Husband Clothes

Relationship Topics from Psychology Today

• 40 is the New 20 for Having Babies-II -

  Several comments to the post 40 is the New 20 for Having Babies unfairly "target" women who wait well into their thirties and later to have their babies. One commenter titled her thoughts, "the cult of maternal narcissism" and felt that a woman waited because she was "too wrapped up in her own desires, and not wanting to bear the burden of responsibility..."

  There may be a few women who fall within that description, but it is often the case that extremely narcissistic women remain childless. The women who make a conscious decision to bear children later in life usually have sound reasons or extenuating circumstances that prevented them from having babies in their 20s and early 30s.

  Most women today realize that they need or may need at some point to support themselves and their child or contribute to the family's income. They believe that completing their education or adding an advanced degree will help them in the job market and/or increase their salary potential now or in the future. It doesn't seem narcissistic to want to and be able to support your children and give them the best life you can.

  The high rates of infertility in this country also contribute to the number of older women having babies. Many try for years to become pregnant. Having a baby at a later age was hardly their first choice. Neither is later parenting necessarily the first choice of those who must care for an ill or aging parent or close relative that can eat into their financial resources, time, and emotional reserves-all helpful, if not, vital for raising healthy, happy children.

  We don't always know the challenges another person faces. Being quick to judge or lump people into categories without knowledge of their intent, feelings, or misfortunes is irresponsible on any front. In the area of procreation, it is especially risky. In my original post on this topic, I noted that 85 percent of older mothers are married. Someone took issue and wrote: "The option of having a child younger was there, older mothers just chose not to." Maybe it was there and maybe not: Not all "older mothers" married in their twenties, and if they did, they may have divorced before having children. In countering the negative comments, another commenter asked: "Is it a bad thing to want to have a loving partner, home and means of support before having children?"

  Alex Kuczynski didn't find "her loving partner" and the man she wanted to marry and have children with until she was 32; they married when she was 34. For the next five years, they tried most options available to achieve pregnancy and carry a baby to term including "11 I.V.F cycles and four failed pregnancies." Alex's article, "Her Body, My Baby," details her years of in vitro fertilization, miscarriage, heartbreak, and costs before hiring a woman to bear hers and her husband's child. Gestational surrogacy differs from traditional surrogacy as Alex points out in that the fertilized egg carries the parents' egg and sperm, not that of the "traditional" surrogate whose egg makes her the biological mother.
  
  Alex's story is extreme, her financial situation atypical, and, as she notes, raises all sorts of moral, religious, and social questions, however, it highlights the desperate lengths a woman will go to have the baby she wants at whatever age she happens to be.
  
  Follow me on Twitter

• A Letter From Audrey -

  "Financial-Focus" is a blog about money and life and values. I am devoting this column to Audrey, a client of mine who has just turned 80. She mailed this letter to those in her wide circle of family and friends. It is important enough to share.
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now the Day is Over -
  Night is Drawing Nigh -
  Shadows of the Evening -
  Steal across the Sky ----

  Well, my dearest friends and family - my day is not quite over, but definitely night is drawing nigh - for tomorrow morning at 5 A.M. Eastern Standard Time I will be 80 years old.

  I wrote many of you a special letter when I turned 70, and am trying to write another at 80. I cannot promise you I will even see 90 or be able to write at that time if I am still among you, but these are "special letters" to very special people I only write at milestones in my life, and I consider 80 to be a milestone.

  A number of years ago, it was not the norm to reach 80 years of age, but now it seems to be quite ordinary for many. I would imagine that in another 10 - 15 years, 90 may be the new norm, and eventually even 100 - possibly as soon as my grandchildren reach that exalted age.

  There are days I feel as old as Methuselah, and other days I kind of feel like 30-something (these are getting far more rare!), but most days I don't think much about age - I am what I am, wrinkles, hanging skin and all - and it's just the way things are. Maxine, in the comic strips, cracks me up because I like the way she expresses her age - it "just is" and to heck with what anyone thinks. It's this last that I like best of all - with age comes the increasing feeling of - I don't care whether someone else likes something or not - it's the way it is for me at this time of my life - I have earned it - bad and good - and to heck with what anyone else thinks about it. Or for that matter thinks about me. I like myself a lot better now than I used to, and kind of had to work for this. In other words, I had a lot of changing to do, and grumble to myself as I have, I did my best to change what I could, and simply live with what I could not. It's worked out pretty well all in all.

  I delight in my family and my friends and each of you is one or the other - in some instances both because I love to think of family members as friends too and am happy to report that I really dislike no one - although I intensely dislike certain things, and especially "things" connected to certain people - such as senseless wars, terrorism, religions perverted for the sake of promoting self-gain such as among the extremists of the world, and genuine evil in all of its forms. I dislike planned dishonesty, over-rationalization, lack of sensitivity for another human being or animal, deliberate cruelty in any and all of its forms. Deception, lies, and intolerance. Also, I detest bigotry for any reason.

  I have become more liberal in my political thinking as the years go by though I believe I was always inclined in that direction. I am however extremely cautious about certain things, and when it comes to children, I would gladly give my life were it necessary in exchange for any of them. I remain at 80 an incurable romantic, and hope that this never stops until my heart stops beating. I have known the pain of losing in love, but I have also known the soaring pride when it comes to loving those most important to me. I have been humbled many times in life and expect to be until I die - and this is quite all right if I need this lesson from time to time. For it is a false kind of pride, in my opinion, that does not allow one to be humbled when it is definitely indicated, and I cannot learn as I should when this happens.

  I am still curious about many, many things, some of which I rarely discuss with anybody because I have been warned that some of the things in which I am extremely interested are either boring to some people, or not comprehensible - therefore, I am wasting their time and energy trying to share those things - my fascination with the Universe - its origins and workings are what I refer to in this regard. For me it is among the most mind-boggling of all subjects - for others, perhaps they are too busy with their own lives in the here and now to pause and contemplate what may have taken place in previous millenia or may happen in billions and trillions of years to come. However, I am utterly mesmerized and fascinated in anything having to do with our Universe because it has everything to do with our God and there is no subject to me worth as much reverence and time spent than in our getting to know God, each in our own way. You see, God has been very, very good to me, and as such I wish to pay special attention in return.

  I was asked the other day if I always refer to God as being male, and if so - why? No, I do not. God is God. I do not believe Him/Her/It to be one gender or another - this is one of the things that separates God from us - but only one. There are so many others if I took the rest of my life to enumerate them, I could not finish the list. Some of you may not believe in God at all - I have been good friends with some people who have not. But our relationship has been the poorer because of this, or if it has not I have been "in pain" for them that they live in spite of neither knowing nor believing in God. I cannot imagine living in such a state.

  I believe more than ever, in that I think of it now more than previously, that all of Life is sacred, I do not know that Life does not begin at the moment of conception, and rather suspect from some things I have directly experienced that it does. But I also do not believe there are no circumstances where artificially ending Life is not somehow preferable than having it born. It is not that I mean to defy God - it is that I cannot bear the cruelty that some helpless children must endure simply because to give birth is the choice and the only choice given to the mother. It is the mother who carries the child in our particular species - I do not mean to say that fathers should not have a say - only that theirs should not be the final say for they cannot possibly "feel" what the mother of an unborn child can while carrying that child within her body. How do I know? Because I have had 3 of my own children, and I know how deeply I felt what I felt while I was carrying them. No, it is not describable to anyone else - only to myself for we are all different even as we carry our young as well as when we are not.

  Finally, a word about Death. When I used to think about it at all, I was very afraid of death - this was because I had a near-death experience when I was quite young. And then again at a later date. You do not ever forget this. Regardless of the cause. But as I have aged, and especially now that I am in the twilight of my life, I no longer fear death. There are many reasons for this. I will start with the simplest reasons - and that is that so many of the people whom I have loved are no longer here on earth. They are dead. That simple. However, they may be dead in that I can no longer see them, touch them, hold them, touch them again - but they are really not dead to me because I can remember their voices, remember the times we spent together, remember what it felt like to be touched and to touch them, remember, remember, remember - and often as though it were yesterday or even today. This is the marvelous mechanism of the human heart and caring that we all can feel that makes this possible. But the reality (if one can use that word in a rather "free way") is that they are literally no longer here on earth. But somewhere else, although none of us knows where they actually are. We can hope, wish, think, that we know where they are, but we do not really have proof positive in the form of anything concrete.

  However, I personally feel that we all go somewhere. I do not believe that when we are finished here that that's it. Because I believe in the soul, and the soul goes somewhere. The body is only important in this lifetime here on earth. But I believe the soul to be eternal, and that God does not waste anything of an eternal nature. I want to believe that our souls are not only reunited with God but with those who have died before us whom we wish to be with again - our souls will find one another.

  I do not believe there is a specific place called Hell. Hell, to me, is being permanently separated from God - this is dreadful enough that I do not have to look further than that. As for our bodies, I always liked the belief that a friend of mine a long time ago expressed. She thought our bodies here on earth were like an old coat. Once discarded because it is no longer of use to you, that's it. You don't have to concern yourself about it anymore. You only needed a physical body while here on Earth - you only felt pain while here on earth because of your body - EXCEPT in extreme cases, and this is my rationalization of things, not my friend's. She went as far as the discarding of the human body. But I believe that in really extreme cases, such as an Adolf Hitler, there will be some kind of retribution brought about by God. I don't pretend to know what it is - but it will occur, and insomuch as one can describe pain as mental or emotional - or even soulful - there will be pain. I do not concern myself with this too much since this is God's domain and as such is none of my business.

  
  It is almost time for me to go to sleep after checking in on the Yankee score tonight. Ordinarily, I listen to the Yankee games, but this 80th birthday letter to all of you was more important than a baseball game to me.

  Before I close I want again to say something about Love. One thing I have positively learned in my 80 years of living is that Love, real love, is the strongest and most important Force that I know of in the world in which I have lived. It literally towers over every other emotion one can feel, if one permits this. And why wouldn't anyone allow this? For to deny it first place is to always have regret, always feel unfilled, always be searching, and never really finding that for which we all yearn. This price is simply not worth it. At least not to me.

