Lisa Find Love

We all see reality through a personal lens shaped by our beliefs, culture, religion, and experiences. The 1950 movie Rashomon was a brilliant example of this, where three witnesses to a crime recount different versions of what happened. When couples argue, they usually can’t agree on the facts of what happened. Additionally, our mind tricks us according to what we think, believe, and feel. These are cognitive distortions that cause us unnecessary pain.

If you suffer from anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, or perfectionism, your thinking can skew your perceptions. Cognitive distortions reflect flawed thinking, often stemming from insecurity and low-self-esteem. Negative filters distort reality and can generate stressful emotions. Thoughts stir up feelings, which in turn trigger more negative thoughts, creating a negative feedback loop. If we act on our distorted perceptions, conflict ensues that can give rise to unintended negative consequences.

Cognitive Distortions

Being able to identify cognitive distortions builds our capacity to be mindful. Some are listed below:

• Negative filtering
• Magnification
• Labeling
• Personalization
• Black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking
• Negative projections
• Overgeneralizing

Self-Criticism

Self-criticism is the most pernicious aspect of codependency and low self-esteem. It distorts reality and your perception of yourself. It can make you feel guilty, flawed, and inadequate. Negative self-talk robs you of happiness, make you miserable, and can lead to depression and illness. It leads to negative filtering, which itself is considered a cognitive distortion. Self-criticism leads to other distortions, such as magnification and labeling, when you call yourself an idiot, a failure, a jerk, for example. (For 10 specific strategies for working with the critic, see 10 Steps to Self-Esteem: The Ultimate Guide to Stop Self-Criticism.)

Shame underlies destructive or chronic self-criticism and causes many cognitive distortions. You might find fault with your thoughts, words, deeds, and appearance, and perceive yourself and events in a negative manner that no one else would. Some beautiful and successful people see themselves as unattractive, mediocre, or failures, and cannot be persuaded otherwise. (See Conquering Shame and Codependency: 8 Steps to Freeing the True You.)

Magnification

Magnification is when we exaggerate our weaknesses or responsibilities. We can also inflate negative projections and potential risks. It’s also called catastrophizing, because we’re “making mountains out of molehills” or “blowing things out of proportion.” The underlying assumption is we won’t be able to handle what will happen. It’s driven by insecurity and anxiety and escalates them.

Another distortion is minimization, when we downplay the importance of our attributes, skills, and positive thoughts, feelings, and events, such as compliments. We might magnify someone else’s looks or skills, while minimizing our own. If you’re in a group sharing, you might think everyone’s pitch was better than your own. Stop comparing. It’s self-shaming.

Personalization

Shame also underlies personalization. It’s when we take personal responsibility for things over which we have no control. We might also blame ourselves when anything bad happens as well as take the blame for things that happen to other people — even when it’s attributable to their own actions! We can end up always feeling guilty or like a victim. If you’re plagued by guilt, it may be a symptom of toxic shame. Take steps to analyze and free yourself of guilt. (See Freedom from Guilt: Finding Self-Forgiveness.)

Black and White Thinking

Do you think in absolutes? Things are all-or-nothing. You’re the best or the worst, right or wrong, good or bad. When you say always or never, it’s a clue that you may be thinking in absolutes. This involves magnification. If one thing goes wrong, we feel defeated. Why bother? “If I can’t do my entire workout, there’s no point to exercise at all.” There’s no gray and no flexibility.

Life is not a dichotomy. There are always extenuating circumstances. Situations are unique. What applies in one instance may not be appropriate in another. An all-or-nothing attitude can cause you to overdo or miss out on opportunities to improve and gradually attain your goals — how the tortoise beat the hare. Exercising for ten minutes or only some muscle groups has big health benefits, compared to doing nothing. There are health risks to overdoing, as well. If you believe you have to do everyone’s job, work overtime, and never ask for help, you will soon been drained, resentful, and eventually, ill.

Projecting the Negative

Self-criticism and shame generate anticipation of failing and rejection. Perfectionists also distort reality by assuming negative events or negative outcomes are more likely to occur than positive ones. This creates tremendous anxiety about failing, making mistakes, and being judged. The future looms as a dangerous threat, rather than a safe arena to explore and enjoy our lives. We may be projecting the unsafe home environment from our childhood and living as if it were happening now. We need to recruit a loving parent within us to shine the light of consciousness on our fears and reassure ourselves that we’re no longer powerless, have choices, and that there’s nothing to fear.

Overgeneralizing

Overgeneralizations are opinions or statements that go beyond the truth or are broader than specific instances. We might form a belief based on little evidence or only one example. We can jump from “Mary doesn’t like me,” to “Nobody likes me,” or “I’m not likable.” When we generalize about a group of people or gender, it’s usually false. For example, to say “Men are better at math than women,” is false because many women are better at math than many men are. When we use the words, “all” or “none,” “always” or “never,” we probably are making an overgeneralization, based on black-and-white thinking. Another overgeneralization is when we project the past onto the future. “I haven’t met anyone dating online,” so, “I won’t ever,” or “You can’t meet anyone through online dating.”

Perfectionists tend to overgeneralize by making global, negative attributions about themselves and about their negative projections. When we don’t measure up to our rigid, unrealistic standards, we not only think the worst of ourselves, we expect the worst will happen. If we spill our water at a dinner party, it’s not just an embarrassing accident; we’re mortified, and certain we made a clumsy fool of ourselves. We go one step further with a negative, projection and overgeneralize to imagine that everyone thinks the same, won’t like us, and won’t invite us again. To overcome perfectionism, see “I’m Not Perfect, I’m Only Human” – How to Beat Perfectionism.

©Darlene Lancer, 2018

It happens to the best of us: we open a browser or slide into an app and everyone’s pictures start to look the same. Suddenly, they seem even more two dimensional, even if you’re trying to be diligent about reading through profiles and giving people a chance.

It’s easy to forget, in certain moments, that behind every other computer and phone there’s a real person with hopes, dreams, and fears. Many of them are looking for exactly what you are: a person to share their life with. Maybe they’re looking for you.

But that hasn’t always been my first thought when I’m looking at yet another picture of a man holding a freshly-caught fish (I think about this genre of picture a lot—what is the idea behind this? Is he trying to show that he is capable of catching his own food? Is he sending the message that he’s looking for a “catch”?), instead I’m not seeing a person at all, my eyes start to glaze over. That’s when I know it’s time to take a break.

In those moments, I step away from the computer, or put down my phone and take a breath. I think about what my therapist has told me about grounding myself—breath slowly, look around me and really notice where I am, and feel the ground under my feet, maybe notice the clothes I’m wearing, or the chair I’m sitting in. I return to my body instead of living in the world of “online dating.”

It’s funny, usually I find that I have the hardest time focusing on others as people when I’m not fully present in my own humanity. When I take just a second to refocus, I often have an easier time looking past the pictures, trying to puzzle out a bit of the life that might lie behind them. I begin to see possibilities.

If you’re having a hard time with pictures and profiles that blur together, start with yourself. Make sure you’re treating yourself like a person. Dating might be a priority for you, it might be something you’re anxious about, but it shouldn’t be a reason you’re stressed out of your mind. Be sure to take care of your own health, mental and physical. If you start to feel anxious, walk away for a while. It’ll all be there when you get back.

