Mr_Confused Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 I find this interesting - Maslow's Hierarchy of needs (having to put link since can't put pics): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/450px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png I'd prefer to not debate if an affair is ever justified and concur that is never is. I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a good reference however for understanding human needs. a fair summary can be found at the following site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs there is some redundancy at different levels and the details differentiate them - should anyone care enough to read it. I may be foolish to think I can even broach the topic without the grand debate commencing, but if nothing else, thought it was a good foundational tenet of human psychology worth sharing in understanding the basics of a healthy marriage/relationship. AFFAIRS ARE WRONG!!!! - just wanted to say it once more.
frozensprouts Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 AFFAIRS ARE WRONG!!!! - just wanted to say it once more. this isn't really the topic of the thread, but since you said it, i guess it's okay to respond... please give up this pretense of stating "affairs are wrong", as you don't really seem to think that way. Try "affairs are wrong in other situations but not mine" or " affairs are not wrong if they meet someone's needs" and ( and this is going to sound super cranky, but I am having a bad day, so please forgive me)...you also have mentioned how much in pain betrayed spouses are ( except your wife)... I would humbly suggest that you don't know how painful it is...it hurt worse than just about anything I have ever experienced... and, and i mean this with all due respect, you don't know just how much it can hurt until it has happened to you, nor do you know how you will react until you have experienced it yourself. you have a daughter...imagine her coming to you in the future, upset beyond words, telling you that HER husband has cheated on her.Then you'll get an inkling of how bad it can be ( and i hope you and your daughter never have that experience and that you both have happy lives, but, if it ever does happen, spare a thought to the things you say right now)
drifter777 Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Exactly what is your point? I'm not asking as any kind of attack, I just don't understand what you are driving at.
Author Mr_Confused Posted November 29, 2011 Author Posted November 29, 2011 I was just sharing it, if it has no relevance to you, your relationships, etc. please disregard. I was reading it the other day and it struck me personally in understanding why I struggle in my marriage, the things I need and the things I aspire to have one day. Thought perhaps it might hold something new for someone here. If you are a BS spouse I think it highlights why that betrayal is so devastating for many, it undermines so many of the traits at all levels someone may feel secure about. It you are struggling in a relationship and/or considering an affair it may highlight for you specific things that are missing you may not recognize as tangible things to discuss with your spouse. I see a lot of posters with generic - un-actionable needs like "I don't feel loved" or "Im not happy in my marriage". I think it a good reference if seeking to reconcile. It's a good conversation starter about what makes people content, fulfilled - what betrayal does to one's confidence, potentially self-esteem. Personally it helps me understand myself as a "cheater". I recognize, particularly in this setting/forum, we are the lowest form of humans, but I try to understand my actions and what leads me to exhibit behavior I would have once said could never happen. So while in my sexless marriage, long before my affair, I can see in this chart very simply what conflicted me so much. I can see the trade-offs I was facing and why the thought of divorce is so paralyzing. I'm seeking to fill one need and sacrificing others to do so. I'm not seeking feedback on this perspective - I'm just letting you know what it meant to me. And to many - it may prove a useless chart in which case, sorry to waste your clicks.
findingnemo Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Confused, You hardly talk about the OW. What is she like? Apart from sex, what does she give you? I'm asking because you haven't really said that much about what it is that keeps you going to her. Is it just a need for sex? What about emotional security? What do you seek? Love?
wheelwright Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Exactly what is your point? I'm not asking as any kind of attack, I just don't understand what you are driving at. I agree with drifter. You'll get more response if you nail what you mean. First thoughts - sex may be a basic need in terms of producing heirs and in the fundamental nature of the related desire. But are these really basic needs? Second, the acquisition/maintanance element of sex, food and drink, etc. can come into conflict with morality, and for many individuals on this earth, morality wins. Some people would starve before they steal. Thirdly, if you mean to say how can one remain moral (As are wrong) when something more basic than morality is at stake (sex), then you have a different view of sex to me. If As are merely to offload sexual tension, then isn't that a bit - primitive, even for a sex-starved spouse? Maslow, I believe, is largely debunked, and his views taken as a springboard for discussion - I guess this is what you are aiming for. Without further direction from Mr Confused, I would feel at a bit of a loss to discuss further. Edited November 29, 2011 by wheelwright
Author Mr_Confused Posted November 29, 2011 Author Posted November 29, 2011 Confused, You hardly talk about the OW. What is she like? Apart from sex, what does she give you? I'm asking because you haven't really said that much about what it is that keeps you going to her. Is it just a need for sex? What about emotional security? What do you seek? Love? She cares about me, she desires me. We are friends. We laugh together. Sex is good but sex is easy. I am in my 40's, I have a great job and plenty of $, and I have been active and worked out regularly for nearly 30 years. I'm no head turning stallion by any stretch, but I can find sex without an issue. I tried that before, it's hollow and does no more for me that masturbating. I was "active" in my youth, perhaps my exploration needs were met, or age is just catching up with me. I just want a companion, a friend, a lover, a normal sex life. I wish I had a more exciting response.....