  Love, Audrey

  A final note: In all of Audrey's beautiful letter, there is not one word about money, wealth or physical possessions. Her note radiates her love and values. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

• Al and Tipper: We Hardly Knew Ye -

  I don't know what felt worse on Monday morning this week: the oil spill hitting Florida or the divorce announcement by Al and Tipper Gore. Married myself for 38 years and a marriage therapist for nearly that long, I thought I was above illusions about anyone else's marriage. But this divorce-and even more so the way it was announced-got to me.

  
  Here's a couple who survived the near death of a child, Tipper's depression, and Al's cliff hanger loss of the Presidency, and forged a believable public image of unity and passion (the famous convention kiss). They even wrote a book on family life titled Joined at the Heart. They were the baby boomer couple who could.

  
  At first sad, I became mad when I read their non-explanation of the divorce: they had come to a "mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration." Family friends and former spokespersons were left to fill in a story line that went like this in the New York Times: The Gores "had grown apart after decades," and especially "after Al moved onto a global stage while Tipper seemed to move in a more personal direction." One close friend added that "there's not a lot of drama behind this...they remain very close friends."

  
  This, I submit, is either evasive bullshit or something worse: a lack of respect for marriage. Is this little whimper all that a 40 year marriage with children and grandchildren is worth? Sports teams and their home cities show more grief and anger when teams leave for better stadiums and tax benefits. The breakups of authors and long term literary agents come with more public emotion. Even candidates and campaign managers divorce with more feeling, for crying out loud. Without revealing details, would it be too much for the Gores to say something like "This is really hard and involves a lot of pain and regret." I'd almost settle for the classically evasive "mistakes were made" over "we grew apart but remain best of friends."

  
  My own hunch, after years of working with long term marriages threatened with divorce, is that there is more to the Gore story than growing apart. In my experience, when a 60 year old otherwise stable husband wants a divorce, it's usually because he's had an emotional or sexual affair. He's comparing how he feels being with a more admiring and gratifying woman to the more complicated way he feels with his wife of many years, and he believes he has fallen out of love with his wife. He says he that admires and respects her, that she's a great mother, and that he wants to remain friends, but he can't imagine staying in an empty marriage for the rest of his life. What's usually missing in his divorce narrative is his shared responsibility for the problems in the marriage and the notion that he could take leadership for calling on his wife to get help together and renew their relationship.

  
  When women over age 60 initiate a divorce, it's more often from a sense that they do not want to continue for 20 more years with a man who they see as controlling and mean to them. Unlike husbands, older wives generally do not anticipate that a new honey will take care of them after the divorce. Although these women usually have a better handle on what's going on the marriage than a fleeing husband does, what is usually missing is a sense of their own part in putting up with the guy's behavior and how they got back at him in countless ways. They also may not realize that their husband actually loves them and might change if confronted before she turns stone cold on the marriage.

  
  More than anything else, what concerns me about the Gore divorce is the cultural message it reinforces: that marriages, like leaking oil, drift over time in ways that we can't do much about, that people once mated for life get caught in different currents and wake up one day to find themselves in different seas, too far apart to be life partners any more. I do not accept this sophisticated story line for modern marriage. I do not accept the baby boom divorce mantra that "these things happen to the best of marriages; let's be civilized and not show how we feel about the end of a dream." When it comes to divorce, I'm with the poet Dylan Thomas:

  
  Do not go gentle into that good night.
  Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

• Disarming Your Buttons: How Not to Get Provoked (Part 1 of 4) -

  Where do your (hot) buttons come from, anyway?

  It's actually quite simple. When your buttons get pushed, you react. Automatically. After all, that's what getting your buttons pushed means. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response. . . . Or rather, stimulus-reaction. For "response" implies choice; and when your buttons are being hammered, your counter-behavior is instantaneous--sans forethought, deliberation, or (for that matter) discretion. In such instances, you're impelled--by a force that's far stronger, far more primal, than your rational adult mind--to strenuously defend yourself. Or to attack whoever has (perhaps unwittingly) provoked you. Or, in a sudden state of urgency, to hastily retreat from the situation altogether.

  Your immediate (and typically fervent) behavior usually reflects some archaic "operating system," an emotional survival program existing considerably below your conscious mind. Just as any animal--by nature, exquisitely sensitive to sudden sound or movement--instinctively tenses all its muscles to prepare for fight, flight, or freeze, so do we humans instantly "adapt" to anything we perceive as threatening. Except, unlike others animals, when we've become hypersensitive to any perceived disagreement, denial, slight, or insult, whatever provoked us rarely constitutes a serious threat to our survival. So, frankly, our adaptation isn't particularly adaptive.

  Getting your buttons pushed almost invariably sends you on an unwelcome trip back to your past, to a time when you possessed precious few resources to protect yourself from what, in the moment, felt dangerous. This involuntary present-to-past phenomenon is something I regularly find myself explaining to clients, who generally have very little awareness that the buttons they've been futilely struggling to control belong not to their present self but to their inner child of the past. As I like to put it, the adult part of us is reasonable, logical, objective, and controlled. Not easily does it become agitated or carried away. Moreover, as mature individuals we're able to evaluate a situation realistically--and then respond appropriately (rather than rashly) to it. Ideally, possessing a hard-earned confidence and sense of adult authority, we can maintain our mental and emotional poise regardless of various kinds of external pressure we're subject to.

   However, when we've gotten our buttons pushed--and so are developmentally regressed back into our child self--our grown-up self is, as it were, "missing in action." For now our judgment, and the wisdom gained from many years of observation and experience, is pretty much rendered null and void. In that moment, enslaved by our inner child's emotions, we can't possibly reflect on the most effective response to the offending person or event. For now it's the child part of us that's in charge, who's taken custody of (or preempted) our more mature, rational self. And--as a child confronted by someone or something perceived as potentially harmful--we're desperate to nullify that threat as quickly as we can, and with little consideration for the consequences of such impetuous behavior.

  
  Governed by overwhelming, unanalyzed emotions, our irresistible impulse is to regain some sense of safety, to reduce our precarious sense of vulnerability. With our adult brain hijacked, we're left in a position where we're compelled to do something (however imprudent or counter-productive) that will help neutralize the distressful feelings of insecurity that now beset us. In such a pressured state, there's no time to contemplate the actual threat of the situation, or our present-day ability to assert some authentic power over it. For in being re-identified with our child self, there's little sense that we possess such power. The only alternative, therefore, is--non-rationally--to act out the emotion that now holds us in its grip. And just as this sort of unmediated reactivity probably wasn't very helpful in the past, when  we get our buttons pushed in the here-and-now, our instant reaction rarely enables us to successfully resolve our current impasse.

  So, in situations of perceived threat, how do we contrive to get our adult self back on the scene? Or better, are there practical ways we can keep our "inner adult" from leaving in the first place--ways to keep that more mature self fully operational, even in situations that previously may have caused it to vanish entirely?

  Parts 2, 3, and 4 of this post will attempt to provide practical answers to these questions, so that you can successfully preserve your mental and emotional equilibrium whenever external forces threaten to overwhelm it.

  Note: I invite readers to follow my psychological, philosophical, and spiritual musings on Twitter.

   

• How Nobodies Can Be Somebodies (FAQs re The Dignity Movement against Rankism) -

  Q: What do you mean by "somebodies" and "nobodies"?
  A: "Somebodies" are the relatively powerful and successful, "nobodies" the relatively weak and vulnerable. Somebodies with higher rank and more power in a given context can maintain an environment that is hostile and demeaning to nobodies with lower rank and less power in that context. Taken together, those of low rank vastly outnumber those of high rank. If they were to stand together against rank-abuse, they could overcome it. But it's not that simple because nobodies may also abuse their rank by putting down those of still lower rank. There is usually someone weaker you can pull rank on, even if it means kicking the dog.

  Q: How can "nobodies" stand up for their dignity?
  A: The same way women did in the 1960s. They broke the taboo on discussing gender and initiated a process of consciousness-raising about gender issues. In the process they coined the term "sexism," which served to identify their grievances and put men on the defensive. In like manner, we must (1) break the taboo on discussing rank, (2) give a name to rank-abuse, and (3) replace the prevailing social consensus, which tacitly sanctions abusing and exploiting the weak, with a new consensus in which rank-abuse is regarded as uncool.

  Q: What shall we call rank-based abuse and discrimination?
  A: When discrimination and injustice are race-based, we call it racism; when they're gender-based, we call it sexism. By analogy, rank-based abuse and exploitation are rankism. We won't be able to confront rankism until we overcome our fear of seeming uppity by using the word in public. Following in the footsteps of uppity women, expect to see more uppity nobodies as the dignity movement gains momentum.

  Q: Are you proposing to do away with rank?
  A: Not at all. When earned and exercised appropriately, rank is a legitimate and virtually indispensable tool of organization. We rightly admire and respect those who attain it. But when those of higher rank abuse their authority, those of lower rank experience indignity not different in its material and psychological effects from the indignities we now disallow when victims are black, female, elderly, gay, or have a disability. People do not object to legitimate differences in rank, only to rank abuse. Overcoming rankism does not mean doing away with rank any more than overcoming racism and sexism mean doing away with race or gender.

  Q. Isn't rankism human nature?
  A: One of the hard-earned lessons of the twentieth century was that racism and sexism are not immutable. While it is virtually inevitable that a power advantage will be exploited initially, it is just as inevitable that such abuse will eventually be resisted. In this sense, rankism, of whatever sort, is no more part of human nature than are racism or sexism. If anything is human nature, it's that human beings resist abuses of power. Racism, sexism and rankism may be hard to uproot, but they are not immutable. The first two were put on the defensive in the late twentieth century, and rankism itself is no more likely to survive scrutiny than the now-familiar isms.

  Q: Why focus on rank instead of class?
  A: In modern democracies we interact with authority in terms of rank, not class. In contrast to aristocratic societies, it no longer matters whether your superior has blue blood or blue collar ancestry. What matters is that he or she is your boss, your professor, your doctor, a police officer, or a president.
  
  Q: What are the dynamics of rankism?
  A: Rankism occurs when rank-holders use the power of their position to secure unwarranted advantages or benefits for themselves at others' expense. It typically takes the form of self-aggrandizement and demeaning and exploiting subordinates. It is the opposite of service. Good leaders eschew rankism; bad ones indulge in it.