When it comes to other people—why not slow down? Take your time with a profile the way you would if you were having coffee with someone (or maybe speed dating?). Read through who they are. Remind yourself that no matter how different they might seem, they have one major thing in common with you: they are dating online. You might not be the one for them, but they’re hoping to find the one who is, just like you are. At the very least, they deserve your consideration and respect, even if you don’t choose to communicate with them.

I’ve gotten into the habit of taking a long moment with a profile. On the ones that I choose to rule out, I say something I’ve borrowed from Brene Brown, often out loud: “You are worthy of love and belonging.” Sometimes I add: “I hope you find what you’re looking for.” And I do.

Cara Strickland writes about food and drink, mental health, faith and being single from her home in the Pacific Northwest. She enjoys hot tea, good wine, and deep conversations. She will always want to play with your dog. Connect with her on Twitter @anxiouscook.

The post Online Dating Prospects are People Too appeared first on eharmony Advice.

This is Part 4, the final article in a series. Click to read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

Women, regardless of whatever immediate difficulties bring them into treatment, struggle with inequality in a culture that consigns them to objectified, subordinate and servile roles. Their property status problems may appear distant from their presenting troubles, the way ultimate causes are often unrecognized “background” forces. No matter how successful the therapy might be in dealing with the immediate concerns, failure to identify and remediate these property issues will result in less than optimal benefits from the treatment.

Complicating any effort to address the prejudicial effects of property status is that female patients might reject or deny the proposition. Whatever the objective reality, as suggested in earlier examples, women may not subjectively experience themselves as property nor might they accept that premise as a foundation of their behavior. For example, current fashion continues to expose the woman’s chest to scrutiny through the use of support foundations that elevate the breasts and through necklines that expose them. Nevertheless, women may resent the stares and distraction that result. From a fashion standpoint, they might argue that they are simply trying to look “attractive.” That concept raises the question: attract what? Appreciation of accomplishments or physical assessment? Respect or sexual interest? In their professional, business or career-oriented roles women who want to be taken seriously and to be judged on their achievements (and not to attract a sexual partner or the protection of a wealthy, powerful male) are nevertheless encouraged by social convention to dress in ways that contradict those roles.

Female patients are unlikely to identify property status as a reason to seek psychotherapy. Instead, the problem will appear under other names, in marital, social, occupational and legal arenas where women continue to strive for recognition and for equal treatment. Female patients will not easily accept the concept that they are subject to property status judgments. The idea might seem insulting (as I suspect it will to some readers of this article) and would undermine the maintenance of an acceptable level of self-esteem. The narcissistic injury inflicted would create a new and unnecessary problem for the therapy. A woman might reject the concept of herself as chattel despite the destructive influence its reality has on her life. For that reason, it could be counterproductive to advance the subject directly. The therapist who is aware of these influences, however, can raise them in indirect ways that will still be helpful and allow the patient to acknowledge their effects and to deal with them.

Property status therapy problems may appear as a direct consequence of prior events. Victims of sexual harassment or abuse, for example, may seek therapy for the residual damage. Indirect consequences, however, are more usual and more difficult to identify. The day-to-day, often mundane, malign influence of property status on overall function, as the previous examples seek to show, is common and is often embedded within other, more overt concerns. The therapist should recognize these property issues even if the patient does not. They may be dealt with even if never labeled as such. Because they are existential issues, they will typically appear distant from the presenting problems, as ultimate causes usually do, but they nevertheless require attention if the more immediate therapy goals are to be fully realized.

In the therapy, these problems may show up as tendencies, not absolutes. A few examples may give a better sense of this indirect influence.

• The history may show the woman as less likely to volunteer at work; to put her energies into “male fields,” such as science, technology, engineering or mathematics; to strive toward business success or to assert her own needs and priorities in her marriage.
• She may be more likely to sacrifice her interests to those of a male colleague or marriage partner; to give up her time for other’s needs; to spend money and to shop and to acquire things needed only to bolster her sense of worth; and, as a consequence, to have more difficulty managing her finances.
• She may be more likely to defer to a male peer. An assertive woman may be criticized as “pushy” and “strident,” while a man in the same circumstances would be regarded as forceful and commanding. Because enhancement of a healthy appearance and presentation of an augmented physical facade make her feel more valuable, she may be more vulnerable to claims made by purveyors of health and beauty products. She may feel, for example, that she can never appear in public without “putting my face on.”
• She may be less likely to have confidence in her judgment, and more likely to choose passive safety over active pursuit of risks that could lead to rewards. Questions of marriage and child-bearing become more complex when property value considerations are diminished by social progress.

All of these tendencies reflect the existential concern: how valuable am I? The question lies deeper than merely one of self-esteem; it raises questions about cultural identity.

Property status problems can be easily ignored and require a high level of attention to appreciate their ubiquitous influence. If a therapist begins to listen for them, they will become increasingly apparent, as when, say, you buy a blue Honda Civic and then suddenly notice blue Honda Civics everywhere you look.

In psychotherapy, we are concerned with the patient’s personal difficulties. We cannot change the way the culture considers women or the expectations built into society from our long history of treating women as property. We can, however, help a female patient find ways to resist those limitations and to redefine herself as an independent, free and worthwhile person regardless of how others may categorize her. Because of their sensitivity, it may sometimes be easier for a female therapist to raise these issues directly. As noted, however, the influence of property status on day-to-day behavior is almost always indirect, unrecognized or unacknowledged, so that even a male therapist can deal at least as successfully with property status problems. A male therapist, moreover, as a member of the “oppressor class,” might have more credibility and influence when he takes the woman’s side against the male hierarchy.

As an ultimate cause, of course, property status itself is beyond the reach of psychotherapy. Like gravity, it is a given, and even biological determinants like tribalism and territoriality seem built into our DNA. Nor can we modify intermediate forces — employers, harassers, denigrators in general — that operate outside of the therapy office. Only the behavior of the woman herself is under her control and accessible to therapeutic intervention. It may not be helpful to focus undue attention on the external, socially significant elements of her property status, such as dress, jewelry and makeup. These symbols are so embedded in the culture that a woman who rejected them might suffer more stress than the effort deserves. As a compromise, they might be used less intensively. More fruitful areas for possible change could include the marital relationship; social interactions, especially with friends; and conduct in business and professional employment. Often, improvements in these areas will result in a reevaluation of property status — by a husband, friend, coworker or employer, and by the woman herself — even if never labeled or acknowledged as such. For example, an intervention that might be identified as assertiveness training could first result in a rejection of property status and then empower the patient to better assert her rights and claim her privileges. We want to help her appreciate her subjective value (who she is) rather than her objective value (what she looks like and what she can be used for).

In conclusion: the persistence of a primitive adaptation like women’s property status in our current enlightened era, founded on civil liberties and rooted in human rights, is both offensive and unacceptable. At the same time, its biological and evolutionary foundation, the ways it is woven into the culture by tradition and practice, force us to confront its reality. When something has gone unchallenged for a long time — and in this case, time is measured in millennia — it becomes accepted as normal and evokes strong resistance when questioned. It would be nice to think we could finally evolve into a better version of homo sapiens, but that change must depend on nature and the vastness of geological time.

