The recent news that troubled country singer Mindy McCready took her own life has thrust the debate about the efficacy and ethics of “rehab” television shows and the people behind them, such as Dr. Drew and Dr. Phil, into the spotlight. McCready is the fifth cast member from Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew to die, prompting one well-known musician to take to Twitter to compare host Drew Pinsky to assisted-suicide icon Jack Kevorkian: “Same results,” Richard Marx wrote.

We wanted to know what our Topic Experts think, so we asked them the following questions: Is the criticism of Dr. Drew, Dr. Phil, and similar so-called experts-turned-media personalities warranted? Is it enough? After all, for many Americans, they are THE faces of therapy. Is that fair? Are they doing more harm than good? Is what they do simply exploitation, or is there more to it? With the popularity of reality TV on the rise, how can therapy professionals counteract any damage done by Dr. Drew, Dr. Phil, and others whose platforms extend into living rooms from coast to coast and beyond?

Here’s what they had to say:

• Deb Hirschhorn (relationships and marriage): “Money is a problem, and even ‘real’ therapists get green eyes. I cannot count how many Internet marketers have advised me to have ‘real clients’ give video testimonials on my successful website—and I have refused. ‘But,’ they complain, ‘all the therapists are doing it!’ That may be true, but it’s still wrong. ‘But,’ comes the reply, ‘the clients want to do it. Aren’t they adults who can make their own decisions? If you don’t think so, then aren’t you treating them like children and isn’t that disrespectful?’ The question is good and deserves a response. It was my first child’s fourth birthday when my second child was born. The second needed a C-section, but that didn’t stop me from feeling the strong need to make a special birthday party for the first child. After all, I certainly didn’t want to provoke sibling rivalry by unduly fussing over the newcomer. I rushed to the grocery store and started shopping. Unfortunately, that provoked some pain and I phoned the doctor. ‘What?’ he asked, ‘You’re running up and down the grocery aisles? No ma’am! You need to sit and take it easy after a C-section.’ The moral of this story is that although I am an adult and quite capable of making decisions, I did not see the ramifications of my actions. The same is true for clients who go live on the air to tell their stories: They do not see the ways in which they may be hurting themselves by airing their troubles, their weaknesses, their mistakes, and their pain in front of an audience of strangers. Therapists, on the other hand, although not clairvoyant, have enough experience with people to be able to ‘see’ into the future and know that this is a formula for disaster. And the reason is actually quite simple: People of all ages need a higher number of positives in their life than negatives in order to go forward. They need to believe there is something good about their choices, their history, and who they are as people in order to be able to meet each day with the strength it takes to master challenges. Focusing on the problem instead of their resources is a formula for hopelessness. A good therapist will build on strengths and only dab a little drop of problem talk into the session as necessary to know what, exactly, needs fixing. Airing all this publicly does just the opposite.”

• Darren Haber (addictions and compulsions): “I think the criticism is actually too polite by half. It would help, for starters, if these guys were experienced clinical psychologists, but they’re not. Dr. Drew isn’t even a psychologist, he’s an internist, and Dr. Phil is more practiced at expert witness work for courtrooms—which makes sense, given his sensationalizing, sometimes prosecutorial style (‘you need a backbone,’ ‘and this was a good idea why?’ etc.). The bigger problem is the awkward marrying of psychology with entertainment, a devil’s bargain to begin with. Real clinical work is slow, repetitive, ambiguous, and often plain boring. It can also be exhilarating and tremendously moving … but after the kind of slog I’m describing herein. The big Hollywood cathartic breakthrough (a la Good Will Hunting) is rare, and only occasionally leads to change. (I’ve witnessed crying jags that are forgotten the following week.) The values of entertainment—of, let’s face it, tabloid TV—are contra the values of psychology, which in its authentic form is probably better suited to something found on PBS or NPR—or, better yet, as a book or classroom discussion, etc. To take one example of how the medium corrodes the message, via Dr. Drew: Many people in recovery have narcissistic tendencies; life is itself often a ‘performance’ in a desperate seeking of approval and attention. Sticking a camera into a therapy group is exactly what so many recovering people don’t need. (It doesn’t help those who are painfully self-conscious, either.) A camera changes the equation, period. It is naive and even dangerous to pretend otherwise.”

• Sarah Swenson (Asperger’s / autism): “Electronic communication is like any other form of communication in one very misunderstood way: Most of what is communicated is nonverbal. We can see the truth in this when we are speaking directly to someone and we incorporate tone of voice, gesture, facial expression, and other cues into our comprehension of what we hear. But when we are watching reality TV, which is a misnomer at best and an outright lie at worst, these cues are scattered to the wind. Viewers can be lulled into a false sense of reality, by design, and it would be a natural next step if they were to take these TV performances seriously and consider the outcomes of the treatments and advice as if they were valid and complete. Individuals who are less skilled at ‘reading between the lines’ to begin with are all the more vulnerable to the illusory nature of the reality being portrayed on reality TV. Even the so-called experts, such as Dr. Drew and Dr. Phil, are not working as psychotherapists, whose work takes place session after session in an environment of building interpersonal trust and a therapeutic liaison in which healing can occur. Yet these TV experts proffer advice through the airwaves, advice which often suggests that there are quick fixes to even the deepest problems, such as substance-abuse issues or mental illness. If a viewer sees someone (a celebrity, for example) take her own life after experiencing the supposed advantage these so-called experts proffer, and that viewer has an even less supportive environment than the celebrity, he or she runs the risk of thinking that if someone who has it all can commit suicide, can fail, then the odds against solving personal problems are overwhelmingly bleak. It is ingenuous to suggest that copycat suicide is an unlikely event. These TV experts do all psychotherapists a disservice. Most significantly, however, they do a gross disservice to their viewers, who are primed to fall into despair for having taking them seriously when their own clients, their so-called success stories, choose to end their lives.”