wheelwright Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 I can see why the model would appeal, Mr Confused. Such things are useful for making sense of our lives. From what I know of your situation, perhaps a simpler approach is enough. You were not happy on many levels, so you found a way to become happier that involved certain compromises. Maybe Maslow helps you conceptualize the compromises? Does the heirarchy help me understand my situation? Yes, in that it creates a list of factors which can be in conflict. That helps me.
ThinkBelieve Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Mr_Confused, Thank you for posting this information. As a newbie to this forum looking for insight/perspective, I found it quite helpful in explaining many things. The more educated we are, the better we become when trying to understand one another.
Breezy Trousers Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) She cares about me, she desires me. We are friends. We laugh together. Sex is good but sex is easy. Yes, but, aside from what she provides you, what do you like about HER? That's a rhetorical question, BTW. Just pointing out that this is an important distinction, especially for MM in affairs. Edited November 30, 2011 by Breezy Trousers
nofool4u Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) One premise of Maslow's theory lies in the following citation: "Maslow's theory suggests that the most basic level of needs must be met before the individual will strongly desire, the secondary or higher level needs." However, in the case of a cheater, or someone that participates in an affair against someone else, the higher level needs are basically pissed away. Because in the higher level needs above the physiological level, are aspects such as morality, respect of others, respect by others, etc. So if one seeks to fill their need for sex at the physiological level by cheating or engaging in an affair, then the needs above will not be achieved, at least with particular areas of the upper levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs Edited November 30, 2011 by nofool4u
frozensprouts Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 One premise of Maslow's theory lies in the following citation: "Maslow's theory suggests that the most basic level of needs must be met before the individual will strongly desire, the secondary or higher level needs." However, in the case of a cheater, or someone that participates in an affair against someone else, the higher level needs are basically pissed away. Because in the higher level needs above the physiological level, are aspects such as morality, respect of others, respect by others, etc. So if one seeks to fill their need for sex at the physiological level by cheating or engaging in an affair, then the needs above will not be achieved, at least with particular areas of the upper levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs hasn't Maslow's needs hierarchy theory being somewhat discredited for several reasons including : relatively small sample size, his selection of participants for his sample of individuals on whom he based his theory, and the fact that it is mostly relevant only in individualistic societies and not so much ones that are more collectivist? This is not to say his theory holds no relevance, but his research, etc. was done in the late 30's/early 40's , and if one were to do the same study today ( with a larger and more diverse sample size) I wonder if his results would be any different?
nofool4u Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) hasn't Maslow's needs hierarchy theory being somewhat discredited for several reasons including : relatively small sample size, his selection of participants for his sample of individuals on whom he based his theory, and the fact that it is mostly relevant only in individualistic societies and not so much ones that are more collectivist? This is not to say his theory holds no relevance, but his research, etc. was done in the late 30's/early 40's , and if one were to do the same study today ( with a larger and more diverse sample size) I wonder if his results would be any different? I think it holds relevance, but is not all encompassing, as I've put forth. It is only a "theory" afterall. And the physiological level are basic "needs" EXCEPT sex. In that level are breathing, food, water, sleep, homeostasis, excretion, and sex. Sorry all but sex is a "need". Sex is a "want". You can live without it and many do. LOL Well, homeostasis is up for grabs as far as a "need" is concerned too. Edited November 30, 2011 by nofool4u
Author Mr_Confused Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 You definitely need food. Sexless living wont kill you like starvation, or as quickly, but i have to say a couple of years of not welcomed celibacy started making it seem more like a need than a want. Granted if i had stopped food and sex concurrently i would have died of starvation first. I do agree its a framework more than anything. Personally i missed intimacy more than physical sex in my marriage. I guess i can only speculate since one you can deal with...ummm.....yourself when necessary.
Recommended Posts