Existential factors, by definition, cannot be eliminated. Like death and gravity and other immutable challenges, they can only be endured if we create adaptive distance from their consequences. We defy gravity, for example, every time we travel in an airplane or rocket a satellite into earth orbit. Women’s property status, an elementary trait that has existed in our species for many thousands of years, will not be eliminated by good intentions or political protest. Powerful counterforces, like the multibillion dollar fashion and cosmetic industries, jewelers, the health and fitness companies, and the continuing youth-oriented culture, all support the status quo. Under these influences, women will still be inclined to emphasize their property value — the exterior of the brightly wrapped package rather than its contents — using exposed skin, makeup and jewelry, and other property enhancement techniques, and reflexively participate in cultural acceptance of their property status. There is a real question whether the currents of change will finally resolve this challenge or whether, in spite of these efforts, women seeking full equality are swimming against the tide. It may be that women will not reach full equality with men unless and until they reject not only the idea of property status but all of its outward manifestations as well.

For now, we cannot overlook the influence of property status in any psychotherapeutic effort. Gender discrimination is not gravity, of course, and perhaps the correction of its many inequities, over time, will suppress it sufficiently for its worst consequences to fade from human societies around the world. If we recognize and address it in psychotherapy, we can contribute to that effort, one patient at a time. Our challenge as psychotherapists is to help our female patients overcome this ancient imbalance and enjoy as much equality as possible.

This is Part 3 in a series. Click to read Part 1 and Part 2.

Women’s property status and its various manifestations, as described in the previous section of this article, range from the mundane to the extreme and contaminate the status of women in all walks of life.

In the home women do the bulk of the work. In the workplace they are paid less than men. Women may be considered less desirable employees and subjected to hostile workplace environments and sexual harassment. They may feel insecure in their jobs and thus susceptible to sexual exploitation by more powerful male superiors. Their opinions and suggestions may be denigrated or disregarded. Their contributions may be overlooked or appropriated by their male coworkers. Women may be inclined to accept these discrepancies because, as Professor Dayal described in the previous section, they feel vulnerable. Behind these discriminations lies the ultimate cause: they are considered chattel. If some women can be mutilated or enslaved or killed, or simply subordinated, all women live under this property shadow.

Advances in obstetrics and in neonatology have created a new property challenge: who owns the organs in a woman’s body; specifically, her uterus? Who can decide whether to retain a fetus that the woman, for whatever reason, does not want to gestate? In the name of religious conviction or moral imperative (intermediate causes) some would take away this ownership. The persistent effort to limit a woman’s control over her own body has successfully restricted the availability and legality of safe abortion.

Maintaining one’s property status is a costly burden. The quest for a more attractive body through Pilates, Zumba, spinning, dieting, facials, massages, although explained as the pursuit of health (the proximate cause), requires a serious commitment of money, time and energy. Expenditures for clothing, hair styling and makeup consume resources often justified as the need for youthful appearance (an intermediate cause) rather than for property value enhancement. A high fashion designer dress has the same function as an off-the-rack bargain, but wearing the former implies that the woman is a more valuable person. Fashionable clothing is often engineered to expose various portions of the woman’s body, as if she herself was a commodity used to create an attractive, more valuable image. Women may judge their self-worth by their body mass index, what color wax they daub on their lips or how many hundreds of dollars they pay for shoes that force them to walk on their toes. These activities benefit retailers and gyms and cosmetic companies and podiatrists, but at what cost to the women who use them?

Property status must be differentiated from courtship and sexual behavior. Women who enhance their appearance when seeking a mate or sexual partner are responding to different needs. For example, a woman wearing a revealing dress on a date may be looking for a sexual partner. The same woman wearing the dress to a business meeting might hope it raises her employee profile. Men may confuse the two, but the difference is usually clear to women themselves. A woman might react with indignation and even disbelief if told that her physical presentation signaled sexual availability when she intended only to be fashionable. Confusion about this difference can even lead to violence as when a rapist tries to excuse his crime with the defense that because of her physical presentation “she was asking for it.”

To illustrate this gap between female intention and male perception consider the following passage from James Siegel’s novel, Derailed. A man riding the train to work glances up from his newspaper and notices a woman’s body part across the aisle. He thinks:

A thigh taut, smooth and toned, a thigh that had obviously spent some time on the treadmill, sheathed by a fashionably short skirt made even shorter by the position of the legs. Casually crossed at the knees. All in all, a skirt length that he’d have to say fell somewhere between sexiness and sluttiness, not exactly one or the other, therefore both.

He looks at her bared thigh and assumes she’s a “sexy slut.” Never mind that the woman, when she dressed for work that morning, had no intention of presenting herself to the world as either sexy or slutty, or that she exercised in the gym (if that’s even true) to be healthy and fit, or that she chose her skirt in line with current fashion (which even he recognizes), this man, a stranger, perceives her as property. The woman has not invited this judgment. She made an appropriate and reasonable choice of clothing. In doing so, she has unwittingly and unintentionally offered herself as property because the males of her species are programmed to treat her that way.

Property status is a potent dynamic, a core constituent of human culture, a constant presence in women’s lives with insidious consequences. It is not a mere remnant of a bygone period of human history nor the aberrations of unfamiliar societies. It conveys a persistent attitude toward women even when that attitude is ignored, denied or misinterpreted. Because it represents an ultimate cause, its influence may be felt even if not recognized, in the same way gravity pulls the egg to the floor while all attention is focused on the startle reaction to a loud noise.

On February 6, 2018, the Associated Press reported that an Oregon State Senator defied calls to resign after an investigation confirmed he had groped numerous women, including two female fellow senators, on the grounds that his behavior was “instinctual.” He said, in other words: I’m simply behaving the way I’m biologically programmed. He considered his female peers not as people but as useful objects. Unlike the senator, men rarely cite this ultimate cause as explanation or justification, but its influence nevertheless permeates the culture.

This is Part 2 in a series. To read Part 1 click here.

In this second installment, I examine the historical roots of women’s subordinate status around the world, but I must begin with a brief discussion of levels of causation.

In psychotherapy we attempt to explain behavior by identifying the reasons it occurs. The search for causation is the same whether our theoretical system is expressive, experiential or existential. Many events have multiple causes, some whose influence is distant and general, others with closer effect, and one or more that are the immediate source. These levels are the ultimate, intermediate and proximate causes. Intermediate causes, themselves, can be distant or near to the observed effect.

For example: you’re holding an egg, a loud noise startles you, you drop it and the egg fragments on the floor. What causes this event? The proximate cause is your loosened grip that allowed the egg to start its downward journey. A near intermediate cause is the loud noise. A distant intermediate cause is the human nervous system startle reflex, hard-wired into our bodies. The ultimate cause is gravity. If any one of these factors was absent, the egg would still be in your hand. You might describe the event as, “I dropped an egg”; in other words, by its proximate cause alone, but the observed result requires all four causes. Without the ultimate cause, gravity, the egg would remain intact.

