A client recently described how thrilling it was to take her daughter to see the Broadway musical Annie.  She recalled that her mother took her to see it when she was a child, and it had been an indelibly wonderful experience. Now she had the pleasure of providing the same thrill for her daughter. I thought how special it was for my client to share this with her daughter and how lucky my client was that her daughter had the same feelings about the experience. It also reminded me that so many parents who want to provide what they believe to be all the right things for their children are not always met with such good feelings.

I recalled another client whose desire to recreate his delight for his son was dashed when he took him to the rodeo and was met with the response, “This is stupid.” In spite of their most nurturing and positive intentions, parents may find that their wishes and rules for their children are met with rejection. This can create painful feelings, including insult, hurt, anger, and disappointment. “Drew,” a 42-year-old client, was in a prolonged struggle with his 8-year-old daughter about piano lessons she adamantly refused to take. He told me, “When I was a kid, I refused to continue piano lessons after a few months. My parents never insisted I continue. I’m not going to let that happen to my daughter. She isn’t old enough to know what she wants or what the consequences of her actions will be.”

As Drew and I explored his feelings, it became clear that he not only felt disappointed, he felt rejected by his daughter. “It feels like she is telling me, ‘Get out of here, you don’t know what’s good for me,’ ” he said. I responded: “I can see how upset you are about this, but I wonder what it is that makes you feel so personally rejected. Is it possible that your daughter is different from you?” Drew’s first response was, “She’s my daughter and she is like me. I just know this is very important for her to do. When I was a child, I didn’t know I was making a terrible mistake. My parents should have known and pushed me to continue.”

It took a lot of talking for Drew to become aware of his many disappointments about the ways his parents had been involved in his life when he was a child. He began to consider that he might not need to protect his daughter from this disappointment. He recognized that his daughter might, like him, regret not learning the piano, but forcing her to take lessons could easily turn her away from the piano. He realized that her experience and development was and will be different from his and she is a different person with her own thoughts and feelings. After all, she has different parents than he did. The more Drew could understand his daughter’s need to differentiate from him, the easier it was not to feel so rejected and hurt.

When parents assert their desires for their children, it is not unusual for them to be met with expressions of different or opposing wants and needs. Pushing back against what parents want is a necessary part of a child’s development. For a healthy sense of self to grow, children need to differentiate from their parents and become unique, separate, individual selves. This doesn’t mean children are totally different from or always in opposition to their parents. It does mean children need to develop minds of their own. Having one’s own mind is about being able to think about your needs and wants without being overly influenced by others. Ideally, the wishes of others are considered, but ultimately one makes his or her own life choices. Obviously, the degree of autonomy for a 4-year-old differs from that of a 13-year-old and again for a 20-year-old. When children are not given the space to differentiate from their parents and don’t develop a self that is confident and strong, they will not have developed the autonomy to make life choices and get what they want as they enter full adulthood.

At age 53, “Anne” was struggling with her teenage son, “Noah.” She came to therapy expressing feelings of anger and insult from their encounters. She explained that he fought her at every turn about anything she asked of him: cleaning his room, doing household chores, getting his college applications completed.  “I don’t believe how he treats me,” she said. “He says things like, ‘Leave me alone and mind your own business.’ Is that any way to speak to your mother? I feel so hurt and insulted. Doesn’t he know I only want what’s best for him?” In great distress, Anne added, “He has become a terrible person. He is so mean and inconsiderate. He seems like a completely different person than the son I felt loved me a year ago.”

As we talked, Anne described how when she was growing up she never went against her parents. When we explored her past and present relationships, Anne began to wonder if her early experiences being compliant are related to her difficulty asserting herself as an adult. She described how difficult it is for her to disagree with her husband and how she doesn’t always feel so good about herself. She realized that it wasn’t just with her son that she felt so badly treated. “I guess I don’t feel very powerful,” she said. “I have a lot of trouble believing that what I think and feel is OK. I always followed the rules with my parents. Maybe I didn’t develop what Noah needs to do—be someone who feels OK asserting himself when there is opposition.” Many parents with teenagers experience difficult feelings in their parent-teenager relationships. For Anne, the feelings of insult and rejection were intolerable. Even worse for her was the terrible shame she felt about her negative feelings toward her son: “I’m the terrible person. Mothers shouldn’t feel this way.”

