So What Do I Do Now?

Okay, so you know your problem. You saw a professional who gave you a diagnosis, or you read something somewhere, or you had a person you deem trustworthy suggest something. Some of the people I see collect the many possibilities indiscriminately, almost taking pride in the various tags that have been hung on them.
And there is a kind of comfort in putting a name to what's wrong, however accurate or inaccurate that name might be. It would seem better to know even the worst prognosis than to wander in the darkness. Once we know, hope seem possible again.
But that still leaves us with the unanswered question: whaddya gonna do about it? Fatalistically accept it? Try to ignore the obvious for as long as possible? Run away, far away? Jump from this possible solution to that, like a frantic flea at a dog convention? Yes, try enough potential solutions, and one of them is bound to help, like the old idea that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of word processors would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare.
Of course, there are more forms of remedy today than there ever were, today, and some of them actually do some good! We try to quicken the search by asking, but that takes us back to all those monkeys! Or we can determine just what form of help we are willing to accept, and look only there. It must be a man/woman, religious/secular, trained/well-meaning. We are entitled, even encouraged to seek the helper we decide is right for us. Yes, this means a lot of dead ends and false starts, as well as a colossal waste of our valuable time, but it is better to find someone you like rather than settling for who you can get. (Some have the same issue with relationships!)
But we actually get something out of this search: we take responsibility. We are not blindly taking the next one in line. Nor are we stuck with whomever we were assigned to. As annoying and frustrating as it might seem to my fellow clinicians to have a client population so tremendously choosy, at least they are no longer so passive nor helpless. They are there because they made the decision to be on their own.
Now our job is to help them determine what they do now.

And God Frowned

NEWS ITEM: In Ecuador, there is a state-supported mental health clinic that purports to specialize in curing homosexuality. Filled with mostly women patients, the use of torture, sexual abuse and old-fashioned brain-washing to make these people "straight" is given approval by the government.
Okay, no secret: I have a very personal bias in favor of the different. This means male/female, skin colors, ethnic/national, tall/short, and, um, sexual orientation. Yet some would question that, averring that the only proper, acceptable child of God is the white Caucasian  straight male, preferably with blond hair and blue eyes. At least, that's the model we see in the media (TV shows, movies, ads both printed and shown.)
Following that same reasoning, there should only be certain breeds of dog, certain kinds of houses, certain careers and limited forms of spiritual expression. What's more, divergences from such norms are not merely differences, but are wrong, condemned by the divine, and should be eliminated forthwith and ASAP!
Well, if ya insist on being such a pigheaded bigot, that's yer right (if we expect others to tolerate us, we gotta tolerate even those we can stand the least!) But know this: there is no explicit condemnation of the different in the scriptures (of whatever faith you choose). Sure, in the Christian writings there are prohibitions against male temple prostitutes, and strong support of traditional marriage as against the common behavior of the time to marry for convenience but then have as many lovers (of any sex and any age) as possible.
So when people come to me for therapy regarding their sexual orientation, I'm going to help them deal with it as they would deal with any issue causing them undue anxiety and distress. I am not going to "cure" their homosexuality. That would be like the awful things children went through many years ago when teachers decided right-handedness was the only acceptable way to write, so they strove to "cure" left-handers of that behavior.
Yes, people come to me to be "cured" of their sexual orientation. Well, if the husband of a certain presidential candidate can run a clinic for doing exactly that, I'm not surprised that people struggling with their sexual orientation might not give in to certain social pressures and look for a "cure." But this is similar to "curing" eye color by tinted contact lenses, or like "curing" hair loss by a toupee, or like counting on high heels to "cure" being short.
My God does not differentiate or discriminate based on outward appearances. (In fact, that was one of the earliest insights for the Christian church.) God does not frown on some and smile on others, any more than the rain falls on only a select few, nor the sun to shine just in certain places at certain times. Put away those carefully chosen Bible verses and recognize them for the defenses against your own homophobia that they are. (We'll talk another time about picking and choosing what in the Bible we decide to follow and what the psychological aspects are of that.)
If we really affirm God as love, should we discriminate as what sort of love that should be?

But Some Are more Equal Than Others...