Ultimate causes, even powerful ones, exist in the background and seemingly at a distance from the event. Their influence is often unrecognized or ignored, and sometimes even denied. We typically concentrate on proximate and near intermediate causes to explain why things happen and assign to them all the credit or blame. If we asked the women on the TV panel (the example given in Part 1 of this article) about their choices of clothing, make-up and jewelry, they might explain them in terms of current fashion (an intermediate cause) rather than how those choices emphasize their property value and contradict their professional reputations. Women’s property status is an ultimate cause. Although its cultural impact may not be apparent, it has a persistent adverse effect on the lives of women.

The origin of women as a form of property can be traced to the earliest moments in the record of our species when small groups of Homo sapiens roamed in unrestricted territory. As their populations increased, tribes began to encroach on one another’s land and the first wars began. Archeological evidence suggests this change occurred “only” 30 to 50 thousand years ago, a split second of geological time, and too recent for any meaningful evolutionary change in our species. We are biologically and, in many ways, culturally the same people now as were those ancient tribes. When those prehistoric clans fought over territory, the winners killed the men and took the women as the rewards of victory. One benefit of these acquisitions (an intermediate cause) was to enhance the tribe’s genetic diversity and reduce inbreeding, but from the female standpoint these looted women were simply chattel. They had no power or freedom of choice. Often, they were used as slaves.

Today we see the same male behavior in modern wars. The Imperial Japanese used Korean “comfort women” to service their soldiers. Nigerian militants seized hundreds of young women from a Chibok school to distribute as sex slaves and wives to their soldiers. The ISIS caliphate slaughtered Yazidi men but kept the Yazidi women for the same sexual purposes. The leaders of these contemporary tribes acted exactly like our primitive forbears when they distributed the spoils of war to their modern warriors. In the United States, women who serve in the army may still be treated as property. Sexual predation toward female soldiers constitutes a major problem not only among the active duty forces, but also within the academies training future officers.

As a corollary, consider the inclination women have to attach themselves to strong, powerful, wealthy men. This behavior also arose in the earliest days of our species, when our ancestors lived in a hostile, dangerous environment, food was not always available, and children could be killed by fellow tribe members, especially other females. In this setting, high status tribal males offered protection from imminent dangers, the promise of sufficient food to survive, and security for the offspring. Today, a Harvey Weinstein or a Steve Wynn or a Bill Clinton — or any powerful, predatory man who offers financial benefits and career enhancements in return for sexual compliance — can treat women as chattel because his power and money stir those ancient fears and appeal to the same primal needs in his female prey.

As societies became more organized, the blatant acquisition of women as the spoils of war receded. Female status was determined by contractual arrangements (marriage) that sought to enhance social stability and prevent aggressive threats from disturbing the social order. A public ritual acknowledged and witnessed this legal relationship (the wedding) and established that the woman belonged to only one man. The core principle of marriage, in other words, was to convey title to a property and the wedding was the public recognition of this transfer. In some cultures, men used their affluence and high social status to acquire multiple wives. Sometimes they displayed this wealth openly and in other societies concealed it behind harem walls. Today, as men gain wealth and power they may use an attractive woman as “arm candy” or discard the original wife for a new, younger model, the “trophy wife,” as another sign of their enhanced social status.

The marriage contract included a “bride price,” money or goods the groom’s family paid to the bride’s family. The more valuable the bride-property, the larger the payment. The bride price or its equivalent was often put on public exhibition and, to demonstrate her property value, the bride herself might be showcased in special clothing and costly jewelry. (As an intermediate cause, the bride price was also a way of protecting the supposedly more vulnerable woman, since a husband who had paid a significant sum for his new property would presumably take better care of it.) The bride price persists today, even if not openly acknowledged. In Western societies, for example, rather than a crass exchange of money, a man proposes marriage with an engagement ring, usually the largest diamond he can afford. In contract law, this down payment might be termed “earnest money.” If the engagement later falls through, this bride price will normally be returned. Kay Jewelers (unintentionally) perpetuates this connection between jewelry and female procurement with their slogan, “Every Kiss Begins with Kay.” Translation: a diamond will buy a woman, or at least her affection.

A related monetary exchange was the dowry, the capital the bride brought into the marriage as a help to establish the new household, especially when women were barred from earning money or owning any assets themselves. The larger the dowry, the more valuable was the woman. The dowry is like a corporate acquisition in which the buyer receives both stock (the property itself) and a cash payment to close the deal. (Last year, a husband in India sold his wife’s kidney without her consent because he was dissatisfied with the amount of her dowry.)

These financial arrangements are sometimes indirect: instead of an obvious cash offer, for example, the woman’s family will pay for the wedding. The more costly the production, the more enhanced is the woman’s property status. A popular TV show exploits our interest in these transactions as the bride’s family and friends gather to select an extravagant gown. Her property status is concealed by giving her the choice, “saying yes to the dress,” and ignores her need for this physical sign of her worth. The thousands of dollars paid for the bridal gown helps establish her property value.

In English Common Law the doctrine of coverture decreed that a woman was legally considered her husband’s chattel. Her property became his and she was prohibited from signing contracts or taking part in a business. The wedding itself is designed to acknowledge the transfer of property. In one traditional marriage ceremony, for example, the bride’s father “gives her away,” conveying his title to the new owner. Nobody has to give away the groom; he’s not a property. After the ceremony the bride who takes her husband’s name confirms her new property status. She then wears a second ring (the wedding band) that, like a real estate “sold” sign, signals she is now off the market. These various rituals and traditions of modern weddings might be considered only quaint vestiges of earlier and now-discarded markers of female status were it not for the current evidence of women’s property status.

Even protected by marriage, however, the wife can still be viewed as chattel. The preponderance of domestic violence is directed at women. An abusive man might kick his own dog although he would never attack his neighbor’s pet. The same abuser would beat his own wife but never touch another man’s. In earlier times, when divorce was forbidden because of religious prohibitions, the husband could cash in by selling his wife. In 19th Century England, for example, the husband could auction off his wife to the highest bidder. The plot of Thomas Hardy’s 1886 novel, The Mayor of Casterbridge, is set in motion by such an auction. The practice of wife-selling can be found in the histories of many countries and even, rarely, exists today.

We live in an era when women increasingly demand to be treated equally with men. In the United States, this effort has had some success, at least in contrast to some of the appalling conditions that women endure elsewhere in the world. Despite these efforts, women’s civil and human rights are not yet, and not nearly, fully realized. My premise is that women’s cultural status as property is an unappreciated dynamic in this struggle. This four-part article examines the evidence for, and the implications of, this provocative idea, beginning with this introduction. Future sections will examine the historical roots of this cultural phenomenon, its contemporary consequences, and its role in psychotherapy.

To illustrate this dynamic, consider the impact of a recent televised panel discussion. The subject matter was serious: tax policy, national security and government corruption. The panel comprised one man and four women with strikingly different gender presentations. The male pundit was dressed in business attire: a grey pin-striped suit, a dress shirt with a serious tie, lace-up shoes. The only skin exposed was his face and hands. He wore no visible jewelry. He radiated competence, trustworthiness and even gravitas.

The women, who sat two on each side of him, presented themselves in marked contrast:

• They wore brightly colored skimpy dresses with high hemlines that exposed their legs to the mid-thigh. Their feet flaunted spike high-heel shoes.
• Their shoulders and arms were bare, as were portions of their chests, sometimes revealing the upper breasts. Their fingernails were varnished in different colors.
• Their faces were heavily made-up. Black lines circled their eyes. Their eyelashes were augmented with mascara or were false and unnaturally long. Their eyebrows were plucked and shaped to extend above the normal brow line. Their teeth were bleached an unnatural white.
• Jewelry hung from their ears and on their wrists and around their necks.