• Moushumi Ghose (sexuality / sex therapy): “I have asked myself this question, too: Did media kill psychology, or did it bring it to life? I think Dr. Phil and Dr. Drew definitely have a lot of insight, advice, tips, and suggestions to offer the greater public, and to help many to make changes in their lives. However, in the field of psychology, one of the rules of thumb is that the client is the expert. So, in this medium—whether it be Internet, TV, or otherwise—the client is an audience of millions subscribing to the same views. With the plethora of self-help and coaching, it seems that there is a lot of advice out there being misconstrued somehow as psychotherapy. Dr. Drew and Dr. Phil are educators giving insight into the process of self-growth, and should be seen as such. Their work is to reach a broader audience to get the ball rolling but in no way should be seen as a substitute for working on yourself. Media to reach a larger audience is great, but it’s too easy to fall into the trap of seeing their word as gospel. These shows don’t encourage individuals to find a path of growth that is unique to themselves; it encourages a sheep-like mentality, which is not the goal of psychotherapy at all. We also have an overabundance of coaches nowadays who base their teachings on personal experience and their practice on advice giving. I believe all of these have a tendency to water down the field of personal growth. There is a lot of information out there and much of it is free, so one must weed out the self-help information and TV shows, decide what is entertainment and what is real, and recognize which do not suit their needs and which ones may actually prohibit their own journey of personal growth.”

• John Sovec (LGBT issues): “As the market for reality television shows expands, many more therapists are being asked to step up to the plate and represent the field of psychology, with all of its benefits and challenges. The major players in the television field often seem to be playing for the television ratings rather than looking out for the best interests of the clients. The well-known television therapists are often represented in an omnipotent role with an expertise in every subject that is presented to them. The reality is that therapy is a personal and ongoing experience and that it is virtually impossible for a client’s issues to be resolved in 50 minutes and then neatly wrapped up in a bow. Clinicians need the time to establish rapport, learn about the challenges that are facing their clients, and then work together with their clients to find the appropriate tools for success. As a therapist who has appeared on television, it can be a very tricky balance to respond to the needs of the clients you are working with and at the same time create a sense of safety in the middle of a chaotic filming experience. Much of what the television audience sees is only a small part of the actual therapeutic process that goes into the making of these shows. The challenge is that most people are now viewing therapy as a sensational, dramatic, and immediate solution to their issues, and place unrealistic expectations on the process and their relationship with their therapist. Are media therapists doing harm? Maybe to the perception of what therapy is and how the process works, but at the same time, if television therapists can remain ethical and authentic, they can demystify the experience and open the doors for more people to consider the benefits of seeking therapy.”

• Jill Denton (sexuality / sex therapy): “ ‘Good therapy’ in the truest sense is therapy that provides safe, private, confidential space for a client to truly ‘go deep’ and explore their hopes, their fears, and their dreams. I’m deeply saddened when someone equates what Drew, Phil, or ‘rehab TV’ offers to the healing work that happens in my office, which is sacred space. What these charlatans are doing is downright reprehensible!”

• Sarah Noel (person-centered / Rogerian): “I have very mixed feelings on this issue. In some ways, the Dr. Drews and Dr. Phils of the world have increased the awareness of mental health issues and normalized seeking treatment. This decreases stigma and has probably led some people into therapy who may not have considered such a thing in the past. That said, what gets good television ratings and what qualifies as good, quality psychotherapy are, more often than not, very different things. While that seems an obvious distinction within the professional community, it is quite possible that your average viewer is not making such a distinction and therefore they believe what they are seeing on television is what psychotherapy is supposed to look like. This seems to lead to very dangerous territory that could be the tipping point into doing more harm than good.”

• Judith Barr (power: healing to the root): “For television personalities to be the face of psychotherapy—even TV personalities who were once practicing medical doctors or psychologists—is a huge disservice to the essence of psychotherapy. And it is a limitless disservice to members of the public who don’t yet know the best of what psychotherapy can be and who need, want, and could be deeply helped by real depth psychotherapy. Having TV personalities be the face of psychotherapy coast to coast and even abroad is not only a disservice, but also a misuse and abuse of power. The true essence of psychotherapy is “soul work.” It originally meant the healing of soul or spirit. With the best of psychotherapists, it remains so today … but that is in the privacy of the therapy room. Once someone takes psychotherapy into the public media for the purposes of entertainment, financial exploitation, and money generation off the backs and hearts of vulnerable people, the essence and process of psychotherapy becomes disfigured, and the healing of the person’s soul becomes secondary or tertiary to showbiz. A huge part of my intention and commitment of my energy has already been to help people widely get a better sense of how deep psychotherapy is and can be, when the therapist does his/her own inner healing work to the root, and then offers the same depth to his/her clients. I am not sure how else to fulfill this intention and to help counteract the damage of the abuse done to therapy and its name in many ways—including by TV personalities. Perhaps if those of us who are like-minded work together, we can help educate the public on the possible dangers of ‘TV therapy’ and help to give a more accurate representation of the best therapy can be.” For more from Judith Barr, click here.

What do you think about so-called “rehab TV”? Do you agree or disagree with our Topic Experts? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Exorcisms occupy a hallowed place in horror movies, with some claiming to be “based on a true story”—attracting mass audiences, rampant skepticism, and much discussion. But the ancient practice of expelling demons or other entities from a person isn’t merely fodder for fright flicks or some relic of a less enlightened time. Exorcisms are very much a part of cultural mythology, and occupy an important place in some religions. The Catholic Church has 10 exorcists in the United States. Even Mother Teresa underwent an exorcism at the direction of the archbishop of Calcutta.

