Showing posts with label self worth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self worth. Show all posts

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Dr Brené Brown - The Power of Vulnerability (at The RSA)


On July 4th, Dr. Brené Brown spoke at The RSA about her research into vulnerability, courage, worthiness, and shame. The original talk of over an hour is no longer available in video format, but The RSA has just released a 20+ minute "highlights" video (why!??), which is below. There is also a link to the full audio of the event below the video.

Brown's books include I Thought It Was Just Me (but it isn't): Making the Journey from "What Will People Think?" to "I Am Enough" (2007), The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are (2010), and Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead (2012).

As usual, this talk is informational and entertaining. I have posted her talks many times over at Integral Options Cafe, but it occurred to me this morning that we, as men, need this as much or more than do women. 


We are raised to believe vulnerability = weakness, and that to be vulnerable makes us less than ______ (fill in the blank, with some choices being masculine, manly, strong). When we feel vulnerable, and ALL human beings do at some point, then we feel ashamed and weak. 

The truth, however, is that it takes much more strength and courage to be vulnerable than it does to pretend that nothing gets to us, that we do not have a tender open heart. We do. We simply must learn how to be okay with that, and add vulnerability to the list of masculine traits.

Dr Brené Brown - The Power of Vulnerability



Published on Aug 15, 2013

Influential author and speaker Dr Brené Brown tackles the myth that vulnerability is a weakness. Instead, she argues, it is the clearest path to courage and meaningful connection, and has the power to transform the way we engage and educate.

Listen to the podcast of the full event including audience Q&A.

Follow the RSA on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/thersaorg
Like the RSA on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thersaorg

Our events are made possible with the support of our Fellowship. Support us by donating or applying to become a Fellow.

Donate: http://www.thersa.org/support-the-rsa
Become a Fellow: http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/apply

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Jeffrey Oliveira Platts - I'm Lovable Now, Because I'm Me


This is a recent post from a friend of mine over at Facebook - I call him friend, even though I have never met him in person, because of his integrity in being the best man he can be, and his willingness to share that process with the rest of us. That takes strength and courage in my opinion.

This is the wisdom a lot of us need to feel - and it's already inside of us. We are always already fully worthy of love. We need not become anyone or do anything to deserve love - we need only be ourselves. And that may be one of the hardest things for any of us to do.

You can find Jeffrey at his Facebook page, or at his coaching site. There was no title for this, so I am sharing it here (with the author's permission) exactly as he shared it on Facebook.

For most of my life, I've used my level of academic, professional and financial success as a benchmark of how lovable I was—by my family, my friends, women. I needed to BE successful at all times and if not, at least APPEAR successful.

More success = more deserving of love.
Less success = less deserving of love.

Lately, I've noticed it was more pervasive than I thought. And I imagine that many men share that same pain-inducing belief. What you do and how much money you make has you gauging how worthy you are of love, attention and belonging in this world.

And for many women, I can only imagine how physical beauty can be a similar benchmark of lovability. Can you be loved for the essence of you? Without the high heels and lip-gloss? Can you be seen as smart, strong and powerful beyond your physical beauty and sex appeal?

The answer is YES.

Your lovability has absolutely nothing to do with how cool your LinkedIn profile looks. How many five-star Italian bistros you take your wife to. Whether you remember to cover the dark shadows under your eyes with concealer. Whether you have a few capital letters after your name. How curvy your hips are. Whether you live in a humble studio apartment or a 21-bedroom mansion.

It has to everything to do with the simple fact that you were born. The fact that you are here right now, reading this.

The reality is that I was lovable when I got a D in Biology. I was lovable when I was a pimply teenager with no friends to go out with on a Friday night. I was lovable when I shifted from job to job, fine-tuning my professional skills and preferences. I was lovable when I let go of credit cards, no longer keeping up with the Joneses.

And I'm lovable now as I coach others on the power of authentic connection and vulnerability, even as I share my own perfectly imperfect journey. I'm lovable now as I practice being a man on the edge of his comfort zone, surfing the waves of total unease in the unknown and strength in clarity and discovery.

