Your Custom Text Here
A quick note to let you know that my Sexology podcast episode with Dr. Nazanin Moali hit the airwaves today. In addition to talking about fetishes, I was able to talk about consent for conversations, being comfortable now on your terms or later on someone else's terms, and other related topics.
Here is the link to our episode!
Let me know what you think below.
In re-reading the recent New York Times Magazine article, I am struck by this passage:
Open marriages, I started to think, are not just for people who were more interested in sex, but also for people who were more interested in people, more willing to tolerate the inevitable unpacking conversations, the gentle making of amends, the late-night breakdowns and emotional work of recommitting to and delighting each other.
Few claimed there was no pain in nonmonogamy; but they were not afraid of that pain, whereas the notion of any extra pain in my life seemed an impossible burden, a commitment along the lines of taking on a second part-time job or caring for an ailing parent.
I appreciate the author's observations and her candor about her feelings. My overall takeaway from the article is that it portrays some of the challenges that come up in open relationships--other partners not knowing, jealousy, insecurity--as well as the possibility for success.
I don't believe that every relationship type is ideal for every person--I tend not to speak in all or nothing anyway--though the reality is that a variety of relationship types exist. Some people may know up front that one type or the other may or may not work for them. Others may need to try things out, with better or worse results, to get a better idea.
Recently, I was interviewed by Dr. Nazanin Moali for an upcoming episode of her podcast Sexology. We talked about fetishes, both from a clinical point of view and a practical point of view. Clinically, fetishistic disorder falls under paraphilia, things like exhibitionism, voyeurism, and other sexual practices that are often taken to extremes. Specifically, fetishistic disorder involves arousal by non-living objects or non-genital parts of the body. The important factor is that for a fetish to be disordered, there must be some significant impairment of functioning or negative impact on the person's life. I think that many people may have fetishes though fewer people have fetishistic disorder.
Talking about fetishes from a practical point of view, I drew a connection between the idea of a fetish in culture and a sexual fetish. Culturally, a fetish is an ordinary object that has been made extraordinary by a person or a community often for some ritual or religious purpose. The key here is that the magical, mystical, or religious quality--what makes it extraordinary--of the fetish object comes from the person or community and it is not imposed from outside the community.
As an example, I talked about the idea of a shoe fetish. Someone may be aroused by the idea of shoe worship--often as a ritual--and for them, shoes in general or certain types of shoes specifically may be a turn-on. They may like all high heels or only leather ones. They may like sneakers, though only sweaty ones. If this is an activity that they can engage in with the consent of the other people involved, it is not the only way they can become aroused or achieve orgasm, and it is not having a significant negative impact on their life, then it has the quality of a fetish though it is not a fetishistic disorder.
For more of my discussion with Dr. Moali, look for the June 6, 2017, episode of her Sexology podcast. I'll post more about our discussion when the podcast goes live.
The New York Times Magazine featured an article recently titled "Is an Open Marriage a Happier Marriage?." I find the article an interesting read and I believe that it reflects a number of different experiences that people can have in open relationships, though somewhat limited to open marriages as a subset of open relationships.
My fascination is in the intensity of the comments after the article, many wholly against the idea of open relationships and critical if not scornful of people who engage in them. I often say that the judgements that people make say more about them than they do about what they are judging. I wonder if some of these critical comments--and this can apply to positive comments as well--come from people who came in with preconceived notions and who may not have read the article at all.
When I teach other therapists about working with clients in open relationships, one of the points that I make is that it is not a matter of wondering if open relationships should exist in the first place. Rather, it is a matter of accepting that they do exist, and if and when an open relationship client enters your office, you need to know how to handle it.
A topic that comes up with some frequency with my clients goes more or less like this: "We wanted to open our relationship and we agreed that we wouldn't fall in love." You can likely guess what happened. What may come into my office is: "We promised not to fall in love and s/he broke that promise! How can I have trust now?"
While I understand the logic and intention behind this statement, I also think that falling in love is something that is difficult to control since the process seems to be at best irrational and unconscious. I doubt that there is an intention or a conscious breach of trust behind someone falling in love. I think we can choose who we love and I am less sure we can choose when and with whom we fall in love. Or can we?
"BDSM isn't what you see in porn flicks. The image of BDSM that is portrayed in many materials of this sort has about as much to do with BDSM as the child's tale "Jack and the Magic Beanstalk" has to do with agriculture."
--Franklin Veaux
I love this quote from Franklin Veaux's valuable (and potentially Not Safe For Work) overview of BDSM. Veaux, the author of More than Two, has a lot of good things to say about alternative sexuality in general and he has a sense of humor that I enjoy.
"I don't know" and "I don't care" are two phrases that I have heard a lot in the therapy office. I don't say *my* therapy office because I have heard these come out of my mouth in my own analysis. What I have tried to do for myself and what I encourage my clients to do is to pause when they think or say either of things and ask: "Do I *really* not know?" or "Do I *really* not care?" More often than not, the answer to either or both of these questions is "No, I do know or I do care."
"Sex is not a metaphor for a relationship, it's a parallel narrative. It speaks its own language. Love and desire are two different languages. We would like to think that they flow from each other. While love and desire relate, they also conflict. Love thrives in an atmosphere of reciprocity, protection , and congruence. Desire is more selfish. In fact, at times, the very elements that nurture love: comfort, stability, safety, for example, can extinguish desire.
Love seeks closeness, but desire needs space to thrive."
--Esther Perel
A friend posted an article about Cuddle Party which got me thinking about consent in its many forms. The article explores the author's experience at a Cuddle Party and is a reflection of my experience at Cuddle Party in general. How do I know about Cuddle Party? I was in the initial beta-test of their facilitator training in 2005 and if they have been consistent--and it seems that they have--over the last more than a decade then they provide the opportunity for a great conversation and experience regarding consent and touch and consent in general. In the article and at the event, one thing that the discussion stresses that I particularly value is this: "Say 'yes' if you are a yes, say 'no' if you are a no, and, if you are a maybe, say 'no' and you can always change your answer later."
This afternoon, I was interviewed for an upcoming book on relationships and one of my favorite sayings, one that seems to come up with almost every client (and more than a few friends, colleagues, and acquaintances), came up. The saying is "Life is uncomfortable. You can be uncomfortable now on your terms or uncomfortable later on someone else's terms." I can't honestly remember if I saw this somewhere or if I coined it. I have a feeling that others have used something similar however I have gotten a great reaction to saying it this way.
Something that has been on my mind a lot lately is the perceived motivation behind behaviors people exhibit toward one another. I have seen this come up with couples where they end up coming to therapy because they are experiencing a lot of antagonism from one another. Most of the time, I don't find that they *want* to antagonize each another, though that is what ends up happening. I don't believe that most people--unless they are sociopaths--want to antagonize other people, so what is happening in these situations?