  Q: Where is rankism found?
  A: Although it is not necessary to abolish rank to eliminate the abuse of rank, it is true that hierarchies are breeding grounds for rankism. When authorities are not held accountable to those served by the hierarchy, rankism invariably develops. Thus, rankism can be found in bureaucracies, corporations, businesses, workplaces, families, schools and universities, as well as religious, nonprofit, and healthcare organizations. It can be especially hard to confront in non-profits, which see themselves as "doing good," and may become blind to malpractice within their ranks. Rankism, however, is an equal opportunity malady, and will infect any organization where accountability is lax.
  
  Q: What are the effects of rankism?
  A: Rankism distorts personal relationships, erodes the will to work and to learn, taxes productivity, fosters ill-health, and stokes ethnic tensions.

  Q: Who are the victims of rankism?
  A: Although racism and sexism target specific identity groups, we are all potential victims of rankism. This is because rank is not fixed, but relative. You can be a nobody in one context-and as such vulnerable to rankism--but a somebody in another--and thus a potential perpetrator. Likewise, you can be a somebody one day and a nobody the next. Like racism in the era of segregation, rankism is pervasive and enjoys the support of a tacit social consensus. Rankism afflicts no group more than the working poor, whose hand-to-mouth subsistence makes them vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. In Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, Barbara Ehrenreich makes a compelling case that the working poor are in effect unacknowledged benefactors whose labor subsidizes the better off.
  
  Q: What are some examples of rankism?
  A: Examples include a boss harassing an employee, a customer demeaning a waiter, a coach bullying a player, a doctor humiliating a nurse, a teacher disparaging a student, a parent belittling a child. The civil rights and women's movements have managed to put racists and sexists on notice. But there has been no corresponding outcry against abuses that occur within a race or gender, in part because until now we haven't had a name for them. Blacks insult and exploit other blacks of lower rank, whites do the same to whites, and women to women, all with confidence that such behavior, which does not fit the definition of racism or sexism, will pass for business as usual and escape censure.

  Q: Do we really need another "ism"?
  A: Yes, but rankism, which includes the other ignoble isms as special cases, is the last of the lot. Identity politics, because of its exclusive focus on the rights of particular groups, can foster resentment in those who feel that its concerns and protections don't extend to them. But no one is immune to rankism. Everyone has experienced it in some context or other (and most of us have dished it out). So overcoming rankism is an inclusive, unifying goal that reduces the myriad injunctions of political correctness to just one: Protect the dignity of others as you would have them protect yours. Sound familiar? The concept of rankism puts teeth in the golden rule.

  Q: Does the dignity movement have a slogan?
  A: To succeed a movement needs to know what it's for and what it's against. The dignity movement is for dignity and against rankism. Imagine the bumper sticker. Better yet, design one.

  Q: What would a dignitarian society look like?
  A: A dignitarian society would provide universal healthcare, equal access to quality education and retraining, an equitable tax structure, affordable housing, campaign finance reform that prevents vote-buying by special interests, and compensation compatible with living in dignity. In short, a dignitarian society does not tolerate a dignity gap, as created and maintained by rankism, and that, in turn, will require us to make good on the promise that the Founding Fathers imprinted on the American psyche-liberty and justice for all.

• Marriage and Relationship Education Programs: Do They Work? -

  In this Sunday's Washington Post magazine is a lengthy and largely laudatory story about marriage and relationship education programs. In those programs, couples typically participate in workshops in which they learn relationship skills such as learning how to disagree without being disagreeable. In my next post, I'll tell you what I think the reporter (Ellen McCarthy) got right and got wrong in her story, and what she overlooked. As a social scientist, though, the first thing I want to know is this: Based on the best available science, do marriage and relationship education programs work?

  Results of many such programs have been reported in the scientific journals. There's money for research like that, especially since the days of Wade Horn's tenure as assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services under George W. Bush. Horn was the Director of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). That division is tasked with promoting the social and economic well-being of vulnerable children and families. Among those helped by ACF are children in foster care, children with developmental disabilities, and children in Head Start. Horn succeeded in getting $100 million redirected from existing programs into marriage education.

  I'll describe here the results of two reports. One is a review of 143 studies of the effects of marriage and relationship education programs on couples' communication skills. The other is an executive summary of an ACF project on Building Strong Families, involving more than 5,000 couples recruited from 8 different parts of the country. The 8 versions of the Building Strong Families program also measured couples' communication skills. In addition, researchers determined whether the couples had stayed together or gotten married, whether they had experienced abuse, what the quality of their co-parenting was like, and how involved the fathers were with their children.

  Do Marriage and Relationship Education Programs Improve Couples' Communication Skills?

  Across the 143 relevant studies, the key comparison is between the couples who did participate in a marriage and relationship education program, and those who did not. On the average, the program participants spent between 9 and 20 hours in the training workshops. In this review of the studies, the authors were primarily interested in the couples' communication 6 months or more after their participation in the training. If there were any effects of the program, did they last at least a half-year?

  There were two different ways of evaluating the couples' communications. In one, the couples were videotaped as they discussed some problem. The researchers coded their behaviors, to see, for example, whether they were listening closely or arguing in a fair way. By that measure, marriage education was clearly successful: Couples who participated in the program communicated better than couples who had not participated.

  The second way of evaluating the program was by asking the participants directly about their experiences as a couple. They answered questions such as "Does your spouse insult you when he (she) gets angry with you?" On those measures, marriage education was totally irrelevant. Across the experimental and quasi-experimental studies, program participants reported communication that was no better than that of the couples who had not participated in the program.

  No one can yet say for sure why the results were different for the two measures. One possibility is that when the couples were videotaped again 6 months later by the same research team that conducted the workshops, they knew how they were supposed to behave and they played nice with their partners. The rest of the time, though, off camera, they behaved no differently than the couples who were left alone.

  Does Marriage Education Keep Couples Together, Decrease their Intimate Violence, or Improve Parenting?

  In the Building Strong Families (BSF) project, in which studies were conducted in 8 different locations, the participants were unmarried couples who were expecting a baby or just had one. There were three program components:

  • Participation in group sessions focused on relationship skills, such as managing conflict, expressing affection, and considering marriage. Couples attended these sessions for an average of 14 hours.
  • A "family coordinator" was assigned to each couple, to provide support and encourage the couple to participate in the sessions.
  • The couples were offered referrals to services to help them with housing, employment, mental health, and so forth, though they were not obligated to utilize any of the services.

  The researchers looked at 14 different ways that the couples who participated in the program could have differed, 15 months later, from those who did not. Those assessments included whether the couples stayed together, the quality of their relationship, the quality of the parenting, and the level of intimate violence.

  Here's the bottom line from the scholars who summarized the results from the 5,000+ couples: "Fifteen months after entering the program, the relationship outcomes of BSF couples were, on average, almost identical to those of couples in the control group."

  Now let me tell you some of the details (from Table ES.1, p. 4):

  • In 4 of the 8 locations (Baton Rouge, Florida counties, Houston, and San Angelo TX), there were no differences whatsoever between the couples who participated in the program and those who did not.
  • In Atlanta, the program made no difference in 13 of the 14 assessments; with regard to the use of constructive behaviors during conflicts, there was a positive effect.
  • Oklahoma City was the one success story. On 9 of the 14 assessments, participation in the program was linked to positive outcomes, especially with regard to the quality of the couples' relationships. On the other measures, there were no differences. For example, people who participated in the program were no more likely than people who did not to be living together or married 15 months later.
  • In the Indiana counties, couples who participated in the program were LESS likely to be living together or married 15 months later. In all of the other ways, the participants did not differ from the non-participants.
  • In Baltimore, couples who participated in the program had WORSE outcomes on 7 of the measures than did couples who did not participate. (There were no differences on the other assessments.) Specifically, the Baltimore couples who participated in the Building Strong Families program were less likely to be romantically involved 15 months later, they were less likely to offer support and affection, the mothers were more likely to report severe physical assaults, the quality of co-parenting deteriorated, and the fathers were less likely to live with their children, spend substantial time with their children, or provide financial support to them.

  There were differences not just by location but also by race. Specifically, for couples in which both members were African Americans, relationship quality improved. Other couples, though, were more likely to break up if they participated in the program than if they did not.

  Here is the summary provided by the authors of the report. It sounds accurate to me:

  "The variation in impacts across the local BSF programs and across populations suggests that programs like BSF can have positive effects. However, the results also indicate that these programs can have negative effects on relationships in certain circumstances, including increasing the rate at which couples break up and experience intimate partner violence."

  In my next post, I'll discuss the Washington Post story on marriage education. Read it first if you are interested, and see if you think the reporter - who mentions both reports - actually read any more than a one-paragraph abstract (summary) of each.

   

• Rekindling Group Trauma: Governor McDonnell and Confederate History Month -

  

  Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's statement April 6 proclaiming April "Confederate History Month" shows how a regressive leader can perpetuate societal trauma.<!--break-->

  The governor's 368-word declaration failed to mention slavery.  McDonnell followed up with an apology for the omission a day later.

  He said he made the original proclamation to aid state tourism and "so people can at least study and understand that period of Virginia history and how it impacts us today." So let's talk about that time and how it is alive in the present.

  When one group deliberately inflicts suffering on "others" as through slavery, the victimized group suffers certain psychological effects: shame, humiliation, guilt, and a decreased ability to be assertive.              

  McDonnell's declaration reinforces shared mental images of Black oppression within our national psyche and will likely perpetuate feelings of victimization for African-Americans.

  I think of Richmond's statue of Bill "Bojangles" Robinson on the corner of Leigh and Adams, a performer who played mostly "Uncle Tom" roles, often that of the cheerful servant, and taps with Shirley Temple in "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" (1938).  

  Yet there are important ways to help large groups adapt to an injurious past, such as the devastation of African-American slavery. A reparative leader helps people heal from a traumatizing political system by encompassing multiple viewpoints. He or she is able to sympathize across a bitter social divide.

  For example, when President Nelson Mandela led South Africa from apartheid in 1994 the crucial question at his inauguration was: What should be the country's national anthem?