I'm lovable now, because I'm me.

And even as I write this, I'm hesitant to post these vulnerable personal ideas so publicly. But if I can awaken just one man or woman to the idea that their lovability is unwavering and unequivocal, then that is all that matters. And if you resonate with any of this, please share this post or chime in below. Our lovability was never up for debate. A reminder we could all use.

Jeffrey Oliveira Platts

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Marty Klein - Challenging the Myth of Sex Addiction (and My Reply)

Dr. Marty Klein is a licensed marriage and family therapist and certified sex therapist in Palo Alto, California - and he seems to think that the notion (diagnosis) of sex addiction is a load of crap. While there is a lot I agree with in this post (especially the repugnant cop-out of "sex addiction" for celebrities and politicians who get caught in affairs), there is even more that my experience tells me is simply wrong.

My girlfriend is a Certified Sex Addiction Therapist and we both have worked with men (and in her case some women, I believe) who are, beyond a doubt, sex addicts. These people have lost homes, spouses, jobs, and all of their assets because of their addiction. This is a little different than being a womanizer or surfing too much internet porn.

The key factor for sex as an addiction, in my opinion, is that it is a compulsive form of self-medication. Sex addiction is a process addiction (a behavior rather than a substance), and its cycle looks like this:


Patrick Carnes, who Klein rightly acknowledges as the pioneer in sex addiction diagnosis and treatment, identifies four core beliefs held by most sex addicts in one form or another (and if you substitute something else for sex in the fourth one, like cocaine, heroin, or food, these may apply to all addicts).
  1. I am basically a bad, unworthy person
  2. No one would love me as I am
  3. My needs are never going to be met if I have to depend upon others
  4. Sex is my most important need
Let's unpack these a little more (all of this material comes from Patrick Carnes, Out of the Shadows: Understanding Sexual Addiction):
The first core belief of the addict is “I am basically a bad, unworthy person.” Abandonment means being unwanted. The child can only conclude that being unwanted means being unworthy and bad.
___

A second core belief comes from the first core belief about the child being a bad person. Because of personal unworthiness, the child believes, “No one would love me as I am.” Relationships with others become more tenuous the deeper this belief is. Children grow up believing that no one will accept them unconditionally. People will not be there; they cannot be trusted or depended on. If they do want a relationship, it is because they want something—not because they care. There will always be a price to pay. Minimally, there will be something that must be overlooked, ignored, or denied. To be close will mean to lose reality or integrity somehow. So intimacy is avoided.
___

[I]n the lonely search for something or someone to depend on—which has already excluded parents—a child can start to find those things which always comfort, which always feel good, which always are there, and which always do what they promise. For some, alcohol and drugs are the answer. For others it is food. And there is always sex, which usually costs nothing and nobody else can regulate.

This choice stems from the addict’s third core belief that is about needs: “My needs are never going to be met if I have to depend upon others.” In healthy families, children have a deep sense that their parents care for them as opposed to abandoning them.

Healthy parenting includes touching, loving, affirming, and guiding. The child feels cared for even when struggling with rules and limits. Trust in one’s self, as well as trust of others, emerges in that relationship.

When a child’s exploration of sexuality goes beyond discovery to routine self-comforting because of the lack of human care, there is potential for addiction [emphasis added]. Sex becomes confused with comforting and nurturing. Moreover, the assumption is made that everyone else feels and acts the same. Therefore, to feel secure means to be sexual.

Consequently, the child’s relationships with people have the potential for being replaced with an addictive relationship with sexuality. Addiction is a relationship—a pathological relationship in which sexual obsession replaces people. And it can start very early. The final core belief of the addict emerges clearly: “Sex is my most important need.

The kinds of childhood situations described here are further complicated when the children are surrounded by negative rules, messages, and judgments about sex. When addicts and their spouses study their families of origin, they are flooded with memories of events where they were told that being sexual was bad or, worse, that they were bad for being sexual.