No one can say with absolute certainty whether demons walk among us and occasionally take control of living beings, but science can offer a helpful window into exorcisms and what might cause a person to appear “demonically possessed.” The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not recognize demonic possession as a psychiatric issue. There is little doubt, however, about the influence of issues that are recognized by the DSM, and no one questions the power of suggestion.

What Causes the Appearance of Possession?
Historically, exorcisms have been used to treat a wide variety of symptoms that are now associated with mental issues. People with schizophrenia, personality issues, delusions, hallucinations, or severe depression might all have been considered candidates for exorcisms in generations past. Each of these issues can, in some cases, cause unusual or frightening behavior.

In a culture where many believe certain behaviors may be caused by demonic possession, the manifestations of mental health issues may conform to popular mythology. A person with schizophrenia might, for example, believe he or she hears the voice of Satan, or that he or she is in fact Satan, because he or she grew up amid culturally ingrained messages that this is possible.

Even in contemporary times, people with mental issues may be subject to exorcisms, particularly in devoutly religious communities and developing countries. Epilepsy, which can cause severe seizures, may lead to exorcism being performed. Substance abuse, head injuries, and brain tumors can also dramatically alter behavior, leading someone to appear possessed.

What Happens During an Exorcism?
Exorcisms tend to follow a predictable path. The apparent victim of possession’s behavior becomes increasingly erratic, perhaps even violent, until the exorcist casts the demonic spirit out. “Possessed” people may speak in tongues, vomit, become violently ill, or harm themselves. And while these behaviors might seem shocking, they can be easily explained.

Mental issues can cause strange behavior, and people tend to conform to expectations. This means a person experiencing an exorcism is more likely to act in ways he or she has heard of others behaving during exorcisms. Exorcisms sometimes also involve the use of potions, drugs, or fasting, each of which can induce violent illness and strange behavior. Starvation can affect brain function, and the stress of an exorcism may radically alter behavior.

Some exorcism advocates insist that exorcism works. And it very well may. People undergoing exorcisms may enter hypnotic trances, during which time they may be much more suggestible, which means their behavior may later change. The dramatic ritual of an exorcism can also be cathartic for some deeply religious people, and may inspire a change in behavior or personality.

Exorcisms As Abuse
Although every person has the right to practice his or her own religious beliefs, exorcisms sometimes become a form of abuse, and some mental health experts are concerned that they may replace competent psychiatric treatment for people with mental health issues.

Over the past decade, several people have died during exorcisms. A woman in Fort Wayne, Indiana, attempted to exorcise her son by forcing him to drink vinegar and olive oil, then held him down during an exorcism. The boy suffocated, and his mother was convicted of murder in 2011. A 3-year-old in Arizona was nearly choked to death by her grandfather, who was attempting to exorcise her; the grandfather was shot and killed by police.

References:

1. Attempted exorcism ends in man’s death. (2007, July 29). MSNBC.com. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20027027/
2. Batty, D. (2001, May 02). Exorcism: Abuse or cure? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/may/02/socialcare.mentalhealth1
3. Interview with the exorcist. (2000, September 21). The Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2000/09/21/interview-with-the-exorcist.html
4. Libaw, O. (2012, September 11). Exorcism thriving in the U.S., say experts. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92541
5. Mom convicted in son’s exorcism death. (2011, May 29). WISH TV. Retrieved from http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/north_central/boy-dead-after-attempted-exorcism
6. Peter, B. (2005). Gassner’s Exorcism—not Mesmer’s Magnetism—is the Real Predecessor of Modern Hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1080/00207140490914207

Several years ago, sex advice columnist Dan Savage coined the term “monogamish” to refer to long-term committed relationships that bend the rules of monogamy with the consent of both parties. Since that time, he has published thousands of letters from people in monogamish relationships, thanking him for giving them permission to try an arrangement that works better for them.

Last year, Showtime began airing a reality show called Polyamory: Married and Dating, which takes a close look at the lives of polyamorous people. Polyamory is the practice of loving more than one person at a time. The show stars a polyamorous triad—three people in a committed, long-term relationship—and a polyamorous married couple who have serious committed relationships with people outside of their marriage.

Both Savage and the participants in the Showtime series have experienced some backlash for their advocacy of nontraditional relationships. But when nonmonogamous relationships are loving and consensual, participants in them believe they can strengthen marriages, serve individual needs, and increase intimacy. Unfortunately, people in these relationships often face immense stigma and even legal problems propelled by myths about nontraditional relationships.

Myth 1: Nonmonogamous relationships are a free-for-all.

People who cheat on their spouse are, technically speaking, not in a monogamous relationship. But when nonmonogamy is entered into openly and on a long-term basis, all partners typically obey a variety of rules. In Showtime’s show, the polyamorous triad navigates the consequences of one member breaking the rules, and the result is increased communication. Nonmonogamous relationships don’t work without rules, and often the discussion and renegotiation of these rules can contribute to deeper intimacy.

Myth 2: Nonmonogamy is an excuse to cheat.

By definition, nonmonogamy means that people don’t have sex with only one other partner. But this does not necessarily mean they can have sex with anyone. Successful nonmonogamous couples establish strong rules about what is and is not cheating, and frequently have veto power over who their partners sleep with. While it’s certainly possible for one partner to be pressured into nonmonogamy, these relationships generally don’t work unless both partners enter into the relationship willingly and lovingly.