It was clear that they had spent considerable time and money on their external appearance. Through voluntary physical alterations, exposure of unclothed portions of the body and the use of expensive accessories each of the women displayed an augmented but artificial version of herself.

Assume that these four female experts voluntarily presented themselves as described (rather than, for instance, on orders of the show’s producers, exploiting them for higher ratings) what benefit did they hope to derive? They expected to show themselves in the best possible light and their extensive and elaborate enhancements were designed to help them do so. That expectation underlies the pervasive cultural attitude that much of a woman’s worth depends on her external appearance. In an online article titled, “My eyelashes are fake. My PhD is real,” one of them wrote: “I like to dress up…I feel more fierce when I look fierce⎯I get better results. My arguments are clearer. My energy is higher. My political values are shinier. Frankly, I make more of a difference.” This woman feels more valuable if her external appearance is enhanced.

Think of the cognitive dissonance created by this presentation of self. The four women were as admirable a group as can be found on TV. They were impressive representatives of their particular areas of expertise. They held high level positions in their respective fields. They were intelligent, well-educated, articulate, knowledgeable and insightful. Their contributions to the discussion often outshone the man. Why, then, did they need to present themselves as if at a frivolous social event? Anyone who watched that TV episode with the sound muted might mistakenly conclude that a thoughtful, important man was surrounded by a coterie of “party girls.” The discrepancy invites the question: why, in the 21st Century, should women still be judged on different grounds than their male peers? In Martin Luther King, Jr’s words, shouldn’t women “be judged by the content of their character?”

The women themselves seem painfully aware of the problem. “The degrading of the background” of these women, one of them recently tweeted, “is getting pretty old. They’ve done it for years w/ the women there, saying they’re just bimbos in short skirts, when they’re actually lawyers, Drs., former admin officials, combat pilots, Harvard grads, etc.” In spite of this awareness, however, they continue to present themselves in this exaggerated, unnatural and artificial fashion. They may even celebrate this presentation, as did the PhD with false eyelashes.

Like the four panelists, modern women are still expected, and even encouraged, to emphasize their physical features. The unintended result is a demonstration of their objectified status. Anything that is mainly judged by its externals⎯houses, furniture, clothing, jewelry⎯is considered a piece of property. Supply and demand determine its market value. Judged only by external physical attributes a human being can also be considered property. In interpersonal transactions, that person may become a commodity whose value is established by economic rules. Unfortunately, when women present themselves with an artificially enhanced appearance, and especially when they overemphasize individual parts of their anatomy, they invite their treatment as property, or to use the legal term, as chattel. Property status affects women’s freedom, equality and liberty. It encourages their exploitation by powerful men. It influences their choice of a mate and their marital life, regulates their public presentation, impacts childbearing, undermines their physical safety and distorts their career progress.

We need to examine, as will subsequent sections, how this unfortunate situation came about and what relevance it has for psychotherapy.

Today, more than ever before in our history, we are spending more time alone. Single-person households are the fastest growing segment of the household profile. We dine out alone more often, and solo vacations are becoming the new family vacations.

Yet given our current trajectory, solitude is often not welcome.

“Indeed, for many of us, solitude is something to be avoided, something associated with problems like loneliness and depression,” writes Stephanie Rosenbloom.

In her new book, Alone Time: Four Seasons, Four Cities, and the Pleasures of Solitude, Rosenbloom takes readers on journey across seasons, cities, assumptions, and preconceived notions to consider just what solitude has to offer.

“For one thing, time spent away from the influence of others allows us to explore and define who we are,” writes Rosenbloom.

Unfettered space, time, and room to explore are the foundation of creativity, philosophy, and innovation – and something cherished by those such as Barack Obama, Michelangelo, Descartes, Neitze, and Barbara McClintock, the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist who resisted having a telephone until she was 84.

“While other people can be a source of happiness, they can, at times, nevertheless, be a distraction,” writes Rosenbloom.

What we miss is the opportunity to sink into experience, allowing ourselves to become absorbed while we savor all of the rich details.

One example Rosenbloom offers is the French board game Tokaido, in which players must travel Japan’s ancient Tokaido road, taking in views of mountains, seas, and rice paddies, tasting local specialties, meeting locals, donating to temples, and soaking in hot springs. The object of the game, Rosenbloom says, “is not to get to the end of the road first or amass the most money. It is to have the richest experience possible.”

Savoring is not just a way to recharge, restore, and recuperate, it is a way to stave off unpleasant feelings. Rosenbloom quotes psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky:

“People who become skilled at capturing the joy of the present moment, are less likely to experience depression, stress, guilt, and shame.”

Yet savoring is more than just simply taking in the moment. It is the active pursuit of joy in the moment.

Rosenbloom offers the suggestion of Fred Bryant, a professor of psychology at Loyola University Chicago, to use “temporal awareness” to remind ourselves that the moment will not last.

“It may seem counterintuitive, but awareness that something is fleeting tends to increase our enjoyment of it,” writes Rosenbloom.

The sharpness of our perceptual awareness and the diversity of savoring strategies available to us are often predicative of how much joy we will find in the moment. One example is our appreciation of beauty.

“Alone, we can form a special relationship with art,” writes Rosenbloom.

Tranquility, self-reflection, and personal freedom also encourage a deeper understanding of ourselves that is unhindered by the expectations, needs, or responses of others.

We may try things we otherwise would not have, go places we might have avoided, and find ourselves facing uncertainty. These experiences go beyond simplified notions of happiness – they incite a feeling of meaning.

“Simply getting out of our comfort zones – trying a different route to work, introducing ourselves to a new neighbor, speaking up for something we believe in – is important because it can help us spot opportunities, discover a strength, and shape the trajectory of our life rather than regretting our inaction,” writes Rosenbloom.

Some amount of challenge is also a fundamental component of flow – the feeling of complete and total absorption in an activity that is enjoyable simply for its own sake. In flow, we expand our boundaries, perhaps even transcend them, perfect our skills, ignite our creativity, and we emerge with a greater sense of self.

Learning, like that which happens in flow, lies at the heart of happiness.

“Alone we can go off and learn for the sake of learning, delving into whatever interests us: astronomy, botany, literature, architecture. We can pursue a painting or a planet and experience a gratification that comes from discovering something we didn’t know before,” writes Rosenbloom.

When alone, we can also withdraw into our own restorative, meditative, or reflective place where we can organize our thoughts, reflect on past actions, prepare for future activities, or just do nothing. Rosenbloom quotes Amy Schumer:

“I enjoy being alone. I need it. And I’ve never been happier than when I finally figured this out about myself.”

Experiences need not be extraordinary to be gratifying. Selfies need not be taken every moment. And smartphones can be turned off for a day. What we may learn is that it is in the everyday moments – taking in a beautiful sunset, talking to a stranger, visiting a part of our city we had previously rushed by, savoring a delicious meal, or simply sitting still – that engagement, appreciation, and enjoyment live.