In our society today, there is much energy being expended on the issue of inequality, especially the fact that many people (most, in fact) earn far less, have fewer resources, work in less-prestigious jobs than a smaller percentageof the population. This has led to demonstrations, occupations and much, much discussion. Yes, I am in sympathy with the young people who are involved in this movement, and I wish them the best (was something like what I did, back in the day.)
But there is some confusion here regarding the issue of equality; some folks who are in a position of authority are threatened by such talk. They have difficulty distinguishing the idea that all people are of equal value from the fact that some have greater knowledge, more academic credentials, broader life experience than others. A parent is of equal worth to any child, even though the parent has the authority to decide the best way of life for that child. A doctor may not be any better as a person than a given patient, even though that doctor has the ability to help that the patient might seek out. The judge is just as human and limited as any lawyer or defendant, even though one might rule legally on the other.
The confusion arises when someone with expertise in one area offends by condescension to a person in another area altogether. Yes, I have my areas of expertise, but that should not guarantee me deference in any other area, however strong my opinions or ardent my feelings in that area.
So does that mean that we should listen to all, give equal consideration regardless of their knowledge and understanding? Well, yes, with the common assumption that we are all equally aware of who is worth taking seriously and who is not. I hate the idea of giving the people I disagree with equal voice and time, but unless I know my opponent, I do not know what I am facing. It becomes like chasing a black cat in a dark room, and constantly crying, "Here it is! I have it!"
All people created equal: that is what we proclaim. It doesn't mean we should all be cookie-cutter-copies, nor that we pretend not to see differences. But it does mean that I am of the same worth as you, and you as me, regardless of what bank balance or job title we respectively have.

Who You Gonna Trust?

There was a time when it was obvious who the trustworthy were supposed to be: family, friends, religious and civic leaders, to name just a few. These were the people we counted on, those we were sure would never betray us or lead us astray. No one told us of the darker side of these people, and even should we catch a glimpse of "that man behind the curtain", we would still give them the benefit of the doubt.
Trust today has become an endangered aspect of life. In fact, the very people we used to trust well-nigh unconditionally are the same we now reject almost automatically. It seems that trust is a difficult load to carry, and tempting to take advantage of. The politicians we looked to as founts of wisdom are now seen as self-serving buffoons. The clergy we looked to for guidance are now seen as abusers. Doctors are seen as only out for the buck, not for the health of the patient. Teachers, community leaders, others we sought direction from, all are now seen as having some secret motive, some hidden agenda.
Granted, I am painting with a very broad brush. There are many, if not most, in each group who are sincere, competent people that deserve our trust and work hard to earn it. But the average person pays no attention to the exception to their personal rule; they (whoever they might be) are simply not to be trusted. And, unfortunately, there have more than enough instances to make us feel that our bias is valid.
The only solution to this conundrum is to trust. Otherwise, it becomes a problem preventing its own solution. We don't trust others, who therefore resort to the very behavior we didn't trust the for (because, after all, why not? they already don't trust!) and this confirms us in our decision not to trust. But if we would reclaim trust as important to our lives, we must take the risk. Trust is like a muscle: if you want to strengthen it, you must use it. And the only way to exercise is, uh, to trust!
This is not a quick solution; much water has gone under this particular bridge and change will come gradually. But there is another side to this. They must act in such a way as to prove trust worthy! Which might mean acting in the same way as they already do. But when people realize that it might be in their best interests to behave in a more trustworthy manner, they will seek to make the things they do more obvious.We sometimes don't trust people not because of what they do, but because of what we assume they might have done.
Please do not assume the above is only social commentary: one of the biggest issues couples bring into marital therapy is trust! It applies to couples, families, friends and neighbors.
Of course, there are those whose entire life is built around not trusting anybody. And there are those who should be treated with an excess of caution. But we cannot get anywhere in society if we assume such are the common breed around us. You can begin on the right path by trusting everything I just said.

Nobody Knows The Trouble I Seen

Sometimes when difficulty hits, we just can't seem to stop going over and over and over it no matter how painful it might be to review it one more time and how annoying it might be to our nearest and dearest to hear the same old thing. Sometimes we keep it to ourselves in a misguided attempt to prove our fortitude and an equally mistaken belief that no one would care anyway.  Sometimes we get stuck in that painful place and sometimes we try to run away from it.
One of the differences between men and women (flagrant generalization ahead!) is the way we share our problems and what we expect in return. Men (ahem! cough!) tend not to share their problems in what I call the John Wayne Syndrome ("Men don't cry, pilgrim! They bleed!") Or if there is any sharing, the expectation is that it will be a problem-solving session. The focus then, see, is not on the person in pain, but in the source of the pain, and what should be done about it. And make that solution as quick and concrete as possible, thank you very much. So it becomes external in nature, with little consideration of how this guy may have played a part in what happened.
Women, on the other hand, can be quite open about their pain, given the right confidante and the right opportunity. But they have a different expectation; they want someone to listen, to validate their feelings. They do not want someone to suggest what should be done about the problem, as that seems like rejection and dismissal of what they are going through. Guys, when your lady begins to tell you what hurts her, your best move is to shut up and let her tell you all about it. Don't try to solve the problem, unless she specifically asks you.
There can be a time for mutual problem-solving, but first there has to be the mutual openness and trust of sharing deeply. If a guy cam start at that level, it may be confusing, but it should be welcome.

