, that H were porn addicts, this probably is important, and may affect their motivation to meet needs. The other assumption is that people did fit, can and want to make each others needs, are in-love, and if they just get over this rough spot will be fine...well of course!!!! Cause they are in-love and motivated. Unfortuneately that is not always the case.

lupo, ok let's go with communication, and simply choosing to meet each others needs as a theory . Where does the motivation come from? What if you don't want to meet someones need? Or want them to meet yours? Surely there must be people in your life past or present, you just do not "fit", and cannot imagine being friends with, much less married too. If you find yourself married to one of them, and can't see yourself in their bed the rest of your life, what do you do? If you have no motivation to continue on, how do the mutual needs thing happen?<P>Ya see, we always make an assumption here, that we all married the right person.... after all we married them, so they must be right...... that of course is circular logic, cause you may just as well married the wrong person. For example the boards have a number of women here who did not find out till after married, that H were porn addicts, this probably is important, and may affect their motivation to meet needs. The other assumption is that people did fit, can and want to make each others needs, are in-love, and if they just get over this rough spot will be fine...well of course!!!! Cause they are in-love and motivated. Unfortuneately that is not always the case.

I rarely reply just occasionally read for help and advice. It is my opinion (nothing more than that) that many people stay in unhappy situations ( doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage) for one very, very powerful reason--the fear of being alone. And I know why it is to be feared. Anyway, sometimes a bad situation is better than the unknown by yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sad_n_lonely:<BR><B><BR>Ya see, we always make an assumption here, that we all married the right person.... </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>SNL, you just don't give up, do you? There is no "right" person... When you married, you made a commitment to <B>make</B> that person the "right" person. Love may be conditional (it <B>is</B>), but honoring your commitments should not be conditional on the time of day, or the weather, or your feelings. <P>If all your commitments are so conditional ("well, I'm not in love anymore, so hasta la vista"), I'd be questioning the very foundation of your character... Can your kids count on your role as a father, or can that too change if you get tired of them? But we've been through this before, haven't we... Even back when you were "confusedinMI"...<P>AGG<p>[This message has been edited by AGoodGuy (edited September 21, 2001).]

(Snobird sitting at SnL's feet and really "digging" his message)<P>Bravo, Jennifer. I think you did nail a big point! That was part of my reasoning for staying with my H (though not the only). I just didn't feel I had the emotional or physical strength to start over from square one once again. I'm established here, things function well, good 'nuff. Also I think that was HUGE reason why my OM wife kept her claws so tightly dug in. At 50 she was in less thrilled at starting over than I was!!<P>SnL, you make a good point, as always. I think that some people need a certain percentage met. You may only need 60% from your spouse, the rest you get from yourself, family, friends etc. Lexxy might need 80%, MTH might need more like 98%. And then there are those who only want 30-40%. I found that during my A, I didn't want hardly anything from my H. He wasn't who I wanted IT from. Now, that he is to be the only one in my life, I'm still having a hard time letting him be my everything. I'm not sure he was was my "everything" to begin with. I do get a lot of pleasure out of giving out. I like to do for other people. But often I just want to be let alone in return. Maybe I'm the 40%/60% type!<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by snobird:<BR><B>I think that was HUGE reason why my OM wife kept her claws so tightly dug in. At 50 she was in less thrilled at starting over than I was!!<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Or maybe she was trying to save her marriage? The nerve of her.....<P>AGG

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>There is no "right" person... When you married, you made a commitment to make</B> that person the "right" person. Love may be conditional (it <B>is</B>), but honoring your commitments should not be conditional on the time of day, or the weather, or your feelings. <P>If all your commitments are so conditional...Can your kids count on your role as a father, or can that too change if you get tired of them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>S_N_L:<P>YEAH!!! WHAT AGOODGUY SAID........ that's it, committment - NOT "feelings". Bottom line.<P>Lupo<BR>