An extraordinary compilation of personal experience and revealing science, Rosenbloom makes the compelling case that we rethink our perceptions of what it means to be alone. And it should be read by anyone looking for a richer experience – be it at home, or on the road. 

Alone Time: Four Seasons, Four Cities, and the Pleasures of Solitude
Stephanie Rosenbloom
Viking
June 2018
Softcover, 256 Pages

We defend our dissertations. We defend our arguments in a courtroom. And we defend our beliefs – unless they challenge the status quo. More often than not, we trade conviction for agreement, and the result, while it may avoid confrontation, doesn’t avoid consequences. Moreover, it doesn’t improve the collective decisions we make.

In her new book, In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business, social psychologist Charlan Nemeth makes a very compelling case that dissent is a necessary ingredient to our creativity, the accuracy of our decisions, and the quality of our thoughts.

“A consensus position can sway our judgments even when it is in error, and even when the facts are in front of our face,” write Nemeth.

Nemeth cites the example of United Airlines Flight 173 where, after hearing a loud thump when trying to lower the landing gear, the crew became so focused on solving the problem of the landing gear that while delaying their scheduled landing, they ran out of fuel.

“When everyone is focused on one thing, they all lose sight of relevant information and options,” writes Nemeth.

We also give more attention to information that confirms our own beliefs, while often discounting information that discredits them. Moreover, we often don’t even consider alternative explanations, perspectives, or ways of interpreting situations.

“Consensus narrows, while dissent opens the mind,” writes Nemeth.

People often follow the majority simply because it is the majority, without considering its value.

“The power and pull of the majority is all around, even if we don’t notice it, and even if we are unaware of its potential influence over us,” writes Nemeth.

We follow the majority, Nemeth tells us, for two main reasons: the assumption that truth lies in the numbers, and the desire to belong.

Nemeth cites the work of Robert Cialdini, who placed signs in Arizona’s Petrified Wood Forest National park that were either descriptive, indicating that many past visitors had removed petrified wood from the park changing its natural state, or prescriptive, asking people not to remove the wood:

“Over the five weeks of the study, the petrified wood placed close to signs with the descriptive message was five times more likely to be stolen than wood placed close to a sign with the prescriptive message.”

Relying on consensus is a fundamental problem of the majority, and one that doesn’t offer room for independent, expansive thinking.

One way to break the pattern of groupthink, Nemeth contends, is through anonymity. The result is that we must commit to what we believe before we know the opinions of others.

“Think of a group vote in which the first three people vote the same way. This almost ensures that other hands will go up in agreement. Suppose, however, that each person writes down his vote before seeing or hearing how others are voting. In that case, each member of the group will be less likely to follow the majority. When we have already committed to what we believe, we at least have to confront why we are changing our minds if we are inclined to do so. We have to stop and pause,” writes Nemeth.

Similarly, people are much more likely to listen to dissenters if asked privately. One important factor, however, is that dissenters must be consistent.

“The research suggests that consistency is more effective than compromise in changing minds,” writes Nemeth.

The influence of dissenters is also not fully recognized. In jury deliberations a dissenter who fails to compromise can prevent an agreement, and can change attitudes.

“We may persuade even if there is no public acknowledgement of it,” writes Nemeth.

Beyond persuasive ability, however, dissent improves the quality of our thinking and our decisions.

“In the presence of dissent, we don’t narrow our search to any one position, whether our own, or that of the dissenter. Instead, we expand and widen our search,” writes Nemeth.

The divergent thinking that emerges from dissent forms the basis of creativity, creative solutions and greater flexibility of thought.

“This appears to be another benefit of dissent: it enables us not only to see different paths but to shift from one path to another as needed,” writes Nemeth.

Challenging the desire to be favorably viewed or give priority to the beliefs already held by the group, dissent helps correct for what Nemeth says is a highly replicable phenomenon: that discussion among like-minded people leads to more extreme views.

Dissent doesn’t only balance otherwise radical beliefs, it improves the quality of belief itself. When a dissenter speaks up he empowers those around him to also challenge their thinking and beliefs, unlock the stronghold of the majority, and think with a mind that is open, and willing to explore opposing – and perhaps more accurate – views.

 In Defense of Troublemakers doesn’t only lay out the science behind divergent thinking, it is a powerful treatise on why we need dissenting opinions to solve problems from the most complex real world kind to those that they we may not even realize are interfering with our thinking and decisions.

In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business
Charlan Nemeth
Basic Books
March 2018
Hardcover, 214 Pages

“When we change how we relate to our reality, through our inner actions and interactions, then we indeed change our personal and often shared experiences,” writes Melissa Joy Johnson. In her new book, The Art of Limitless Living: The Joy, Possibility, and Power of Living a Heart-Centered Life, Johnson shows readers that what we truly desire is within our reach, and likely even already inside us.

According to Johnson, relating to experiences differently begins with using a new language.

“This integrative language of heart-centered awareness coupled with the power of congruent choices create indelible imprints, heart-prints that pave the way for the integrity effect to ripple into our personal and collective realities,” writes Johnson.

Living with integrity is not about closing the gap between where we are and where we want to be, but rather, moving into the gap.

“As a result of living from the heart in a space of coherency, making congruent choices that are aligned with the wisdom of the heart, we experience the beneficial ripple effect of symmetric physics expressing through proportional unity and completion. When we live from our heart, connected to our true authentic self, there is no gap,” writes Johnson.

Living without integrity is not sustainable, yet through awareness and embodiment of our own integrity, we can open doors for others.

“We can help others map integrity simply by becoming it and expressing integrity in our hearts,” writes Johnson.

Through connecting more deeply to ourselves, others, and the world around us, we also reconcile discrepancies within ourselves and our lives.

“Through heart-centered connections, we can bridge the gap between individual notions that we create our own reality and the external consensus of a shared reality that seems to happen beyond our control,” writes Johnson.

Our experiences are a reflection of ourselves, ourselves in relation to everything. Johnson describes these patterns of relating that reflect aspects of our wholeness not yet recognized as placeholders.

“A placeholder may be anything in our reality to which we are relating in our lives, which often takes us out of our heart; a placeholder is something that seemingly prevents us from feeling whole, complete, and at peace with ourselves,” writes Johnson.

When we come to see that we create our own meaning through how we relate to ourselves, placeholders do not hold the same power of over us. Rather, we can operate from a place of neutrality, where we are no longer locked into patterns, or ideas that we think things need to change.

“Being neutral from the field of the heart as we relate to placeholders is what enables placeholders to transform into graceholders,” writes Johnson.

“Graceholding” describes the transformational process that occurs when we love ourselves in such a way that the placeholder no longer holds the same place, value, or power in our reality. The transformation is the realization that we don’t have to be perfect. Living a truly authentic life instead embraces our imperfections and limitations with unconditional acceptance.

“Although the limitations may not necessarily be true, when we resonate with them as if they are true, then our reality will conform accordingly,” writes Johnson.

Allowing for all of our parts to exist as one frees us from prescribed patterns and allows us to be able to respond flexibly from a place of authenticity.

“Reality is a little bit like playing tennis. Our true self serves up the ball to the universe to instigate the game. The universe may return the ball, often with unexpected speed, curve, and force. Sometimes the ball will come out of nowhere in a way that seems completely unrelated to our serve, both in time and space. Sometimes multiple balls are returned simultaneously. However, all is connected. How we respond to those balls varies to the degree we may have integrated and embodied true authentic self,” writes Johnson.