When children’s primary source of comfort is sex and yet they are told by those whose judgments count the most that to be sexual is perverse, the conclusions they make about themselves are clear. They are unlikable. They need to hide that central part of themselves, which others will despise. Rather than repressing the sexual behaviors, they hide them or keep them secret. Needing to keep that central part of themselves secret adds to the pain and loneliness—which, in turn, creates a need for comfort, making the sexual fix that much more necessary.
In my experience, the self-medicating aspect is a reply to the inner sense of worthlessness and feeling unlovable. Some kids who have this sense of shame discover alcohol or drugs (for me it was alcohol and marijuana), other kids discover sex or food - either way, what is a normal healthy behavior becomes pathological because it is used to numb, to dissociate, to medicate away the pain of living with shame.

The worst part of it is that the addict feels more shame when s/he tries to control or stop the behavior and can't - then they act out to numb that shame, and the cycle spirals downward until the person's life is out of control.

You’re Addicted to What?
Challenging the Myth of Sex Addiction


by: Marty Klein
Published in the July/August 2012 Humanist


Periodically, some famous politician, athlete, or entertainer gets caught with his or her pants down, damaging or even destroying their reputation, livelihood, and marriage. Within hours, my email starts buzzing, as media vultures circle the fresh carcass and want my expert opinion: Is Tiger Woods a sex addict? Was Katharine Hepburn? How about Eliot Spitzer, David Duchovny, Charlie Sheen, John Edwards?

The twenty-four-hour cable/Internet news cycle doesn’t want experts to talk seriously about this—they simply want people (Maury! Tyra! The ladies on The View!) who will announce, with just the right mix of scorn, smirk, gravity, and total confidence that so-and-so is a sex addict.

The schadenfreude is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Moralism stands in for sympathy. High dudgeon stands in for nuanced understanding. From all corners, we hear a Greek chorus of voices linking someone’s extramarital affairs to feminism, testosterone, the Internet, sadomasochism, consumerism, or even 9/11. And then they inevitably wheel in the heavy gun: “sex addiction.”

Most importantly, these public thrashings are a chance for the audience to condemn sexual acting out while vicariously enjoying it. America loves an excuse to sneakily enjoy unauthorized sex. The fall of the rich and famous is a bonus.

So when USA Today calls about Eliot Spitzer’s high-end escorts, or CNN emails about Anthony Weiner’s sexting, I’m usually pretty slow to respond to the ghoulish invitation.

I don’t diagnose people I haven’t met. More importantly, I don’t use the diagnosis of sex addiction. In thirty-one years as a sex therapist, marriage counselor, and psychotherapist, I’ve never seen sex addiction. I’ve heard about virtually every sexual variation, obsession, fantasy, trauma, and involvement with sex workers, but I’ve never seen sex addiction.

New patients tell me all the time how they can’t keep from doing self-destructive sexual things; still, I see no sex addiction. Instead, I see people regretting the sexual choices they make, often denying that these are decisions. I see people wanting to change, but not wanting to give up what makes them feel alive or young or loved or adequate; wanting the advantages of changing, but not wanting to give up what makes them feel they’re better or sexier or naughtier than other people. Most importantly, I see people wanting to stop doing what makes them feel powerful, attractive, or loved, but since they don’t want to stop feeling powerful, attractive or loved, they can’t seem to stop the repetitive sex clumsily designed to create those feelings.

The conflict over sex addiction is important to humanists for several reasons. “Sex addiction” is a special weapon now used by the religious right to combat perceived liberalism, to ignore science, and to ignite fear. It also helps legitimize anti-sex moralism and bigotry. And psychologists, judges, legislators, and the media are buying it.
When people refer to themselves or others as “sex addicts,” what are they actually talking about? More than anything, simple narcissistic character structure: the familiar “I guess I thought I could get away with it,” “Deep down, I don’t really believe the rules apply to me,” or “When I hurt, I want relief, and I don’t care so much about breaking promises or hurting others.”

If that sounds like normal people—if that sounds like you—it’s not surprising. Narcissism is a common human condition. So here’s my evaluation of almost everyone who is diagnosed as a sex addict—by themselves, their loved ones, or an addictionologist: it’s someone who is unhappy with the consequences of their sexual choices, but who finds it too emotionally painful to make different choices. You know, the way some of us are with cookies, new sweaters, or watching the Kardashians on TV.