Myth 3: Nonmonogamy is bad for children.

With the divorce rate in the United States hovering around 50% and the number of single parents rapidly increasing, most children see their parents involved in multiple romantic relationships over a lifetime. So long as children have consistency in their caregivers and are not subjected to an endless parade of people to whom they become attached and who then leave, nonmonogamy is not harmful. Nonmonogamy, after all, does not mean an abandonment of all social mores and norms, and nonmonogamous parents are just as capable of keeping their sex lives private as monogamous parents.

Myth 4: Nonmonogamy harms women.

Well-publicized cases of polygamy abuse are often the first things people think of when they consider nonmonogamous relationships. But modern nonmonogamous relationships are consensual for all parties. In these arrangements, it’s not just men who get to sleep with other people. Given that more women than men report being bisexual, nonmonogamy can provide a healthy sexual outlet for bisexual women who might not otherwise have such an outlet.

Myth 5: Nonmonogamy harms marriages.

Many people involved in monogamish relationships have been married for decades. When one partner’s desire wanes, nonmonogamy can provide a sexual outlet that sustains the marriage. Because nonmonogamy must be carefully negotiated and constantly reevaluated, these arrangements can bring married couples closer together and encourage open, honest dialogue. Sleeping with other people also does not have to compromise the marital bond. Married couples sometimes have sex with friends periodically while still sustaining their primary commitment to their spouses.

References:

1. Polyamory. (n.d.). Alternatives to Marriage Project. Retrieved from http://www.unmarried.org/polyamory.html
2. Savage, D. (n.d.). Monogamish couples share their stories. Washington City Paper. Retrieved from http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/42014/savage-love-monogamish-couples-share-their-stories/

Ask any armchair psychologist whether men or women are more sexual, and you’ll likely get an absolute proclamation that men are more visual, think about sex more often, and have more partners. These “facts” play into cultural mythology, that ties manhood to sexuality, and treats women as the fairer, less sexual sex. But research is increasingly showing that the things we all think we know about men and sex just aren’t true.

[fat_widget_right]

Thinking About Sex

Many of us have heard the claim that men think about sex every seven seconds or every 15 seconds. But this statistic may be little more than a myth. A 2011 study found that men think about sex, on average, only 18 times a day—several thousand times less frequently than popular statistics claim. In fact, men think about sex only slightly more than they think about sleep, which crosses their mind 11 times a day, and as frequently as food, which also makes an appearance in their thoughts 18 times a day. But, according to the study, men still tend to think about sex more frequently than women. The women in the study thought about sex about 10 times a day, with individual numbers ranging from zero to 140 times daily. Individual men, by contrast, thought about sex between zero and 388 times each day.

Number of Sexual Partners

Men tend to claim more sexual partners than women, but upon careful examination, statistics on the lifetime average number of partners fall apart. Unless more men than women are gay or are having sex with a few of the same very sexually active women who aren’t represented in surveys, the averages for men and women can’t differ so dramatically. Several studies have shown that men are more likely to inflate their number of partners, while women are more likely to shave a few off the top.

Desire for Adventure

One famous study asked men and women if they’d be willing to sleep with an attractive stranger. A large portion of men said yes, while few of the women did. This study is often used to support the idea that men crave multiple sexual partners or new sexual experiences. But studies that ask men their desires don’t measure actual behavior. Men may say that they’re willing to sleep with an attractive stranger simply because this is the cultural expectation. Women may be hesitant to say that they’d have sex with a stranger because they don’t want to be perceived as promiscuous.

Are Men More Visual?

We’ve all heard that men are more visual than women, and this is used as justification for everything from looking at porn to ogling strangers. While most research does show that men are more visually stimulated than women, the interpretation of this data is much more complicated than it seems. One 2008 study, for example, emphasizes that sociological factors play a strong role in men’s visual stimulation. Men are taught from an early age to emphasize physical appearance, and the same study found that men tend to be more aroused by contexts in which they can objectify another person—a tendency that is probably learned.

Sex and Masculinity

Myths about men’s sexuality tend to stick around because they make sense in light of social roles and gender ideology. Although women are becoming increasingly sexually assertive, sexuality in women is still less acceptable than men, and women are often taught to feel some shame about sex; this can affect what they report to researchers and whether they share sexual thoughts. Sex-based myths can make women feel that sexual feelings are deviant and abnormal, and can support puritanical ideas about women and sex. But men are also harmed. Men who don’t meet masculine ideals by being hypersexual or craving multiple partners can feel less manly, while men who want a healthy sexual relationship with a single partner may feel pressure to engage in promiscuous or objectifying behavior.

References:

1. Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Kolata, G. (2007, August 12). The myth, the math, the sex. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html
3. Men more willing to have sex with stranger than females: Study. (2011, September 04). Indian Express. Retrieved from http://www.indianexpress.com/news/men-more-willing-to-have-sex-with-stranger-than-females-study/841459
4. Men think about sex just 19 times a day – nearly as much as food. (2011, November 29). The Telegraph. Retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8924988/Men-think-about-sex-just-19-times-a-day-nearly-as-much-as-food.html
5. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex Differences in Response to Visual Sexual Stimuli: A Review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 206-218. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9217-9

Hypnosis has long been fodder for television shows and stand-up acts, and most people are familiar with hypnotists who claim to be able to make anyone do anything while under hypnosis. But hypnosis is no longer just a sideshow performance, and an increasing number of people are turning to hypnosis to quit smoking, get over depression and anxiety, lose weight, and forget about phobias.

Hypnosis is still controversial within mental health, partially because it’s often part of a comedy act and not real treatment and partially because some hypnotherapists have induced false memories under regression-based hypnotherapy.