  Blacks wanted to supplant the old ''Die Stem,'' which celebrates the Afrikaner trekkers' 19th century triumph over the indigenous peoples, with ''Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika" ("God Bless Africa" in Xhosa).

  Mandela overruled his own followers telling them: "this song that you treat so easily holds the emotions of many people whom you don't represent. Yet, with the stroke of a pen, you would make a decision to destroy the very - the only - basis that we are building upon: reconciliation."

  The President-elect chose to have both performed at the stadium in Soweto. What ensued was the miracle of Whites singing an African hymn and Africans singing an Afrikaans song.

  This kind of gesture gives public representation to mental images of "victim" as well as "victimizer," affirming how individuals have internalized a system of oppression. Psychologically speaking, both emotional places must be acknowledged in order to avoid splitting the two into diametric opposition -- and aggravating group tensions in the external world.

  Such action may also help groups mourn their losses more effectively. Psychoanalyst Vamik Volkan claims that the ability to grieve is the main factor in preventing the transgenerational transmission of trauma. 

  When mourning is unfinished business -- the trauma is handed down to future generations. This is done through stories, feelings, and unconscious behaviors that "deposit" images of an injured self into one's children and other descendents.  In these ways, an offspring is asked to perform certain unresolved psychological tasks.

  "Confederate History Month" may also contribute to the perpetuation of group trauma across generations. 

  Our leaders have the extraordinary power to reactivate historical injury or foster mourning, emotional regeneration, and repair the tissue of national community.

  Governor McDonnell: if you want to support state tourism why not promote the "Second Street Festival" in the Jackson Ward area of Richmond, also known as the birthplace of Black capitalism?  

  You might also sponsor the dedication of an African-American abolitionist on Monument Avenue, where there are only Confederate natives.

  And finally, save a lot of heartache and hyphenate the history.  "Confederate-Emancipation Month" would give full weight to peoples' experiences of this time, help us learn from it, and heal from its legacy.  

   

   

   

  References:

  Vamik Volkan, Gabriele Ast, William F. Greer. "The Third Reich in the Unconscious: Transgenerational Transmission and Its Consequences." New York: Routledge, 2002.

  * I wish to thank Mr. Marcus James, Museum Assistant at The Black History Museum and Cultural Center of Virginia, who provided helpful information on African-American heritage in the Richmond area.

  ____________________________

  Follow me: http://twitter.com/mollycastelloe

• The Power of Witnessing One Another -

  One of the greatest gifts we can give one another is to truly "look" without judgment or criticism, at who the other person is. I have met many people with serious injuries whose appearance may be different from what is considered "normal". These differences so often result in the injured person being judged. What is seen is the surface, the disability. The surface is not the person.

  Some of the most difficult disabilities for us to respond to may be difficulties with speech. When a person has trouble forming or finding words and is unable to communicate clearly, so often other people experience him or her as mentally deficient. We fail to stop and realize that the inner person is whole even if the outer person appears impaired. The inability to speak does not necessarily mean that the words are gone from a person's mind. No more than the inability to move a leg means that a person has forgotten how to walk.

  My dear friend Rita has experienced a lot of this. After her strokes she could not speak for eighteen months and then when she did speak she could say words but not the words she meant to say or words that communicated meaning to the people around her. She has come a long way but she has experienced a lot of judgment in the process. Rita tells a story of walking down a street, unable to speak, obviously disabled. A woman with two children walking on the same street, looked at her and took her kids to the other side of the street so they would not encounter Rita.

  What did that gesture teach the children? Rather than meeting Rita and witnessing her for who she might be, the children were encouraged to avoid being present with another human being and finding the heart and wholeness in her that were surely there.

  Words are important forms of communication but they are not, by any means, the only forms of communication. Gesture, touch and deep listening are every bit as important as words. Recently I met a couple. Let's call them Arthur and Jean. They have been together a long time. Arthur had a stroke twenty years ago. After recovering many abilities, his remaining deficit is speech. Arthur makes sounds but very few words, and those he does make are disjointed and hard to recognize.

  What was striking about this couple was how happy they are. Arthur, in particular, is radiant, joyful. I have rarely seen another human being so delighted with life. Though he does not make words that you and I might easily recognize, Jean understands him completely. I watched her speak for him and watched him nod joyously as she made clear what he meant. Jean has taken the time and the exquisite care to truly witness Arthur, to know him, to see him, to understand him, and to be his bridge to words. Loving him, she recognized that whether or not he could speak clearly, the words and ideas were alive in his mind.

  Ordinarily we are not faced with a challenge as great as Arthur's or Rita's, but we are human and our communication is not always what we hope it will be. How often have I tried to say something and not gotten it across? I have lost count. We try to be skillful, but we so often don't succeed. Perhaps we don't succeed because we fail to look for the heart and wholeness in one another, to take the time to slow down and truly be curious about who is next to us. Who are they? What moves them? This is witnessing. This is not verbal bantering, learning to make a space for someone else's words in the midst of the back and forth of conversation. Most of us can do that well enough.

  Witnessing is different. Perhaps the secret to it is, after all, communicating without using words, at least for a while. Can we truly witness another person if we don't take the time to pause for a moment, and simply look? What can we see? Subtle changes of expression, skin color, tension, posture, movement? What can we hear? The sound of another person's breathing. Is it fast? Is it slow? Is it smooth? What happens if we touch his or her hand (assuming we have permission to do this)? Is his or her skin warm or cold? Is she relaxed? Is he reluctant to be touched? There is so much we can learn when we take the time and open our hearts to one another. Taking the time and the opportunity to witness another person is a gift to the person witnessed and to ourselves. Why not give it?

   

Articles about Sex and Intimacy from Psychology Today

• Why do we believe in God? II -

  Religion is a cultural universal. Humans in every known society practice some type of religion. So it’s tempting to believe that religiosity is part of evolved human nature, that humans are evolutionarily designed to be religious. Well, the answer is yes and no.

  In my last post, I discussed how Haselton and Nettle’s Error Management Theory explains intersexual mindreading, why men always overinfer women’s sexual interest in them. One of the great features of Error Management Theory is that it can explain a wide variety of phenomena. It is a truly general theory.

  Imagine you are our ancestor living on the African savanna 100,000 years ago, and you encounter some ambiguous situation. For example, you heard some rustling noises nearby at night. Or you were walking in the forest, and a large fruit falling from a tree branch hits you on the head. What’s going on?

  In an ambiguous situation like this, you can either attribute the phenomenon to impersonal, inanimate, and unintentional forces (for example, wind blowing gently to make the rustling noises among the bushes and leaves, or a mature fruit falling by the force of gravity and hitting you on the head purely by accident) or to personal, animate, and intentional forces (for example, a predator hiding in the dark and getting ready to attack you, or an enemy hiding in the tree branches and throwing fruits at your head). The question is, which is it?

  

  Once again, Error Management Theory suggests that, in your inference, you can make a “Type I” error of false positive or “Type II” error of false negative, and these two types of error carry vastly different consequences and costs. The cost of a false-positive error is that you become paranoid. You are always looking around and behind your back for predators and enemies that don’t exist. The cost of a false-negative error is that you are dead, being killed by a predator or an enemy when you least expect them. Obviously, it’s better to be paranoid than dead, so evolution should have designed a mind that overinfers personal, animate, and intentional forces even when none exist.

  Different theorists call this innate human tendency to commit false-positive errors rather than false-negative errors (and as a consequence be a bit paranoid) “animistic bias” or “the agency-detector mechanism.” These theorists argue that the evolutionary origins of religious beliefs in supernatural forces may have come from such an innate cognitive bias to commit false-positive errors rather than false-negative errors, and thus overinfer personal, intentional, and animate forces behind otherwise perfectly natural phenomena.

  You see a bush on fire. It could have been caused by an impersonal, inanimate, and unintentional force (lightning striking the bush and setting it on fire), or it could have been caused by a personal, animate, and intentional force (God trying to communicate with you). The “animistic bias” or “agency-detector mechanism” predisposes you to opt for the latter explanation rather than the former. It predisposes you to see the hands of God at work behind natural, physical phenomena whose exact causes are unknown.

  In this view, religiosity (the human capacity for belief in supernatural beings) is not an evolved tendency per se; after all, religion in itself is not adaptive. It is instead a byproduct of animistic bias or the agency-detector mechanism, the tendency to be paranoid, which is adaptive because it can save your life. Humans did not evolve to be religious; they evolved to be paranoid. And humans are religious because they are paranoid.

  Some readers may recognize this argument as a variant of “Pascal’s wager.” The seventeenth-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) argued that given that one cannot know for sure if God exists, it is nonetheless rational to believe in God. If one does not believe in God when He indeed exists (false-negative error), one must spend eternity in hell and damnation, whereas if one believes in God when he actually does not exist (false-positive error), one only wastes a minimal amount of time and effort spent on religious services. The cost of committing the false-negative error is much greater than the cost of committing the false-positive error. Hence one should rationally believe in God.

  However, Pascal cannot explain why men always come on to women, whereas Haselton and Nettle can. The intriguing suggestion here is that we may believe in God and the supernatural forces for the same reasons that men overinfer women’s sexual interest in them and make unwelcome passes at them all the time. Both religious beliefs and sexual miscommunication between the sexes may be consequences of the human brain designed for efficient error management, to minimize the total costs (rather than the total numbers) of errors. We may believe in God for the same reason that women have to keep slapping Beavis and Butt-head to set them straight.

• Changing Sexual Partners: Is It Good for Your Heart and Marriage? -

  

  "Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before." Mae West

  "Jewish women do not believe in sex after marriage." (From the movie, Suzie Gold)

  Emotions typically occur when we perceive significant changes in our personal situation. Like burglar alarms going off when an intruder appears, emotions signal that something needs attention. We respond to the unusual by paying attention to it. A change cannot persist for a very long time; after a while, the system construes the change as a normal state and it excites us no more.

  Indeed, sexual response to a familiar partner is less intense than to a novel partner. On successive occasions we adapt to the event and the experience yields less pleasure; Daniel Gilbert ironically notes that psychologists "call this habituation, economists call it declining marginal utility, and the rest of us call it marriage." In fact, the frequency of sexual activity with one's partner declines steadily as the relationship lengthens, reaching roughly half the frequency after one year of marriage compared to the first month of marriage, and declining more gradually thereafter. Decline has also been found in cohabiting, heterosexual couples and in gay and lesbian couples (The Subtlety of Emotions).