I'll Only Tell You Kids Once!

First, my credentials: I have off-spring of my own. (They are of an age where it would be too condescending to call them "children" and too specific to limit them to "daughters.") So, yes, I have had experience being a parent. How good a parent, well...
The biggest issue I deal with in my practice is parent-child relationships. (Often, even with adults!) Many parents call me seeking a therapist with expertise in child psychology, or to make an appointment for a son or daughter, or help dealing with the impact of an out-of-control child. The problem came be as simple (!) as an adolescent who is behaving, well, like a teenager, or it can be as serious as a youngster who has some form of physical/emotional handicap. Whatever the precipitating crisis might be, the desire is the same: fix my kid!
Too often the problem stems from confusion over proper limits; sometimes one parent is very strict and the other parent very accepting. They cannot agree on the rules nor how one plays this game. And when there is only one parent involved due to divorce, death or distraction, then the problem becomes even greater; mom (it usually is mom) has to cover all the bases as well as umpire the game (sorry for all the baseball references, I have been watching the play-offs.)
It may seem simplistic, but here is a formula for dealing with discipline that may help. First, determine the absolutes. What are the laws of the land that must be followed? Too often, we parents have so many rules that the child can't keep track; it seems arbitrary and autocratic (which it might be in fact.) So the kid either gives up or becomes defiant. Guess which is most likely? So the best way we can avoid either keeping track of an ever-changing list or carrying on a familial guerrilla war is to narrow down what we expect.  These should be rules that both parents agree upon. Kids catch on very quickly which parent will tolerate what, if there is this division.
Make these rules as specific and concrete as possible: "clean up your room" is too general. Make your bed. Pick up your clothes. Vacuum regularly. The parent decides. And make it age-appropriate: an elementary-schooler cannot do quite as much as a teen-ager, nor should. Such rules need to be re-evaluated and re-negotiated regularly, so the child takes on responsibility as time goes by (as versus the other, commoner scenario where the parents give up or take on more and more themselves.)
And, in a crucial part of the discussion, what are the penalties if the child does not do these basic tasks? This is tricky, as modern parents tend to have very short attention spans. Being grounded for a week lasts until that night. Losing privileges is even trickier, as they need that computer for homework, and how does reach one's children if they do not have access to their cell-phones? Try to make it appropriate ("let the punishment fit the crime," remember?) and not overly severe. Just because the parent is angry, the child should not come away from a major infringement of the rules feeling treated unfairly.
As I said, this may simplistic and too easy. All I can say is, try it and see!

Virtual Communication

She sees herself as being in constant contact with the world, and in a way, she is right! Whether it be Facebook or texting or e-mail or even the rare telephone call, there is an increasing amount of communication between individuals. Today we can look at the role Twitter played in major political events, or pictures not otherwise available which were sent be cell-phone, and realize that the forms of communication are in flux from moment to moment. It is moving so fast, it is akin to the report of an observer of the world's fastest train: "Here it comes here it is there it goes!"
So what is the issue? People through the new social media are less inhibited, less restricted, more apt to talk about incredibly intimate and formerly private things and therefore the person we are dealing with seems more open, more real, more trustworthy than those we deal with in real life. If anything, because we have the protective shield of the internet or the phone, we tend to be more direct, even ruthless in what we say or the way we say it.
But the result is that we tend to fall into a untrusting stance. We will not go into the separate issue of knowing whether the person we are communicating with is really who he or she claims to be, It is simply that we no longer deal with each other face to face, in person. It is safer to tell someone off on-line than to look them in the eye.
This is why people fall into the traps on line. With internet porn, a man is assured that a woman will never say no. College courses on-line almost guarantee a passing grade. And let us not mention the various gimmicks, products, services that are for sale for such a reasonable price on line (until the next bank statement comes in.) It catches us by our human desire for the quick and easy answer.
It may seem hypocritical for the writer of a blog to criticize the internet, but the point is not the form of communication. It is the people who escape into a protected virtual world where all one has to do with those who upset us is to un-Friend them.