What Is It?
Hypnosis isn’t a magic trick. It’s an altered state of consciousness that hypnotists induce via the power of suggestion. Hypnotists may use relaxation techniques, key words, guided imagery, or some combination of these to help clients slowly relax. Then, while under hypnosis, hypnotists make suggestions about changes in behavior.

The idea behind hypnosis is that, even when the conscious mind wants to do something, the unconscious mind might not fully accept this change. Hypnotists claim that, under the right conditions, they can subtly alter the effects the unconscious mind has on the conscious mind and help bring about behavioral changes. Some hypnotists use hypnosis to help gradually alter a client’s perceptions. A person struggling with pain, for example, might undergo hypnosis to help him or her see the pain as pressure. An increasing number of women are even using hypnosis to help cope with the pain of childbirth.

Does It Work?
You can’t be hypnotized to do something that is outside of your moral compass or that you don’t really want to do. People who try to quit gambling or spending through hypnosis will likely not see results if they’re quitting only because of family pressure. Hypnosis can’t change the way you think; it simply makes it easier to follow through with behavioral changes. Hypnosis can also bring about a state of relaxation, and some hypnotherapists teach their clients how to self-hypnotize under stressful conditions. For people with anxiety issues, severe stress, or depression, this can help ease the symptoms.

But hypnosis is not a panacea, and is most effective when it’s used in conjunction with therapy and lifestyle changes. Particularly for long-term, chronic problems, it may take several hypnosis sessions to see results. Some people don’t see any results at all; because hypnosis thrives on suggestibility, if you’re not particularly suggestible it probably won’t work.

Choosing a Hypnotist
If you’re thinking about trying hypnotherapy, get a recommendation from your therapist. The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis also maintains a directory of qualified hypnotists with a clinical background. Make sure you know how long your hypnotist has been practicing and what methods he or she uses. The messages you hear under hypnosis should not come as a surprise, and your hypnotist should discuss the specific tools he or she is going to use before hypnotizing you.

Regression-based hypnosis, which is used to recover repressed memories, can be dangerous. Because people are more suggestible under hypnosis, the hypnotist can inadvertently fabricate memories that didn’t actually occur. Particularly if these memories are traumatic, this can lead to additional mental health issues. People with a history of psychosis should not undergo hypnosis without first taking to their doctors, because hypnosis increases their risk of a psychotic episode.

References:

1. About the society. (n.d.). American Society of Clinical Hypnosis. Retrieved from http://www.asch.net/
2. Beattie-Moss, M. (n.d.). Does hypnosis work? Research Penn State. Retrieved from http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/hypnosis.html
3. Mental health and hypnosis. (n.d.). WebMD. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/guide/mental-health-hypnotherapy
4. Portenoy, R. (2008, August 18). How does hypnosis work, can anyone be hypnotized, and when is it used? ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/TreatingPain/story?id=4047906

The state of Washington has been working for several years to change the language in its laws to gender-neutral terms. If legislation passes as expected, no longer will there be penmanship, freshmen, and watchmen. Instead, Washington will have handwriting, first-year students, and security guards.

Several other states have followed suit, with about half making moves toward gender-neutral language. Such language is often lampooned as politically correct and excessively burdensome, but research shows that language affects perceptions. Perceptions, in turn, affect behavior, and using gender-neutral language can be a meaningful move toward gender equality.

The Pervasiveness of Gendered Language
Gendered language is so common that it’s difficult for some people to even notice it. From job postings to laws, words such as policeman, councilman, mankind, and fireman abound. This omnipresence of gendered language may be part of the problem. When people stop noticing gendered language, it’s easier to think of male as the default. People who do a double-take when they see words such as policewoman or police officer may be doing so because there’s an incongruence between what their expectation of a police officer is—a male—and the possibility of a woman filling the role. The more frequently gendered language occurs, the more likely it is that people develop male as the prototype for a particular role.

This can affect a wide range of behaviors and lead to subtle biases. A company that posts a job seeking an ombudsman, for example, may envision a male in the role because of the use of gendered language. This can give women a slight disadvantage when they seek out the job because women applicants don’t completely match the hiring manager’s vision for a future employee. The person in charge of hiring may never even be aware of this subtle bias, but this doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Effects on Women
From the time they’re children, women experience an onslaught of gendered language, and this can subtly alter their perceptions of themselves. Even women report that their prototype of police officers and firefighters is male, and this may be due in part to gendered language.

Gender conditioning can affect the choices men and women make, and when women grow up learning that they’re not the ideal image of a particular role, their options are limited.

Male as Default
The use of terms such as mankind is particularly problematic because it treats men as the default. When “man” is used to refer to “all of us,” women are completely excluded, even if the term is intended to be gender-neutral. Thus, men are established as the norm against which everything is judged, and women are treated as deviant from this norm.

Real-life examples of this can be found in the long-time medical practice of using only male research subjects—a practice that has changed over the past few years.

Setting an Example
While gender-neutral language can seem frustrating and cumbersome at first, this is primarily because it’s new, not because there’s anything particularly onerous about its use. When states establish gender-neutral language, they help this language become part of the common lexicon and set an example demonstrating that gender-neutral language is just as easy to use as gendered language.