  A survey of people after heart attacks indicates that these people should not avoid sex. Among 5559 cases of sudden death, only 18 were related to sexual activity. But among the 18 cases, 14 occurred while having extramarital sex. The excitement of extramarital sex was too much for them. The moral for heart patients, as well as other people, seems to be quite straightforward: If you want safe sexual relations, stick to your partner; however, if you are looking for excitement, then changing your partner may provide what you need.
  
  In this context, there is an amusing story about the American president, Calvin Coolidge, who once visited a farm with his wife. Soon after their arrival, they were taken off on separate tours. When Mrs. Coolidge passed the chicken pens, she paused to ask the man in charge if the rooster copulates more than once each day. "Dozens of times," was the reply. "Please tell that to the President," Mrs. Coolidge requested. When the President passed the pens and was told about the rooster, he asked: "Same hen every time?" "Oh no, Mr. President, a different one each time." The President nodded slowly, then said, "Tell that to Mrs. Coolidge." In light of this story, the expression "The Coolidge Effect" was coined for the phenomenon of male re-arousal by a new female. The Coolidge effect is widespread among mammals.

  Modern society, with the encouragement of the advertisement industry, promotes changes to an extreme. Thus, it is told of the mythological editor of Vogue magazine, Anna Wintour, that she never wears an item of last year's fashion nor does she wear the same item twice. One needn’t be a devoted follower of the fashion world to easily translate such transitory values into the romantic realm and continually look for a constant change in this realm as well.

  Due to the crucial role of change in generating emotions the alliance between passionate romantic love and a committed relationship is problematic. The delight experienced initially as the change of falling in love is difficult to sustain in long-term relationships, as the impact of reality and routines is often devastating.

  Although emotions typically arise when we perceive significant changes in our situation, an event can be perceived as a significant change only when compared with a stable background or framework. Not only change, but also stability, and in particular familiarity, increase emotional intensity: the familiar person is emotionally closer than the stranger. The positive role of familiarity may lead love to grow and become deeper over time. The unique combination of change, which is related to excitement and risk, and stability, which is related to commitment and security, is crucial for emotional excitement.

  The complexity of the object is an important factor in determining whether love will be more or less intense as a result of greater familiarity: a simple psychological object is liked less with exposure, while a complex object is liked more. Romantic love refers to a complex psychological personality, with numerous aspects, whereas sexual desire refers to a few, mainly external, aspects. Accordingly, sexual desire is considerably increased by replacing the object as too much familiarity may decrease sexual excitement and produce boredom. In contrast, increasing the intensity of love often involves increasing familiarity with the object. Replacing the object is often a temporary and elusive remedy for love. An indication of this is that very few people, who leave their marriage for a lover, eventually remain with that lover. Novelty has a less significant role in love than in sexual desire, since love is a longer lasting and more profound relationship; as such, it must be related to more permanent features.

  The role of complexity in romantic relationship is expressed in the following claim by Nina, a married woman, who describes her relationship with her lover: "I truly believe that even if we would spend together every minute of the day and the night for the rest of our lives we would tell each other new things, also about each other, all the time. I think that even if the familiar part becomes bigger, which is inevitable, the new part will always be endless and hence even greater than the familiar one." (cited in In the Name of Love: Romantic Ideology and its Victims)

  The tension between stable boundaries, which secure our comfort zones and within which events are familiar and predictable, and the wish to experience novelty, which is typically generated by stepping beyond these boundaries, is an essential feature of human life and the experience of love; this is also the tension between the ideals of freedom and commitment. Although "looking elsewhere" is typically perceived as a response to dissatisfaction, it may also exist in a generally satisfying relationship. Pursuing a limited type of change can be compatible with satisfaction from a current stable framework, and may prevent its deterioration.

• From mustard plants to sexuality genes and healthy youth -

  Now that I have said a bit about why I am blogging let me say a bit about who I am. With this introduction out of the way I can turn to discussing the sexual science that will be the focus of my blog.

  
  When I was in high school I became fascinated by genetics and evolution. At the time scientists were more limited in their abilities to study human genetics (this was way before the days of the human genome project), but at the same time we knew genes played a role in some important medical conditions. When an administrator from the University of Minnesota came to my high school to talk about a program to spend a summer in the lab of a researcher at the University I jumped at the chance. I also jumped at the chance because it was funded by the National Science Foundation and Howard Hughes Foundation and it paid well by my standards at the time. I was fortunate to be accepted into the program and was matched with a biologist who was trying to understand how it is that cells know what to turn into-like blood cells, skin cells, neurons, etc-given that they all have the same genes. How is the fate of a cell determined? To study this, he was conducting genetics research on the hairs on the leaves of plants in the mustard family. The idea being if you can understand why one cell turns into a hair and another one part of the leaf it might teach us how to cure diseases where certain kinds of cells are not functioning or are damaged. I spent the summer learning how to conduct gel electrophoresis and other state-of-the-art genetic techniques of the time.

  
  When I started college at Northwestern University I was intent on becoming a biologist. Then I took a Social Psychology course as a distribution requirement and became fascinated by the science of human behavior. Exploring questions like why some people hold discriminatory beliefs and why if someone is being attacked the more people watching the less each individual is likely to step in and help. These seemingly dueling interests made me feel conflicted. I loved the hard science of biology but was growing disenchanted with the sterility of the lab and now I was becoming fascinated with a "messy" science like psychology. Then one day one of my classes had a guest lecture on Behavior Genetics-the study of how genes influence behavior. For me it was the perfect marriage of my two interests.

  
  To get into graduate school I knew I needed to start getting involved in some research on campus. I searched the school's (relatively) new website and found one faculty member on the whole campus conducting Behavior Genetics research. He studied the role of genes in the development of sexual orientation using twin and family studies. I immediately approached him and he agreed to let me work in his lab. My responsibilities in working in his lab involved interviewing gay men about other family members that might be gay. While I enjoyed the link to Behavior Genetics, I also became fascinated by how little we know about sexual development. In fact, while sex is one of the most important driving forces in people lives we know very little about it from a biological and psychological perspective because it is treated as a taboo subject. To me this was a challenge I wanted to take on.

  
  My advisor and I ended up publishing a paper together and I was accepted into graduate school at Indiana University. Indiana University was a great match for me because the Psychology Department had faculty conducting cutting-edge Behavior Genetics research and there is also the Kinsey Institute, which has both a rich history and current program of sexuality research. Much of my graduate training and experience was in what might be considered the "basic research" side of Clinical Psychology. My work was focused on understanding the role of genes in sexual development and behavior as well as basic processes such as affect and personality. I was receiving applied clinical training in couples and sex therapy, but my primary interests were in research. I was fortunate to be able to take a summer off and work at the National Institutes of Health with Dr. Dean Hamer and we published a highly publicized study on the genetics of male sexual orientation. I was on my way to being a basic research scientist focused on understanding sexual development and health. Then I went on my Psychology Internship- a final year of intense clinical training that is part of the Clinical Psychology doctorate.

  
  I arrived at my internship site with a goal of doing as much research as possible and then going on to a faculty position doing laboratory research. I started working with a faculty member on internship that was studying the role of affect regulation in HIV prevention among youth with psychiatric illness. What was amazing to me was that she was conducting important research on the role of affect in HIV risk behaviors while at the same time delivering a program likely to reduce HIV infection in an at risk population. My perspective at the time was that the laboratory-and not the community-was the place to work these things out, but this experience changed my mind. At the same time research was coming out about the devastating epidemic of HIV among young gay and bisexual men. Some studies were showing as many as one in six young gay and bisexual men were infected with HIV. This was my community and I had the skills to do something about the epidemic. I knew I couldn't stay in the lab doing research that, while important, wouldn't soon make a dent in the epidemic. So I decided to focus my research on the health and development of LGBT people, with a particular focus on youth. My goal became translating findings from research into advancing public health as rapidly as possible.

  
  My current research focuses on using the Internet to provide HIV prevention education, developing and testing HIV prevention groups, understanding the development of sexual orientation (still from a biopsychosocial perspective), and learning about the prevalence and risk factors for mental health among LGBT youth. I hold a faculty position in the Institute for Juvenile Research and Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. I have several grants from the National Institutes of Health focused on HIV risk and prevention and was fortunate to recently be named a William T Grant Foundation Scholar for my work on the use of the Internet to promote positive sexual development.

  
  Part of my goal for writing this blog is to help share some of the knowledge gained in my own and other studies. While we still have a lot of learn, we do know a lot about the development of sexual orientation, how to prevent HIV, and how to promote and protect the health of LGBT people. The goal of this blog is to discuss the whole continuum of sexuality-health, development, orientation, and risk.

   

  The Sexual Continuum Blog now has a facebook page. To become a fan of the blog, click here and then choose to "become a fan." By joining you will get updates as new blog postings come out.

• Hypospadias -

  Hypospadias is a condition where the urethra (tube you pee through) doesn't go to the end of the penis. In mild cases, it comes out near the end of the penis, but not quite. In more severe cases, it can come out anywhere from below the head of the penis to the scrotum.

  
  
  Hypospadias is one of the most common birth anomalies there is, occurring in 1 out of every 125 to 500  boys. The possible reasons range from genetics and environmental pollutants called endocrine disrupters to diet. (An excellent study released in 2008 cites diet and obesity of the mother during pregnancy as risk factors, with a vegetarian diet or a diet lacking in meat and fish showing a strong positive association with hypospadias risk.)
  
  It makes sense that cases of hypospadias occur on the bottom side of the penis where nature left a long seam. That's because when the penis is forming in the womb, nature zips it up along this seam. The urethra goes inside the chamber of the penis that's just inside the seam. With hypospadias, the urethra got caught in the zipper like your penis will if you are in a super hurry and zip your pants up before your guy is safely out of harm's way.
  
  Hypospadias is usually a minor birth defect that often  looms far more massively in the mind of the guy who's got it than in mind of a potential partner. There is nothing about hypospadias that makes a man any less of a man, or any less of a lover, although sometimes it results in a condition where the penis curves more than normal.
  