Through heart-centered awareness, we also learn to occupy multiple perspectives simultaneously. Life is beautiful and tragic. We feel strong and vulnerable. And it is both the best of times and the worst of times. Yet, inside our hearts, through accessing our intuition, we have everything we need to navigate the changing world around us.

“Living from the unified heart rather than from the polarized mind enables us to move beyond limiting gaps in awareness to a space of limitless potential,” writes Johnson.

Joy is our natural state, is not dependent on external circumstances, and is something that is available to us all. We simply have to open our hearts, listen, and let our true authentic selves emerge.

In The Art of Limitless Living, Melissa Joy Johnson takes readers on an inspiring and transformational journey that helps us to transcend past limitations and uncovers a salient truth: through experiencing ourselves differently, we become different. 

The Art of Limitless Living: The Joy, Possibility, and Power of Living a Heart-Centered Life
Melissa Joy Johnson
New Page Books
April 2018
Softcover, 203 Pages

To be busy, it seems, is to be in demand. Our importance is measured by the number of clients we meet each day, the meetings we attend, the committees we are on, and the fact that we simply have no time for anything else.

“Busyness is not just a behavior; it is an ethos that claims ownership of our time,” writes Yvonne Tally.

In her new book, Breaking Up With Busy: Real Life Solutions For Overscheduled Women, Tally challenges this ethos and offers a paradigm shift in what having it all together really means.

“As an overscheduled woman you may be everything from a well-intended problem-solver to a driven and tireless over-deliverer. Both can be personal assets as well as professional attributes; however, an excess of either will wear you down,” writes Tally.

The promise is that busyness is the road to success and by doing more, women will be more.

“Getting stuff done and being busy feeds that sense that, yes, we are important,” Tally writes.

In service of busyness, we often opt out of doing things for ourselves, have a mixed sense of doing too much and not getting enough done, feel like busy is normal, feel controlled by our schedule, eat at least one meal a day while standing, experience weight shifts, hair loss or skin issues, don’t get enough sleep, feel overwhelmed and anxious, constantly feel like we are in a rush, and find the things we used to enjoy now feel like inconveniences.

“You are living a life, not running a race,” Tally reminds her readers. Yet we can become lured into a cycle of busyness through watching our own mothers, being influenced by societal messages, and feeling guilty when we are not busy.

“Time is like a Ponzi scheme; most of us feel we never get a good return on the investments we’ve made,” writes Tally. While we forge ahead, in search of more time, we desperately feel as if time is running out, and we must do more with the time we have left.

“Our pre-occupied mindset lets busyness settle into our lives like an overbearing backseat driver; it’s always a little bit out of view, but you know it’s there because it never stops directing what to do, even though you’re (in theory, anyway) in the driver’s seat,” writes Tally.

As our busyness ripples outward, it affects all areas of our lives.

“It’s unlikely that we will be raised up and invigorated by our relationships if we feel tired, stressed, or unsupported, and it’s doubtful that our partners will feel inspired to support us if they don’t feel they are a priority,” writes Tally.

The first step, is uncovering what motivates our busyness.

“Motivation is the bridge between desires and action, and to make a change stick, especially when changing deeply ingrained habits, it is your motivation that helps you remain focused on your goals, even when setbacks occur,” writes Tally.

Our habits are simply default strategies that allow us to go through life on autopilot. Yet habits are also highly influenced by our business – the busier we are, the more we need default strategies.

“Changing your relationship with busy necessitates determining your need/want connection and how it relates to your goals,” writes Tally.

Tally suggests readers ask: Why now? Getting to the deeper reasons for our desires helps us connect with what we need from ourselves to reach our goals.

We may need self-compassion to realize that we don’t have to be perfect, don’t have to fit into a role that doesn’t feel authentic, and don’t have to receive the approval of everyone around us.

“Know that you don’t have to be everything to be enough,” writes Tally.

Through learning to stop comparing ourselves to others, asking what we admire about ourselves, and if impressing people will actually add to our lives, we can learn to find and cultivate peace within ourselves.

Saying no is also a big part of stopping the cycle of business.

“Knowing when and how to say no is as much about setting healthy boundaries as it is about your health; always saying yes is a busy pursuit that leaves little time for your emotional and spiritual well-being,” writes Tally.

We may also need to build the self-confidence to say what we need and want, put our words into action, face our fears and learn to evolve. For this, Tally suggests shifting our attention from the problem to the solution through first stating the problem, turning it into a solution statement, directing our attention to the solution, being mindful, and making an outcome statement.

We are not our rush, and we are not in others’ rush. We are our dreams, hopes, desires, and intentions. And we have every right to reject busyness and start living.

In a world that demands more from women every day, Yvonne Tally offers the practical strategies, tips, and solutions we need to just say no. 

Breaking Up With Busy: Real Life Solutions For Overscheduled Women
Yvonne Tally
New World Library
April 2018
Hardcover, 186 Pages

Jennifer L. Taitz, who describes herself as “a cognitive behavioral therapist focused on mindfulness and compassion,” had a particular goal in mind when she wrote How to Be Single and Happy: Science-Based Strategies for Keeping Your Sanity While Looking for a Soul Mate. She wanted to “show you that you can live with happiness and fulfillment, with or without being in a committed relationship.”

I don’t read books about dating but I have read reviews and commentaries and critiques of such books. I know that bookshelves are groaning under the weight of how-to guides that tell single people to just go ahead and settle, or to follow a set of rules that the author has made up, or to do what the author did because it worked for her. Dr. Taitz’s book is different in a profoundly important way – it is based on rigorous scientific research, and plenty of it.

Even more important, How to Be Single and Happy isn’t about dating and it isn’t even (just) about being single – it is about living your best life, regardless of your relationship status or aspirations. That was an especially welcome surprise for me, since I didn’t read How to Be Single and Happy to learn how to be single and happy. I have always been single, and I always will be. Being happy while single comes naturally. I read the book because, for decades, I have been writing for and about people who want to live their single lives fully, joyfully, and unapologetically, and I thought it was time to learn more about how single life is experienced by people who want to be coupled.

How to Be Single and Happy is an absorbing read. Several of the chapters open with a client Taitz is seeing in her therapy practice, and the life experiences that motivated the client to seek help. This approach is instantly engaging. Right away, I began wondering what the client should do differently. I was eager to see how Taitz would think about the issues, how the therapeutic process would unfold, and how the client would fare over time.

If you do a lot of ruminating, regretting, suppressing, avoiding, criticizing yourself, and telling yourself that you could never be truly happy without a spouse, Taitz can help. As she explains, if you are unhappy, the real culprit may be those kinds of thought patterns, rather than your single status. If you are lonely, or if you often feel disappointed in other people, Jennifer Taitz has a lot to say to you, too.

Taitz believes that her clients will benefit from mindfulness and meditation, especially loving-kindness meditation. She encourages readers to live well now, rather than, wait to find a romantic partner. We can do that by building our community, giving to others, adding more activities to our lives that give us a sense of pleasure and accomplishment, and perhaps most significantly, getting clear about our values and living according to them.