References:

1. Carmon, I. (n.d.). The effects of gendered language in job ads. Jezebel. Retrieved from http://jezebel.com/5803238/the-effects-of-gendered-language-in-job-ads
2. Lacorte, R. (2013, February 3). State moves toward gender-neutral language. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020282616_genderneutralxml.html
3. Leaper, C., & Bigler, R. S. (2004). Gendered Language and Sexist Thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69(1), 128-142. doi: 10.1111/j.0037-976X.2004.00283.x

In a world saturated with sexual imagery, appeals to the effects of sexual attraction, and arguments about the way sex affects society, it is difficult for some people to believe that not everyone harbors an interest in sex or feels sexual attraction. But asexuality undermines common beliefs that sexual feelings are universal. While there have always been people who felt little or no sexual desire or attraction to others, the concept of asexuality is relatively new.

Is Asexuality a Sexual Orientation?
It’s easy to confuse asexuality with celibacy or discomfort with sex, but asexuality is distinctly different. While celibacy may be a choice or a result of life circumstances, asexuality is driven by a lack of sexual attraction. People who are uncomfortable with or intimidated by sex generally still feel sexual attraction, even if they are unable to act on it. Asexual people, however, are not interested in sexual relationships with other people. They may still form long-term commitments and get married, but these relationships are typically built around mutual respect and affection rather than sexual attraction.

Asexual people frequently are faced with intrusive questions about why they are uninterested in sex, and some people point to the fact asexual people may later identify as a different orientation or may begin identifying as asexual after engaging in sexual relationships. Asexuality advocacy groups, however, point out that this does not mean that asexuality is not a distinct orientation. Heterosexual people occasionally engage in homosexual relationships, and some people change their sexual orientation later in life. Asexuality seems to function like other orientations, and people who identify as asexual emphasize the importance of respecting asexuality as an orientation, not a mental “disorder,” temporary choice, or product of sexual trauma.

The Path to Asexuality
There is a lot of sexual pressure in our culture. Many asexual people begin to identify as asexual only after having romantic relationships and sexual experiences. Sometimes asexual people have sex to please partners they care about, perhaps because of social pressure or because they haven’t yet learned to consider their own desires. The common denominator among asexual people, however, is no desire for sexual relationships.

This does not mean that asexual people aren’t affectionate or that they can’t engage in romantic relationships. Some asexual people show affection to their partners by massaging them, kissing them, holding hands, or participating in other nonsexual physical practices.

Asexual people who discover their orientation while involved in a romantic relationship often have a difficult road to navigate. There are a variety of ways to deal with disparities in sexual interest, and while some relationships end due to asexuality, partners sometimes agree to arrangements that allow both members of a couple to express their sexuality in a way that is comfortable for them.

Differences in Feelings and Expression
Asexual is not a type of person, just as heterosexual and homosexual people don’t represent specific “types.” The expression of asexuality varies greatly from person to person. Many asexual people experience strong attractions to others and enjoy spending time with specific partners. However, their attractions aren’t fulfilled by sexual interactions. Others experience regular sexual arousal, but feel no need to act on that arousal. Some asexual people find sex extremely off-putting, while others are simply disinterested.

References:

1. Gordon, O. (2012, November 11). The moment I realized I was asexual. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/9651265/The-moment-I-realised-I-was-asexual.html
2. Overview. (n.d.). The Asexual Visibility and Education Network. Retrieved from http://www.asexuality.org/home/overview.html

Unless you are relatively young, it is highly unlikely that you will never date someone with an ex-spouse or ex-live-in-lover. The reality is that a large percentage of people have some history of broken relationships, whether they were long-term commitments or actual marriages. Regardless, should you be concerned about the number of exes a new love interest has? That was the question posed to several relationship experts in a recent article. Holly Parker, a psychology professor at Harvard teaches a class entitled “The Psychology of Close Relationships,” and she believes that when people date casually, the number of notches on someone’s relationship belt should not be a significant issue. However, if the dating progresses to something more serious, perhaps those notches should be examined a little more closely.

She advises looking at the level of responsibility that the person took for the unsuccessful relationships. For instance, did they acknowledge that they played a part in the demise and if so, what did they do about it? Also, she believes that multiple failed relationships may indicate difficulty to commit, emotional problems, or other unresolved issues. These are all things that should be carefully weighed before someone decides to pursue a deeper level of commitment. Some of the red flags Parker advises people to watch for are emotional distance and/or narcissistic behavior. If they are focused more on their own needs than yours, it could be an indication that they will not be attentive to you, emotionally or physically. Parker also says to watch out for people who continually put the blame for previous relationships on their exes.

But don’t rule everyone out based on the number of exes in their past. New York psychiatrist Gail Saltz says, “There is no one-size-fits-all answer, because people get married and divorced for many different reasons.” Saltz thinks that it is unwise to generalize people by the number of relationships they had before they met you. But she does think it’s important to find out how those relationships ended, what changes the person may have made, and most importantly, how the person gets along with their exes now. Immaturity, infidelity, addiction, and abuse are just some of the weeds that can kill a growing relationship. Saltz believes it is better to find out what personality traits your new love may have or may have been subjected to before you venture down an unfamiliar road with an unfamiliar person.

Asa, Richard. Dating in an age of multiple divorces: Navigating the dating scene when your date already has two or three marriages behind him.(n.d.): n. pag. Chicago Tribune. 2013. Web. 16 Jan. 2013. http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/life/sc-fam-0115-dating-divorced-20130115,0,1797022.story

In a highly anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey, famed cyclist Lance Armstrong has finally come clean about the allegations of doping that have haunted him for much of his unparalleled career. Armstrong, who in August 2012 was stripped of his record seven Tour de France victories and banned from competitive cycling due to mounting evidence of performance-enhancing drug use, is just one in a long line of athletes—most notably baseball players—who have either confessed to using performance enhancers or whose images have been tarnished by credible allegations of doping.