Which is to say, it’s not about the sex. It’s about the immature decision-making.

The rest of the people who are in pain about their sexual decision-making are generally struggling with one or more of the following: compulsivity, impulsivity, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder. An idiosyncratic response to medication can even be a factor.

So when people talk about sex addiction, they’re really talking about all of these, and more. When someone says, “sexually, I’m out of control,” that doesn’t tell us very much. When we know someone has affair after affair; or that someone regularly masturbates to the point of pain; or that someone constantly pressures his wife for sex regardless of how unrealistic it is (she’s post-partum, she has the flu, his parents are in the next room, they had a big fight just a few hours ago); or that someone is pursuing anonymous sex in public parks in a way that’s begging for jail time and loss of career; or that someone watches three hours of porn per night, we simply don’t know very much about the person.

On the other hand, anyone who says “sexually, I’m out of control” is automatically welcomed into the fellowship of sex addicts—without any attempt to evaluate that person’s mental state. Sex therapists generally don’t get distracted by the sexual part of patients’ stories. Those without training in sexuality—like so-called sex addiction counselors—often do.

Let’s examine this cultural phenomenon in more detail.
Read the whole article

Friday, July 20, 2012

Post-Traditional Men Not Bothered When Partner Earns More Income

 

Most of the headlines for this study read something like, Macho Men Threatened When Women’s Income Higher - which is how Psych Central posted the study in their news feed. I'm getting tired of always seeing articles about men framed in the negative. By making the article about macho men, or traditional men (as many other sites phrased their headlines), we reinforce the idea that these men are the norm.

Maybe if we highlighted the fact that non-traditional or "post-traditional" men are not bothered - and are not afraid they are less of a man - if their wife/girlfriend earns more than they do, maybe then being a post-traditional man would be the norm (which, in reality, it may be already).

Speaking as one of those post-traditional men, I'm perfectly cool with Jami earning more than I do. Let's be realistic - she's very good at what she does, she's been in her professional longer than I have, she has better training than I do, and for good or ill, I have three professions (therapist, fitness & nutrition coach, and writer & editor).

And by the way, the study points out that guys like us, the ones who are not caught up in traditional ideas of what it means to be man, have better relationships with our higher earning partners because it does not threaten our masculinity or self-worth.

Macho Men Threatened When Women’s Income Higher

By Associate News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on July 18, 2012 
 
Macho Men Threatened When Womens Income Higher 

Macho men whose partners earn more than they do have worse romantic relationships, according to a new study.

The study, by Patrick Coughlin and Jay Wade from Fordham University, also found that men who are not as traditional don’t place as much importance on the difference in income and, as a result, appear to have better relationships with their female partner.

According to the researchers, the man as the breadwinner is still the accepted norm in marriage, supporting the husband’s power and authority in the family.

It follows that when a man earns less than his female partner, he will feel removed from this traditional role and feel a void because he does not fit the norm, the researchers said.

However, the reality is that marriages in which both partners work are becoming the rule rather than the exception, add the researchers, who note it is “increasingly possible for both partners to either earn equal amounts or for the female to earn more than the male.”

For the study, 47 men who had a female partner who had a higher income took part in the study. Through an online survey, the researchers assessed their beliefs about masculinity, the quality of their relationships, and the importance of the disparity in income between them and their partners.

The researchers found that the stronger a man’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology, the more likely he was to report a low-quality romantic relationship, and the more he perceived the difference in incomes as important.

However, the more a man endorsed non-traditional masculinity ideology, the more likely he was to have a high-quality relationship with his partner and not place too much importance on the income disparity.

“Our results demonstrate the importance of masculinity ideology in understanding how and why men with higher-earning partners will have low or high quality romantic relationships,” the researchers said in the study, which was published in the Springer journal Sex Roles.

“The findings are relevant to men who are married as well as non-married men in a romantic relationship.”

Source: Springer’s Sex Roles