The book includes boxes that highlight key take-aways. For example, there are tips for dealing with unwanted thoughts and feelings, for fact-checking your own thoughts, and for figuring out what matters most to you. A quick guide for the practice of loving-kindness meditation is also included. The lengthiest boxed section, on egg-freezing, goes on for nearly six pages. It ends with a quote from an eminent physician who has helped many single women become pregnant: “I have never had a woman who said she regretted becoming a single parent.”

I was disappointed to see Taitz repeat the claim that marriage comes with perks such as improved health. At least she recognized that married people have benefits that single people do not, such as greater access to health insurance, as well as considerable financial advantages, and those factors, rather than their relationship, may be what matters. But the most sophisticated research suggests that people who marry do not become healthier, despite the unearned benefits they get simply because they are married. The question we should be addressing is how single people manage to do so well when they are up against unfair laws and policies, and when coupled people’s lives are celebrated and theirs are disparaged.

How to Be Single and Happy is brimming with insights and advice for single people who don’t want to be single that never, ever demean or disparage single people or single life. Here are just a few examples:

• “…focusing on finding love, rather than loving your life, closes you off from great opportunities, or leads you to settle for something that doesn’t feel right.”
• “…being single does not mean you’re flawed or in need of fixing. Your relationship, or lack thereof, has little to do with your worth.”
• “…there’s little upside to believing that finding a soul mate is a promising shortcut to lifelong satisfaction.”
• “Once you clarify your values…spending a night with friends is no longer ‘pointless’ if you don’t meet someone new; it’s an opportunity for bonding, a chance to focus on the importance of closeness with friends.”
• “A meaningful alternative to finding love is giving love.”
• “Needing to look good for someone else is dismissing your inherent worth.”
• “…just because you don’t have a child doesn’t mean people don’t depend on you. You deserve to show up for those people.”
• “…you don’t have to be single to feel lonely.”
• “Life has joy and purpose, and it’s possible to feel whole and happy, shame-free, without a person by your side.”

Jennifer Taitz’s warmth and kindness shine though on every page of the book. You just know she cares deeply for all the people she sees in her practice. For all her wisdom and expertise, though, she doesn’t take herself too seriously. I found it particularly endearing when she let readers know that her clients are not always enamored of her approaches. She describes them rolling their eyes at her suggestions and saying that no, they are not going to make up a song and sing it with her in her office.

Many contemporary nonfiction writers tell some of their own life stories along the way. Taitz does this, too, as well or better than anyone else I’ve read. She has experienced some of the same struggles as her clients and admits that she sometimes dealt with her challenges in all the wrong ways. She explains how she learned to do better, and how her clients – and you – can, too.

Curl up with How to Be Single and Happy: Science-Based Strategies for Keeping Your Sanity While Looking for a Soul Mate. You just may feel better about your life if you do, even if you were already pretty happy.

How to Be Single and Happy: Science-Based Strategies for Keeping Your Sanity While Looking for a Soul Mate
Tarcher Perigee
January 2018
Paperback, 242 pages

Sex technique and truly understanding sexual feelings are not the same thing. The former might work in the short-term, but over time, the novelty wears off and what the couple is left with is a chasm between them.

In his new book, Love Worth Making: How To Have Ridiculously Great Sex In A Long-Lasting Relationship, Stephen Snyder, M.D., one of America most trusted authorities on sex and relationships, takes us inside the lives of many couples, to discover that great sex isn’t about the latest and greatest sex toys, but rather an instrument of sanctification and peace that, over time binds a couple together.

“The secrets to great sex in a committed relationship are largely emotional. And emotions are slippery things – hard to capture and sometimes even harder to communicate,” writes Snyder.

Sexual arousal is a universal concept that we all recognize, become transfixed by, and would like to have. However, for many of us, it simply doesn’t fit into our busy lives.

“Many modern couples hurry through sex without letting themselves get very aroused – then wonder where their sexual magic has gone,” writes Snyder.

There is a realm beyond the tired “friction plus fantasy” definition of sex where we connect most deeply with ourselves, with our partners, and with the psychological components of arousal. It is here that we are fully absorbed in the moment.

“You stop thinking about bills, worries, responsibilities – your entire portfolio of ordinary concerns,” writes Snyder.

Yet love exists in a paradox – we tend to fall in love with complete strangers who have just enough signs of familiarity to not feel completely new.

“A man will usually choose someone who makes him feel he doesn’t have to compete so hard for their love. Someone who just enjoys him as he is,” writes Snyder.

Being chosen by the one we choose, notes Esther Perel, sex expert and author of Mating In Captivity, is one of the glories of falling in love that generates a feeling of intense personal importance.

The passion that transpires is what becomes most erotic. Snyder describes a patient who has tried – unsuccessfully – to please his wife, and describes her needs as very particular, yet when speaking to the wife, is told, “I’m just dying for him to show me a little passion.”

Passion, unlike what we might think, has a selfish nature.

“What’s more erotic, a partner who just wants to give you sexual pleasure, or a partner who wants to take sexual pleasure from being with you?” Snyder asks.

And here again is another one of the paradoxes of love and sex: we can be selfless, generous, and kind people, yet during lovemaking, we let ourselves feel free in the moment – as Snyder writes, “momentarily drunk with power.”

What we should be doing during sex, is what makes us feel turned on.

“Sex should never feel like work. If it feels like work, stop immediately. Don’t just do something because you like to hear your partner moan. Go find something else that makes them moan that you actually enjoy,” writes Snyder.

While sexual self is somewhat selfish, it can also be very sensitive to negative thoughts, and quickly turned off by them.

“Many people worry obsessively about themselves during lovemaking and then wonder why they’re not enjoying sex,” writes Snyder.

Sex is meant to be easy and the art of sex therapy is to make sex easy. Sometimes that means simply taking time in the presence of our partner to enjoy them for a moment – to “simmer,” as Synder calls it.

“Couples who are overworked and distracted (i.e., most of us) often neglect to get aroused in each other’s company unless they intend to have sex. That’s a mistake,” writes Snyder.

The focus is also not on the orgasm. Instead, an orgasm should be a natural outcome of really great sex, but not the reason we have sex.

“Whether an orgasm turns out to be worthwhile depends on the intensity that preceded it,” writes Synder.

For some couples, maintaining great sex is about returning to a sense of stillness inside that quiets the mind and opens the doorway to pleasure.

“Its normal for couples to lose their erotic inspiration and to have to look for it again…It’s absolutely crucial when you go looking that you first look within yourself,” writes Snyder.

It is in this mindfulness that we find the “inner game” of sex.

“Like mindfulness, sex is all about paying attention. It’s all about being in the present moment. And it’s about being without judgement,” writes Snyder.

Gently exposing our many misconceptions about sex, Synder – a clearly gifted therapist – draws upon his clinical wisdom, patience, and encouragement, to show readers the way to lifelong intimacy, a deeper connection with the sexual self, and a life full of erotic pleasure. For any couple seeking a deeper connection, Love Worth Making is an indispensable resource. 

Love Worth Making: How To Have Ridiculously Great Sex In A Long-Lasting Relationship
Stephen Snyder, M.D.
St Martin’s Press
February 2018
Hardcover, 304 Pages