It’s no secret that many athletes will go to any length for a competitive edge, but performance-enhancing drugs carry numerous health risks, including baldness, impotence, infertility, addiction, psychiatric issues, hypertension, liver problems, and numerous other issues.

In a world where athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs always seem to get caught, often with disastrous consequences for their careers, what would compel an athlete to risk not only his or her health but livelihood as well?

Perfectionism and Pressure to Perform
Competitive sports can be cutthroat. Fans, coaches, and sponsors have high expectations for athletes, and hold in high regard records and never-been-done-before, seemingly superhuman feats. These expectations are frequently unrealistic, but can place considerable pressure on athletes. People in the upper echelons of athletics are often perfectionists to begin with; after all, it’s not easy to make it to the top. These perfectionist tendencies can make performance-enhancing drugs seem not only justified, but necessary.

Particularly when the competition uses performance-enhancing drugs, a dedicated athlete might feel like he or she has no choice. If the competition has an unfair advantage, taking drugs may seem less like cheating and more like leveling the playing field.

Peer Pressure
Particularly as more and more athletes admit to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, it can seem like sport is full of doping. Athletes may experience peer pressure from friends, teammates, and coaches, who may suggest that they can’t keep up with their competitors if they don’t use drugs. Peer pressure can also come in indirect ways. When athletes are criticized by peers, they might feel like their only hope for improvement can come in a vial or pill. Coaches, teammates, and even physicians or trainers may be complicit in doping.

Financial Issues
Not all athletes are wealthy. Particularly among Olympic athletes, financial gain often comes in the form of sponsorships, not from the sport or league. Many athletes spend years paying coaches, trainers, and gyms, and may get deep in debt covering the costs of developing into one of the best at what they do. Athletes are much more likely to get cushy sponsorship deals and contracts when they break records or win competitions. Particularly when an athlete knows or believes that other successful people in his or her field are using performance-enhancing drugs, they might seem like the most attractive or likely way to get out of debt and into financial security.

Secrecy
Although many athletes are regularly drug-tested, dopers try to stay one step ahead of the science. Many athletes have devised novel ways to avoid being caught, and in a high-stakes world, it’s easy to believe you can outsmart the testing mechanisms. Indeed, many athletes have managed to do just that for years, so the risk might seem worth it to an athlete under immense pressure.

References:

1. Oprah: Lance Armstrong confesses. (2013, January 16). ESPN. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8845599/oprah-winfrey-confirms-lance-armstrong-admitted-doping
2. Performance-enhancing drugs: Know the risks. (2012, December 12). Mayo Clinic. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/performance-enhancing-drugs/HQ01105
3. Shermer, M. (2008, March 31). The doping dilemma. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma
4. Shermer, M. (2009, September 07). Why athletes dope. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/why-athletes-dope_b_278861.html

Most people have experienced brief periods of anxiety while riding in an elevator, stuck in the midst of a large and tight crowd, or even while playing hide-and-seek. But for people with claustrophobia, the fear of being trapped in a small space can be so debilitating that it interferes with regular life activities.

In fact, the distinction between “normal” anxiety about enclosed spaces and phobic-level fear is the fact claustrophobia tends to interfere with life activities such as climbing a stairwell or riding in an elevator for work, playing with one’s children, or going to certain locations.

What Is It?
Claustrophobia is categorized by a chronic and unreasonable fear of being trapped in a small or enclosed space with no hope of escape, and it is classified as an anxiety disorder. People with claustrophobia also frequently experience a related fear of suffocation. Being in a small space can cause people with the issue to fear that they won’t be able to breathe, and for this reason, people with claustrophobia sometimes experience fear in settings that don’t seem enclosed or frightening. For example, a person with claustrophobia sitting in a dentist’s chair might be so afraid of confinement that the person becomes convinced that he or she will suffocate if he/she remains in the chair. People with the issue may experience extreme anxiety, panic attacks, difficulty breathing, profuse sweating, and difficulty concentrating when they are in a small space.

People with claustrophobia tend to experience anxious reactions in a variety of settings rather than just one particularly frightening setting. For this reason, claustrophobia tends to become generalized and may worsen over time. A person who was once afraid of elevators might generalize his or her fears to closets, apartments, doctor’s offices, and small stores. In extreme cases, people with claustrophobia may be so afraid of confinement that they refuse to leave their homes or travel to unfamiliar locations.

What Causes It?
Claustrophobia is one of the most common phobias, with about 5% of the population experiencing it to one degree or another. Some scientists believe that this indicates an evolved, genetic fear of closed spaces. The reasoning for this explanation is that being trapped in a small space can be dangerous, so the brain has evolved a special fear of these situations to prevent people from taking potentially life-threatening risks. However, there is also evidence that claustrophobia is learned. People who have been trapped in a small space—such as people who were trapped in an elevator or who were locked in their bedrooms as children—are more likely to become claustrophobic, and children of people with claustrophobia are more likely to become claustrophobic. This is probably due to a combination of genetics and parental modeling.

How Is It Treated?
Although phobias can be debilitating, they are generally fairly easy to treat. Counter-conditioning and exposure therapy work by gradually exposing people with claustrophobia to triggering circumstances to help them build a tolerance and learn coping mechanisms for their fears. People with mild claustrophobia sometimes benefit from deep-breathing techniques and distracting thoughts, and people with severe claustrophobia may take anti-anxiety medications to help them function until therapy can help them address the underlying causes of the phobia. Some people with claustrophobia also benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy, which helps them identify the negative thoughts that lead to fear-based reactions and to slowly adjust these thoughts to more positive, less fear-inducing ones.