  The real damage from hypospadias is usually the shame and aloneness that a guy feels when he's growing up. One of the reasons for feeling so different is because he's often got to sit down to pee, given how the pee shoots out the side of his penis instead of the end. The guy knows he's different from other males, and often lives in terror that others will find out and make fun of him. Of course, this never happens, given how kind, understanding and uncruel children are about others who are different...
  
  Aside from feeling like he's got this huge and horrible secret in his pants, most men with hypospadias have a medical history where they had to have their penis repeatedly inspected and examined by this doctor and that. And not being able to leave well enough alone, surgeons are frequently called in to do what often turns out to be multiple surgeries. (While medical intervention is sometimes helpful in certain cases, there are plenty of guys who would have been far better off if their penis had been spared the surgeon's knife.)
  
  As is the case where any kid grows up feeling his body is defective, the most important issues to deal with are often the psychological. Men with hypospadias usually feel great emotional relief when they can meet and talk to other men who have the same condition. Fortunately, the Internet is making this much more possible than in times past.
  
  Men with hypospadias sometimes grow up fascinated by other guys' penises. This makes perfect sense when you consider how often their penis gets handled by parents and doctors, often without a helpful explanation. It also makes sense given how focused a guy with hypospadias can be about the way his penis is different from other penises. However, there is no evidence that hypospadias results in a different sexual orientation unless that's what you were going to do from the start, hypospadias or not.
  
  As for sex and relationships, the main difference between a penis with hypospadias and one without is where the cum shoots out, and that's not going to make a bit of difference to most women. As one female reader said, "I can name you hundreds of other things women are more concerned about in a man than if his pee or cum shoots out straight or from the side--most women wouldn't give a rat's ass. Only guys worry about things like that."
  
  Rest assured there's no reason why you can't become a father, so birth control is just as necessary for a man with hypospadias as for any other guy. The urethral opening for men with hypospadias is sometimes a little bigger, and some guys are prone to urinary tract infections, so drinking extra water and peeing after sex might be a good habit to get into.
  
  Men with hypospadias recommend that you tell a partner about your hypospadias sometime after you've gotten to know each other but before you've got your hands in each other's pants. You can always pull out "The Guide" and point to this page if you need an ice breaker.
  
  And if you are in serious need of a reality check, keep in mind that guys coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan with stumps where they used to have arms and legs would trade for a penis with hypospadias in a heartbeat, and let's not even talk about people born with intersex conditions where a guy's penis isn't much bigger than a clitoris, or where a girls' clitoris isn't much smaller than a penis. This isn't to diminish a man's feelings about his hypospadias, but we tend to make our own little hells in life, and sometimes perspective isn't such a bad thing.
  
  Resources:
  
  For more information about hypospadias, an excellent resource is The Hypospadias and Epispadias Association.

  To read the above referenced 2008 study Maternal and Gestational Risk Factors for Hypospadias by
  Akre, Boyd et. al. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 116, Number 8, August 2008, click here.

• Is there sex after marriage? -

  In movies sex is always spontaneous and highly charged. Both people feel powerful desire and are turned-on before touching occurs. The sex is short and intense, and everyone has multiple orgasms. Of course, it's always a new couple or an extra-marital affair - marital sex is almost never depicted in the movies. Married couples are not supposed to be "hot."

  In movies sex is always spontaneous and highly charged. Both people feel powerful desire and are turned-on before touching occurs. The sex is short and intense, and everyone has multiple orgasms. Of course, it's always a new couple or an extra-marital affair - marital sex is almost never depicted in the movies. Married couples are not supposed to be "hot."
  
  What is the scientific and clinical reality? Married couples have both more sex and more satisfying sex. Sexuality plays a 15-20% positive role in marriage. It allows the couple to share pleasure, enhance intimacy, and sex serves as a wonderful tension reducer to deal with the hassles of life and marriage. The essence of healthy sexuality is to energize the marital bond and enhance feelings of desire and desirability.

  The paradox of sexuality is that dysfunctional, conflictual, or a non-sexual relationship has a negative impact on marriage than the positive role of healthy sexuality. Sexual problems drain intimacy and threaten marital stability, especially in the first two years of marriage (whether it's a first or second marriage). In this blog, I want to focus on primary prevention: How to build a strong, resilient intimacy/pleasuring/eroticism bond.

  Mental health professionals and the public believe that intimacy is the core element in successful marriage. The "common sense" view is you can never have too much intimacy and the more intimate the marriage, the better the sex. This myth has caused widespread damage, especially for women. Intimacy is core in terms of feeling safe, connected, and securely bonded. However, the key to healthy marital sexuality is to find a mutually comfortable level of intimacy while allowing space and freedom to experience sexual desire and eroticism. The challenge for couples is to find the balance of intimacy and eroticism which enhances their couple sexual style.

  The second core component in healthy marital sexuality is both spouses value the five dimensions of touch: affectionate, sensual, playful, erotic, and intercourse. This allows them to be free from the traditional power struggle trap of "intercourse or nothing." The normal frequency of intercourse sex is between once every other week and three times a week, with the typical couple having intercourse 1-2 times a week. However, couples who approach sensual, playful, and /or erotic non-intercourse touch as valuable in themselves as well as a bridge to sexual desire will enjoy more pleasure and more intercourse.

  Eroticism is perhaps the most misunderstood component of marital sex. Eroticism is associated with "dirty, but exciting" sex. People fear that eroticism will cause one or both partners to act out and destabilize the marriage. People trust intimate sex, but not erotic sex. Erotic sex within a committed relationship is quite different than porn sex, affair sex, or high-risk sex. The essence of erotic sex is playfulness, creativity, mystery, and unpredictability which are integrated into your intimate marriage. Eroticism promotes feeling turned-on and experiencing erotic flow and orgasm.

  Marital sexuality by its nature is variable and flexible in terms of desire, pleasure, and satisfaction. Especially with the aging of the partners and the marriage, couple sex becomes more human and genuine. You need each other more as intimate, erotic friends than you did early in the marriage. The man can be an intimate partner, and the woman can value erotic scenarios and techniques. This integration is the heart of deeply intimate, erotic marital sexuality. The more broadly based and resilient your couple sexual style-with an emphasis on sharing intimacy, pleasuring, and eroticism-the more likely you will continue to enjoy satisfying couple sexuality.

  Barry W. McCarthy, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at American University, a certified marital and sex therapist, and recipient of the 2009 Smart Marriages Impact Award. McCarthy and his wife Emily have collaborated on 11 books which have sold more than a million copies, including Rekindling Desire, Getting it Right the First Time, Getting It Right This Time and Men's Sexual Health. Their most recent book is Discovering Your Couple Sexual Style (Routledge, February 2009).

• Paul's Sex Term of the Day--SRPE or Sleep-Related Painful Erections - These are erections that occur during sleep but are so painful that they wake the man up. This problem has not been well-studied and may occur more often than is reported. The pain is frequently too severe to simply "shake off" and can result in a serious loss of sleep.

  SRPEs seem to occur during REM sleep, just like non-painful sleeping erections. However the pain itself might be the result of either spasms or ischemia. Oral baclofen currently appears to be the experimental treatment of choice, but that may change when more is learned about SRPEs.

  If you are experiencing sleep-related painful erections, a consultation with a urologist is in order.

  As for regular non-painful sleep erections, the idea that they are the same as daytime erections that just happen while you are sleeping is being questioned by researchers. It's possible that different neurological pathways are involved. One shouldn't assume a man who wakes with an erection is necessarily horny.

   

• The Fantasy Bond: A substitute for a truly loving relationship -

  
  Most people have fears of intimacy and are self-protective and at the same time are terrified of being alone. Their solution to their emotional dilemma is to form a fantasy bond.<!--break--> This illusion of connection and closeness allows them to maintain an imagination of love and loving while preserving emotional distance. Destructive fantasy bonds, which exist in a large majority of relationships, greatly reduce the possibility couples achieving intimacy.

  
  The nature of a fantasy bond is the central concept of my theory as explained in my book THE FANTASY BOND. It explains people's compulsion to relive the past with new relationships i.e., to form illusory connections that invariably lead to a reenactment of defensive styles of interacting developed in childhood. This process of reverting to outmoded defense patterns interferes with the establishment of secure and satisfying adult relationships characterized by feelings of humanity, compassion, and equality. Once a fantasy bond is formed, individuals prefer to maintain a defensive posture rather than trusting and investing genuine feeing in others. Once having been hurt, they are reluctant to take a chance again and this defensive pattern has an insidious effect on couple and family relations.

  
  Men and women are most likely to become romantically involved at a stage in their lives where they are breaking dependent emotional ties with their families and experiencing a sense of separateness and independence. As they reach out and risk more of themselves emotionally, they tend to attract others with their vitality and enthusiasm. In the first stages of the relationship, they tend to let down their defenses and are open and vulnerable.

  
  While this state of being in love is volatile and exciting, at the same time it can be frightening. The fear of loss or abandonment as well as the poignant sadness often evoked by positive emotions may become difficult to tolerate, especially for those who have suffered from a lack of love in their early lives. At the point these individuals begin to feel anxious or frightened, they retreat from feeling close, gradually giving up the most valued aspects of their relationships, forming a fantasy bond.

  
  By the time most people reach adulthood, they have solidified their defenses and exist in a psychological equilibrium that they do not wish to disturb. Although they may be relatively congenial with more casual acquaintances, there is a deterioration in friendly and respectful feelings as a relationship becomes more meaningful and intimate, because the new love object now threatens to disrupt this balance by penetrating their basic defenses.

  
  A fantasy bond is the antithesis of a healthy personal relationship where individuals are free to express their real feelings and desires. This destructive tie functions to perpetuate feelings of distrust, self-hating thought processes, and the inward behavior patterns that each person brings to the relationship. In their destructive coupling, men and women surrender their unique points of view for an illusion of safety.