good guy...SNL, you just don't give up, do you? There is no "right" person... When you married, you made a commitment to make that person the "right" person. Love may be conditional (it is), but honoring your commitments should not be conditional on the time of day, or the weather, or your feelings. <P>snl....And we come full circle once again, can't remember, are you a marital absolutist, divorce is never allowed? If good guy, then it is an agree to disagree issue. I do not believe people can or should force themselves to pretend (and it is pretend, cause you cannot "decide" feelings...right?) each other. Marriage is a special relationship, an intimate connection to another human being that should be the most completely selfish choice anyone ever makes. I would be absolutely horrified to have my spouse stay with me for any reason other than their completely selfish desire to do so. I don't want vows, I don't want duty, I want to be chosen, cause that is what they want....period. How does that fit with your views? Would you want a sacrificial spouse? One who stayed with you out of duty, out of vows, when they really don't want to be there? <P>agg....If all your commitments are so conditional ("well, I'm not in love anymore, so hasta la vista"), I'd be questioning the very foundation of your character... Can your kids count on your role as a father, or can that too change if you get tired of them? But we've been through this before, haven't we... Even back when you were "confusedinMI"...<P>snl...The trouble with absolute statements good guy is they are always conditional. Pick anything you want, and I will concoct a circumstance which will cause you to renege. It may be an extreme concoction, but all it takes is one exception to destroy the rule. Yes character is important, but it works in many ways, and no one is perfect. I may very well trust someone who left a marriage after much effort to make it work, but whose heart said no, over someone who stayed in a bad marriage, mindlessly celebrating duty, showing no ability to recognize an unworkable relationship....kinda reminds me of a robot, or a cult member. <P>This committment thing gets trotted out regularly as something we should worship in and of itself. I really don't care about committment just for the sake of committment. I care about people, and outcomes, and changing realities...... the strength of human beings is the ability to adapt and change according to circumstances....I would put my ability to commit up against anyone, and it is based on doing the best I can under the circumstances in force when I need to act. I am not impressed at all by sacrificial committment, it is counter-intuitive, and does little "real" good for anyone. It seems the psychological community agrees, few if any psychologists agree with you re sacrificial marriage. If you don't want to be there, you need to leave, for everyones best mental health.<P>Jennifer.... It is my opinion (nothing more than that) that many people stay in unhappy situations ( doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage) for one very, very powerful reason--the fear of being alone. And I know why it is to be feared. Anyway, sometimes a bad situation is better than the unknown by yourself.<P>snl...I agree, and in a larger sense, fear of change. Over and over and over, you see folks who were sure they could never live without _______ find after they go through the fire, regain their life (from a non-nurturing marriage, for whatever reason) come alive (a common phrase) and move on to much more rewarding lives. The fact is, there are a lot of not very good marriages in this world, and it doesn't necessarily mean anyone is evil, it just means they are not fitted to each other. We all do have different psychologies, ask any psychologist, you do not interract the same with just anyone, it does make a difference. And when you are talking about who you share your life with, it makes a BIG difference. No one can commit their being to another (and gaurantee to fit them, and vice versa) this is annoying, sad, and often tragic, but as long as people marry young, and often with very little regard to mate selection, we are gonna have to deal with marriages that are not very nurturing for the participants, and never will be. That is the reality, and it is foolish, as well as unhealthy to make the marriage more important than the mental health of the participants.<P><BR>good guy, why do you feel a decision made, often with very little psychological understanding, and often in the inexperience of youth is a life sentence? Self-imposed at that. This is counter to everything that makes us human, the ability to grow, to learn, to correct mistakes, somehow this does not apply to who you choose as a mate? Makes no sense at all. There is absolutely nothing else human beings do where we do not celebrate growth an change, as needed. Yet we choose a mate, and come to regret it, and that's it? No 2nd chance? For either person, just chained together forever? We have a name for that....slavery. Yes, I am well aware no one has to stay married, I am replying to your philosophy of committment, whether you choose it, or whether you value it in others. Frankly I have always valued something else, honesty, especially emotional honesty. I don't want committment, I want to know exactly how someone feels, and that is what I want them to act on, not act against. I don't want someone to decide to love me, I want them to love me cause they can't not love me. Do you see the difference?<P>I know I was dishonest as far as the development of the A. But as soon as I realized how I felt, I told my wife I would agree to her previous suggestions of divorce. It was not the way I would have chosen to resolve the marital concerns, but I had no real idea of what it was like to bond with someone (had never done so with my wife, was living the committment you suggest, for 23 years, and it was killing both of us), and found myself in a very uncomfortable place. Since she declined, I will honor the committment and revisit our marriage, but I know what in-love feels like now, what it looks like, sounds like... and I won't settle for committment any more. My wife and I will either fall in love with each other or we won't, but we will not stay married without that bonding. I don't want a roomate, and neither does she, we want enthusiastic choice. Committment means I have obligations to provide for her for the rest of her life, and not reject her, or demonize her, and I will honor that, but I do not need to be a spouse to do so. For that matter she may not continue to choose me, it disturbs her I love the ow, but I cannot lie about it, should I lie? This is the on-going problem with feelings, it is great to say one is in-love with their spouse, but if not, and with someone else, somehow they do not count. How does that work? She does not want me to be here cause of committment, she wants me to be in-love with her, and I have absolutely no control over that, it is a matter of the heart that not you, or I, or anyone understands, or can control. All we can do is deny our hearts, I don't think we should, nor would I ever ask anyone to do so for me. <P>

I just want to say ONE thing; There IS a right person to marry. Just as there is a wrong person. And you don't marry them to MAKE them the right one. You marry them BECAUSE they are the right one.<P>tthththththppppppppttttt!!!

SnL, I find you very insightful. If you ever wish to discuss any of these topics or have a totally sympathetic ear, please email me. I do hope to keep hopping onto your trains of thought here! watch4deer@onebox.com<P>

Marriage is rarely, if ever, a 50/50, give and take, living arrangement. More often than reasonable, one partner is giving much more than 50 percent whereas the other spouse if taking the equivelent of that and more. This is an okay arrangement as long as one spouse isn't left contributing the majority+ their responsiblity more often than not. Too much of a load over time becomes extremely burdensome, irritating and bothersomel. The carrier of such is in dire need of tender loving care.<BR>------------------<BR><B>Time heals all wounds as long as you DON'T pick at them!</B><p>[This message has been edited by GeezLouise (edited September 22, 2001).]