References:

1. Claustrophobia. (n.d.). Epigee. Retrieved from http://www.epigee.org/mental_health/claustrophobia.html
2. Kahn, A. P., & Doctor, R. M. (2000). Facing fears: The sourcebook for phobias, fears, and anxieties. New York, NY: Checkmark Books.

Food Network chef Paula Deen is known for her bubbly personality, so many fans were shocked when she explained in her biography that she had agoraphobia for 20 years. Deen is hardly the only celebrity to experience this potentially debilitating condition, however. Kim Basinger and Woody Allen also reportedly have experienced it, and the father of modern psychiatry himself—Sigmund Freud—may have struggled with the issue as a young man.

In an increasingly busy, crowded, and connected world, anxiety can be overwhelming even for famous people, and agoraphobia will affect about 1.4 percent of the U.S. population at some point, with 40% of cases reported being “severe,” according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

What Is It?
Agoraphobia means “fear of the marketplace,” and is commonly associated with a shut-in lifestyle and social avoidance. However, agoraphobia is distinct from social phobia and characterized by a chronic fear of feeling anxiety or panic in a place where one is unable to escape or get help. For this reason, many people with agoraphobia are hesitant to leave their homes, unwilling to go out alone, or visit only familiar locations. Some people with the condition experience panic, generalized anxiety, and other issues classified as anxiety disorders.

Although everyone experiences anxiety in unfamiliar or social settings from time to time, people with agoraphobia experience overwhelming anxiety and panic on a regular basis. They might feel dizzy, restless, short of breath, or confused in unfamiliar settings. Agoraphobics are often fearful of feeling out of control, and the physical symptoms of anxiety can exacerbate this fear.

What Causes It?
Agoraphobia is typically a side effect of panic disorder. People who have had panic attacks in public settings may fear that they’ll have another panic attack and grow increasingly fearful of going out in public. Sometimes agoraphobia is caused by other circumstances, such as a traumatic event in a public place, social anxiety, or other mental health conditions that cause anxiety and panic. The disorder may be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Children of parents with panic disorder are more likely to develop agoraphobia; this could be due to either genetics or parental modeling.

How Is It Treated?
Because people with agoraphobia are often terrified of having panic attacks, one of the most important steps in treatment is giving the person a sense of control over his or her tendency to panic. Relaxation techniques can help many people regain a sense of control. Medication is also highly effective. Anti-anxiety medications and antidepressants can also help people with agoraphobia.

Sometimes agoraphobia causes so much fear that people refuse to leave their homes. People with severe agoraphobia sometimes need several months of progressive desensitization to fearful settings. For example, a person might start by walking outside, graduate to getting in the car, progress to driving to a parking lot, and ultimately master going to the grocery store. Most people with agoraphobia undergo some form of psychotherapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy can be especially helpful, and some people with the issue benefit from group therapy. Group members often share coping strategies and can help an agoraphobic feel less isolated; the group setting itself can also serve as a form of desensitization to unfamiliar people and settings.

References:

1. A.D.A.M. Editor Board. (2011, November 18). Panic disorder with agoraphobia. PubMed Health. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001921/
2. Agoraphobia among adults. (n.d.). NIMH RSS. Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1AGOR_ADULT.shtml
3. Agoraphobic celebrities. (n.d.). The Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2011/12/13/photos-paula-deen-kim-basinger-and-other-famous-people-with-agoraphobia.html
4. Mayo Clinic Staff. (2011, April 21). Agoraphobia. Mayo Clinic. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/agoraphobia/DS00894
5. Moskin, J. (2007, February 28). From phobia to fame: A southern cook’s memoir. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/dining/28deen.html?pagewanted=all

Couples who have been married for decades seem to know the secret to successful relationships. But when couples bicker and fight after years of being together, is it a sign of an unhappy relationship or cognitive decline? According to a recent article, children and caregivers of couples who exhibit tension and anger may merely be witnessing what has always been there, just with different eyes. When children reach adulthood and enter into their own relationships, they may begin to view their parents’ relationship with different, often more critical, eyes. This could shed new light on not-so-subtle patterns between their parents that have always existed.

But when fighting, arguing, or hostility are new behaviors, they may signify a deeper problem. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an insidious, subtle offender that creeps up on people. Individuals who begin to forget things, or become overwhelmed by things that used to come easily, may hide their impairment from those closest to them out of fear and shame. When a wife who used to be able to tackle all the household chores suddenly stops doing them, her husband may think she is being lazy. Likewise, when a husband who used to enjoy socializing becomes reclusive, his wife may respond with anger and hurt. These mixed signals can increase hostility and tension in the relationship.

Other indications are suspicion and jealousy. Delusions of infidelity or callousness can cause someone to become accusatory of their spouse. This can lead to resentment. And even though they may be unfounded, they set the stage for anger and conflict. The same can happen with physical health declines. Many illnesses can decrease sexual arousal and stifle sexual intimacy. Without that type of connection, couples can become emotionally and physically distant. Dr. Nancy K. Scholssberg, a professor of counseling psychology at the University of Maryland, knows that even though fighting isn’t the answer to the fear or uncertainty that accompanies illness, it is often the most commonly used coping strategy. “Fighting may come from a misguided notion that you can regain power by asserting it over your spouse,” said Schlossberg. “It doesn’t work, it’s false power – but they’ll [spouses] try anything.” Add to that the stress of caring for an ailing spouse, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. Even though MCI may not be to blame for the battles in most relationships, it is especially important for clinicians to explore this possibility when working with older couples.

Reference:
Seliger, Susan. In the middle: Why elderly couples fight. (n.d.): n. pag. The New York Times. 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 30 Dec. 2012. http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/in-the-middle-why-elderly-couples-fight/