  
  Perhaps the most significant sign that a fantasy bond has been formed is when one or both partners give up vital areas of personal interest, their unique points of view and opinions, their individuality, to become a unit, a whole. The attempt to find security in an illusion of merging with another leads to an insidious and progressive loss of identity in each person. The individuals involved learn to rely more and more on habitual contact, with less and less personal feeling. They find life increasingly hollow and empty as they give up more aspects of their personalities.
  There are a number of steps that individual partners can initiate to break into the fantasy bond they have formed with each other. Partners can:

  
  (1) admit the existence of a fantasy bond. Stop denying that they have become distant and their actions are no longer loving
  (2) reveal feelings of anger, hostility, and withholding patterns and admit critical, hostile attitudes toward themselves and their partner
  (3) face the psychological pain and sadness involved in attempting to reestablish intimacy
  (4) expose their fears of individuation and separation, including the fear of loss or death of their partner as well as their own death
  (5) move toward independence and respect for each other and establish true equality. Disrupt reciprocal patterns of dominance, submission, and defiance
  (6) develop a non-defensive posture toward feedback and an open and honest style of communication 

  (7) move toward increased interaction with others--extend circle of family and friends to provide better reality testing

  
  Positive change takes place only when the fantasy bond in the original family is investigated and its reestablishment is challenged in the current relationship. As fantasy bonds were understood and relinquished, the individuals in a relationship manifest new energy, self-possession, and vitality and are able to become loving companions and allies.

  To learn more, visit glendon.org

  To attend training, register for Voice Therapy

   

   

   

   

   

• The Latest Call for Caution Over Large Scale HPV Vaccination -

  A very sobering editorial in today’s New England Journal of Medicine asks a number of pointed questions about the safety and effectiveness of the new HPV vaccines. These are the same questions that have caused a number of us to wonder why we are using twelve-year-old girls as guinea pigs for a vaccine that won’t be proven until those girls are approaching menopause.
  
  This editorial from one of the world’s most respected medical journals asks for caution and further study before introducing large-scale vaccination against HPV: “...We will not know for many years whether the intervention will work or — in the worst case — do harm.”
  
  Most HPV infections are easily handled by the immune system without a single vaccination being given. Will the HPV vaccines interfere with this natural process, and if so, in what ways? If two of the cancer causing strains of HPV are effectively suppressed by these vaccines, will nature put pressure on the remaining strains of HPV to become oncogenic?
  
  While it has been shown that the HPV vaccines prevent precancerous lesions, we don’t know if they will prevent cancer itself, or if they will continue to prevent precancerous lesions by the time today’s teens have teens of their own.
  
  This editorial asks how the vaccine will affect preadolescent girls, given the limitations of the current trials. It points out how models for the cost-effectiveness of the vaccines are based on assumptions that are “quite optimistic.” It wonders if women who have had the vaccine will continue to get cancer screenings, even though they should.
  
  This editorial closes with the following warning:

  “By the summer of 2007, there were promising results with regard to the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in the prevention of precancerous lesions caused by the HPV-16 and HPV-18 serotypes. However, serious questions regarding the overall effectiveness of the vaccine in the protection against cervical cancer remained to be answered, and more long-term studies were called for before large-scale vaccination programs could be recommended. Unfortunately, no longer-term results from such studies have been published since then.”

  Cervical cancer is a terrible disease, and the treatment for precancerous lesions has its own unfortunate side effects. I can understand the rush to prevent this disease, and I hope these vaccines are the answer. But I’m in agreement with the New England Journal of Medicine that caution is in order.

  My own daughter is not 12-years-old yet, but if she were, she would not be getting an HPV vaccine until we had more information to work with. The same is true if I had a young son, and you can be sure that the market place is chomping at the bit to begin large scale vaccinations of boys.

  Resource: "Human Papillomavirus Vaccination — Reasons for Caution" by Charlotte J. Haug, M.D., Ph.D., New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 359:861-862, August 21, 2008, Number 8

Love and Marriage Topics from About.Com

• "Hood of Your Car" - The Rose is Rose comic today is about classic summer dates. My only addition would be to have a blanket on the hood of the car!

  What do you consider a classic summer date with your spouse? Please share it with our readers.

  "Hood of Your Car" originally appeared on About.com Marriage on Tuesday, July 20th, 2010 at 16:50:47.

  Permalink | Comment | Email this

• Clinton-Mezvinsky: Lots of Questions - There are many rumors in the media about the Clinton/Mezvinsky wedding.
  • Where will they get married?
  • When will they get married?
  • Who designed her wedding dress?
  • Who is on the guest list for their wedding and reception?
  • What will be served at the reception?
  • How much will the wedding cost?
  • Who is going to officiate their interfaith wedding?
  • Will Chelsea keep her name, take on Marc's name, or use both names?
  • What are Marc and Chelsea's plans after the wedding?

  One of the questions we have is how will Chelsea and Marc handle the interfaith marriage aspects of their lives. Hopefully, like most other married interfaith couples, Chelsea and Marc will find joy, will rectify any mistakes they make, and will handle any stumbling blocks with respect, prayer, and love.

  Another key to strengthening their marriage is to talk with each other about their own faith traditions. We hope for much happiness for Marc and Chelsea regardless of the when, the where, and other details of their wedding!

  Clinton-Mezvinsky: Lots of Questions originally appeared on About.com Marriage on Wednesday, July 28th, 2010 at 12:56:11.

  Permalink | Comment | Email this

• Disappointing Comments on Commitment - When I first saw Cameron Diaz's quotes about commitment and marriage all over the Internet, I thought they must have been taken out of context. So I read the original article in the July 21, 2010 issue of the UK's Stylist magazine. Although I think Diaz is the one with misconceptions, she was correctly quoted.

  Cameron on what the Shrek films say about love and her thoughts about commitment: "True love finds you. It's destiny, fate. There is someone out there you are meant to be loved by and you are meant to love, but I think the big misconception in our society is that we're supposed to meet [the one] when we're 18 and we're supposed to get married to them and love them for the rest of our lives. Bulls**t ... Who would want to be with the same person for 80 years? Why not break it up a little bit? ... Have someone for five years and another person for another five years. Life is long and lucky and yes, love might last forever, but you don't always live with the person you love forever. You can have that love the rest of your life but you might love someone else along the way, and there's nothing wrong with that."
  Source: Lesley O'Toole. "Who Says You Have to Love One Person For the Rest of Your Life?" Stylist. Issue 39. 7/21/2010. pg. 44.

  Cameron is known as a serial dater. We'd rather see her known for that than being known for serial marriages. She was on target with this remark: "I think people get freaked out about getting married and spending 20 or 30 years sleeping with the same person, but if that's the case, don't do it." If you don't think you can stay faithful in your marriage, don't get married.

  Disappointing Comments on Commitment originally appeared on About.com Marriage on Monday, July 26th, 2010 at 03:54:32.

  Permalink | Comment | Email this

• Full Thunder Moon Tonight - Whether you call it the Full Thunder Moon due to July thunderstorms or the Full Buck Moon reflecting the new antlers on bucks this time of year, tonight there is a full moon.

  There are many traditions and ceremonies connected to the full moon but you can reaffirm your love for one another by making your own full moon rituals. Here are a few things you can do together when there is a romantic full moon.

  • Take a walk.
  • Find a romantic place to sit and talk under the moonlight.
  • Turn off all the lights and enjoy the light from the moon.
  • Dance together in the moonlight.
  • Go camping.
  • Go swimming in the moonlight.

  Whatever you decide to do, have fun!

  Full Thunder Moon Tonight originally appeared on About.com Marriage on Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 04:23:59.

  Permalink | Comment | Email this

• Lawyers' Advice - The 62-year marriage of Al and Mary Link is highlighted in Tamara Browning's article, "How to Have a Happy Marriage Late in Life." It's a good article. Disclaimer: A Google Alert on "stritof" led us to the article.

  Quoting Making Marriage Last published by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Browning wrote "Not all marriages fail for the same reason, and there's usually not one reason for the breakdown of a particular marriage ... However, failed expectations or unmet needs, communication problems and lifestyle changes may contribute to divorce among long-term marriages."

  We paraphrased the AAML's tips we like best and added links to our content:

  • Consider your spouse to be your friend.
  • Keep your sense of humor.
  • Make having fun with your spouse a priority.
  • Think twice before you demean your spouse anywhere.
  • Remember the importance of listening.
  • Fight fair.
  • When you make a mistake, admit it.
  • If your spouse deserves an apology, be sincere when you apologize and follow through on what you say you will do or won't do.
  • Be willing to forgive.
  • Accept that you can't change your spouse.

  Browning's article on long-term marriage also mentioned the happiest couples have their own space, interests, and friends, but do not let their individual careers or activities become more important than their marriage. Her article reminded us of a book we reviewed a few years ago, Divorce lawyer's Guide to Staying Married. Both are worth reading.

  Lawyers' Advice originally appeared on About.com Marriage on Saturday, July 24th, 2010 at 01:32:01.

  Permalink | Comment | Email this

• The 3 A's - What do you think? Are the only "good" reasons to leave a marriage the 3 A's? That's abuse, adultery, or addiction.

  Deblgus from the Marriage Forum thinks "I am of the opinion that 'I don't want to be here' is as good a reason as any for no longer being there."

  We think there are other deal breakers that can end a marriage. One way to avoid the heartache of a divorce is to discuss major issues both before and after you are married. Remember, "all you need is love" and "love conquers all" are myths.

  The 3 A's originally appeared on About.com Marriage on Friday, July 30th, 2010 at 02:21:15.

  Permalink | Comment | Email this

• Today is a Day to Dance - Judge Nigel Lythgoe at So You Think You Can Dance declared today, July 31st, as National Dance Day. We're not sure why he organized this event, but we believe dancing is great for married couples and we're thankful for any way to get more couples dancing.

  Here are a dozen reasons to dance with your spouse. Remember it doesn't make any difference what type of dancing the two of you do. Any style of dancing will do.

  Today is a Day to Dance originally appeared on About.com Marriage on Saturday, July 31st, 2010 at 02:00:13.

  Permalink | Comment | Email this

• Young at Heart - He's 97 and she's 87 and they were married yesterday! That's being young at heart.

  Henry Kerr and Valerie Berkowitz Kerr met in a residential home. He said the reason he wanted to get married was to "stop others from gossiping."

  Henry: "What pleases me is people not now saying, 'You know they are living together, they are sleeping together'."
  Source: "Couple, aged 87 and 97, marry in north London care home." BBC.co.uk. 7/26/2010.

  We're sure Henry had other reasons for wanting to marry Valerie. Congratulations to the newlyweds! And, Henry -- continue reading poetry to Valerie.

  Young at Heart originally appeared on About.com Marriage on Tuesday, July 27th, 2010 at 02:56:39.

  Permalink | Comment | Email this

Advice Column: Professional Therapist at MentalHelp.Net

• Nervous about nudity - Hi Anne, Hoping you can help with what has become a serious problem for me. I have never been comfortable naked and have only recently realized that it may even be an issue for me. I was raised in a very modest house with parents who were not affectionate with each other. My mother was sexually abused as a child and I do think this has impacted my level of feeling shame about my body. Despite this and despite the fact that it has been 20 years since I wore a swimming suit out in daylight, I have had a few successful sexual relationships in my early 20's some lasting years without this being a real issue. I don't have issues with being naked while in the "act" with a partner when lights are low, but when "on display" ,even while dressing, it doesn't feel right. I feel vulnerable and uncomfortable - the farthest from sexy. Now nearing 30 and recently married, I am just now realizing that my husband takes enormous offense to my modesty. It has affected our sex-life because he feels like I don't trust him and he thinks being denied nude peeks at me takes away from his excitement and interest in me. On the flip-side, I feel like I can't trust him because he isn't sensitive or encouraging since he takes it personally and that he doesn't find me attractive because all I feel is the animosity - the cycle just worsens. In my gut, I don't think I will ever be the naked bunny running around the house that he wants me to be - even with the right kind of encouragement. Am I a freak for being so modest? I was very open with my husband about my sensitivities while dating, why is this coming up now? My husband believes that I will never be happy with anyone if I can't be comfortable being naked around the house. Do you believe that this is really true? In most regards, I actually think I am a sane, happy person and happy to be who I am - save this one thing.... I am feeling passively-aggressively bullied by my beloved. Is it really my fault? Help? Thanks, Sarah
• Religious wife regrets premarital sex; won't sleep with husband - My wife and I have been married for over 6 years, we got married young, 20 & 22. But her past has always bothered me she had been with 9 guys before me. I keep reading about this subject and I know the past is the past and to just leave it in the past. But my problem is my wife told me she slept with guys to get the attention and the affection. As soon as the guy stop giving her those items she would find another new fling. Well after we got married I made the mistake of judging her harshly about her past because I had only been with 3 women before her and all of which I was serious about. I was always taught Sex is the most sacred part of marriage and that was when you were suppose to engage in it, Catholic School for 12 years. Now 6 years later I have caused her to clam up about sex and she feels too vulnerable about opening up about sex because of how hard I was on her early on in our marriage. I know I was wrong for holding this over her head and I have apologized a million times. But she really has a tough time being intimate with me. She also had an abortion when she was 19, which she truly hates herself for what she did. It bothers her a lot. We have two wonderful healthy sons now and she is a teacher in a Catholic school. She feels as if she is a hypocrite because she teaches this children how premarital sex is wrong and abortion is a mortal sin. She is truly sorry about her abortion, But we have no idea how to help her become more affectionate. We are thinking about going into counseling again, or if just she should go? I want to help her with her baggage as I have baggage too just not of the sexual nature.
• A wife writes: "Somehow, we have not yet had sexual intercourse" - I have been married for almost 11 months now - it is a love marriage and I love my husband very much. Likewise, for him. however, somehow, we have not yet had sexual intercourse. We have indulged in foreplay a few times and tried to have intercourse but i am paranoid about the pain, My dear husband refrains from doing it since he is scared it will hurt me. From my perspective, honestly, I just do not have the desire to have a sexual relationship - I seem to be happy with cuddling and hugs and kisses- why do we need more? My husband masturbates regularly but I am surprised, him being a man has not got me to do it for so long. I think the desire is low from both our sides and I am now beginning to get worried since we will want children sooner or later. I also used JY Jelly once which was helpful but somehow get nervous when he is about to enter - also, i have no clue as to how the big object will get into such a minute hole - i should mention that I feel no pleasure whatsoever when he touches me or indulges in foreplay. I do not understand - have I got over sex? I have never had sex in my life though was a little sexually active when I was younger. My husband and me are both 30 years old. Please advise. thanks.
• My depressed husband won't sleep with me. What should I do? - My husband has been going through severe depression for almost a year now. It manifested itself physically, so he was only diagnosed a few months ago. He is on medication and doing some what better. I have researched and read all materials online I can find. I have been incredibly supportive and he shows me on a regular basis that he is appreciative. I adore him and won't give up. However, we have had almost no sex life in a year! Sex has been a big part of our relationship. I stay strong for him every day. He goes to bed and I cry for hours. I'm afraid to let him know how I feel, because I don't want him to feel worse than he already does. It has been so long since we've been intimate in any way. And honestly I can't even kiss him anymore because it sets me off. I need him. Self gratification isn't working either. My fantasies consist of him which only depresses me. What should I do?
• How much guilt is normal? - Dear Anne, I was in a relationship with a girl for 14 years. She, madam X, was very controlling and a perfectionist. At the time that we met, I was needy and didn’t realize either of our issues. I grew dependent on her, and allowed her to take over many things in my life that I shouldn’t have. There were many fights where she would say degrading words, threats of ending the relationship and making me think I was always wrong. It took me a long time to become independent and realize that this wasn’t a healthy relationship and she wasn’t going to change as I had. So after 14 years we ended it. In the mean time, I had a friend, Madam Y, who was also in a very long term relationship of 16 years. It appeared that they were a happy couple, traveled a lot, got along well – it seemed anyway. Madam Y is a similar type of person that I am: giving, a peace maker, positive, forgiving and a musician. I had known her for 3 years at the time of my breakup and knew I liked her as a friend, found her attractive both physically and mentally, funny and I just knew that I liked to be around her, but that’s as far as it went. I never pursued anything because I was with someone and so was she. About a month after my relationship ended, she started making comments that made me think that she felt something for me, mind you though these comments were made when she had drank a little too much. After another month of this we were out and again she had drank too much and told me she loved me. So the next day, when we were both sober, we talked on the phone about this. We both agreed that it didn’t matter what we were feeling due to her being in a relationship, but at the same time agreed to meet after work to talk about it some more. She was having big issues with how this could have happened to her, how she could have fallen in love with someone else when she was in a relationship. So we went on this way for about another month, her trying to figure things out, not wanting to destroy a 16 year relationship, but not wanting to let me go either. During this time, the only physical contact we had was a few kisses and hugs, it was mostly all emotional. Before she found the courage to talk to her partner, who turns out to be a lot like my ex, we were found out. Her partner then wanted her to stop seeing me, but Madam Y refused. So she left her house and has been waiting for her soon to be ex to move out of her house. In the mean time she has been seeing me and we have taken our relationship to another level. She is slowly realizing that her relationship had some big issues like communication and would have never been fixed due to her partner’s personality. However, she feels horrible, lots of sadness, blames herself and lots of guilt about hurting her partner. She talks about it all the time. It seems like when we are together she forgets for a while and we have a good time together but the next day she feels so much guilt that she make excuses not to see me for days, even though we talk on the phone daily, but I hear it in her voice. I know we are trying to take it slow, but I feel like this guilt and bad feelings of what has happened will get in the way of us if it doesn’t stop. It is beginning to hurt me when she talks about this, about how sad she is that her relationship has ended, how bad she feels that she hurt her partner. I feel like I am being put on a back burner because she doesn’t want us to be seen in public in case her soon to be ex partner might run into us, She says this is only until their financial matters have been taken care of and she gets her house back, but it’s starting to bother me. I feel like she is thinking more of her soon to be ex partner’s feelings than she is mine. Is this normal? Am I over reacting? I do realize she should feel some guilt and bad feelings, but for how long and how much?
• How can I forgive my husband to save our marriage? - The last two months I have been separated from my husband. I married him when I was 19 years old and fell head over heals for him. We now have two children together and a love that I cannot let go. When we first were married we both were young and like to go out drinking and of course there was no problem. When I first gotten pregnant we split up because of an infidelity he had with one of his ex girlfriends. Now 8 years later and a lot of arguing, not coming home at nights by him, and another infidelity with the same woman I finally got tired of it and kicked him out of our house. He has quit drinking now and has went through counseling but I can't seem to let go of the past in order to save our marriage. I love him and I don't want to get a divorce. I think what we have is worth saving but how do I forgive him and let all of the anger go that I have for him? Not only do I have anger for him but it seems to be for everyone else to. Please help if you can.
• I'm having an affair with my boss. Can I get pregnant? - I have started a sexual relationship with my boss and he is married but his wife is not intimate with him so he turned to me but the problem is when we have intercourse we do not use protection! He pulls out! now by doing this can he still get me pregnant i know he has got no sexually transmitted diseases and he does not suit condoms and i am allergic to the pill. Also I have feelings for him and he flirts with other women in front of me and it gets me angry. He is starting to mess with my head! he is 30 years older than me and knows how to get to me. please can you answer my problems?
• Trauma and Drama: Why are friends and family rejecting me? - Dear Anne, I am afraid this may have the tone of venting because the most recent catalyst happened just today. I just had someone who until now I would have called a friendly acquaintance (I'll refer to her as Sam) behave in a totally unprepossessing manner toward me. We were the first two people to get to our classroom today, so I said "Hi, what're you up to lady?"... she said none of my business, in a rude way. OK, I went through an entire class after this, and, because this was out of character, after class I asked her calmly why she was having a problem with me, and she went off about how she'd had a problem with me for the last 6 months and she wasn't going to be my new crutch (this comment was based on a friendship that she only witnessed the end of.) This and other events in my life force me to conclude that almost all people tending toward type A personalities, view me as emotionally weak. I am not weak... I admit am not strong.. I am human, I have had my problems and I feel that I have the right to have them, and I am sick of people condemning me for it; my sister, the ex-friend, who Sam is basing her conclusions on, and now... Sam. I recently lost my father, I have spent two years attending counseling, and trying different medications for chemical depression and anxiety problems, and although I am aware that these are only the actions of three people; I feel targeted, and not really sure how to handle the situation, much less how to improve it. So I would appreciate a fresh and neutral eye.