How to handle this kind of situation with teenagers is controversial. Furthermore, how any parent hears what a child says is open to interpretation and may be related to how the parent differentiated from his or her own parents. While Anne felt insulted and hurt, another parent in these circumstances might shrug and think, “When will these awful teenage years pass?” On one end of the continuum of parental response, parents might believe that a child of any age should never be permitted to say anything that is hurtful, disrespectful, or angry to a parent. At the other end of the response continuum, parents might accept any expression their child makes without intervening. An extreme example might be if a teenager said, “You’re an awful parent, you have no business having children,” and a parent made no protest about being treated that way. On this far end of the continuum, the lack of a parental response to push against doesn’t provide the child with the feeling that there is a strong parental self to separate from. If there is no other out there to individuate from, it becomes difficult for a child to develop a sense of who he or she is and the ability to be autonomous. The child is left wondering, “Who am I?” Potentially more problematic, the child may be left with a feeling of powerlessness. He or she has not been given the experience of successfully asserting his or her developing self in the world.

There is a lot of room along this continuum for parents to develop responses that feel comfortable to them while allowing some room for their children to develop their unique selves. It helps if parents let their children know what behaviors are acceptable. For instance, telling a child, “You can’t talk to me that way” is not the same as saying, “You can’t be angry at me,” or “You are hurting my feelings.”

When children respond to parents in disappointing or unacceptable ways, it is important that parents stop and consider how they will meet that response. Each situation requires thought. Sometimes, interfering with the child’s wishes or experiences provides an opportunity for the child to push back against the parent and feel a sense of his or her developing self. At other times, supporting the child’s differentiation provides the child with a sense of confidence and recognition of his or her developing self. No matter the age of the child, parents who are curious and interested in why there is disparity or opposition are communicating their openness to more than one way of behaving and/or feeling. This openness to difference helps children develop into self-confident, autonomous adults. Moreover, parents are less likely to repeat the dynamics of their own childhoods if they consider their children’s behavior from a developmental perspective. They will be in a better position to not take things so personally and will feel less hurt, insulted, or disrespected by their children.

“Shy is the most terrible feeling that you can get.”

“Shyness is a habit that began when someone was afraid to talk and didn’t know what to do. Sometimes shyness can make us seem boring.”

“If I say the wrong thing, I shy to say something again.”

“I am shy because I’m afraid that people will laugh at me. If someone laughs at me, I will feel afraid, shy and I think I did something wrong.” (Other fears are “teasing and whispering.)

“I hope I can get rid of shy, but it’s really hard.”

“I want to be less shy because I don’t want always to be a shy girl, and I want to be a good, smart, and brave girl.”

These words come from the students in my sixth grade English-as-a-second-language classroom in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. We were talking about “shy” because all of them worry about being laughed at or being wrong or not good enough. One student covers his mouth when he can’t think of what to say or is too shy to say it. Another student speaks so softly that I we have to read her lips to understand. Over the semester the things that seem to help the most are: “Would you like us to come back to you?” “Would you like a little help?” “Maybe you could write it for me,” saying in a playful, singsong voice, “Just a little bit louder and a little bit slower.” Sometimes I say, “Did you understand?” If the others shake their heads, I ask, “Would you like to?” When they nod yes, I say, “So could you say it again, please?”

Still, after some months their shyness was still interfering with speaking and learning. I knew that what they were thinking and feeling was so much greater than what they could say aloud. As the above sentences show, their writing was more revealing than their words. However, one of our major class goals is to increase confidence and fluency in speaking English.

One day, the other sixth grade teacher unexpectedly had to leave, so class expanded to 12 students. We began with the “yes, and” game in which one person begins a story and then turns to the student next to him who says, “yes, and” and then continues the story. When a student was shy and couldn’t think what to say, the other students laughed. It seemed like “release of anxiety laugh” rather than a mean laugh, but it was laughter—just what these students are most afraid of. We finished the first round of the story.

“So, some of you felt shy.” (Heads nod.) “In class Six A, we have talked about when you are shy you are most afraid of being laughed at, right?” (Heads nod again.) “So how many of you felt shy?” (Most hands go up.) “How many of you are afraid of being laughed at?” (Most hands.) “How many of you laughed?” (Most hands.) “What kind of laughter was it?” “Just teasing, not mean,” answered one student as the others nodded. “So, let’s try an experiment. In the next story, let’s make an agreement that no one will laugh. Okay?” To my amazement, during the next round of a new story, some of the students were slow, but all spoke, we heard all of them, and no one laughed. (Two students did begin to laugh out of habit but caught themselves and stopped.) “So, what did you notice?” “We didn’t laugh.” “Right.” “What else did you notice?” “We hear everyone.” “Yes. So, it seems that when you are not afraid of being laughed at, you don’t feel and act so shy.” They nod.

In our next class, we talked some more. “What are you imagining that the others are thinking when they are laughing at you?” “You’re not good enough. You’re a fool. You’re bad.” “No wonder you don’t want to talk,” I said. “How scary. So, when you’re laughing, what are you thinking?” “Not mean things, Bu.” One brave student said, “I’m laughing because I’m glad it’s not me.” Another said, “I’m laughing to be friendly because the silence feels bad.” Another brave student: “Sometimes I am thinking they are not smart, but even if I’m thinking that, I don’t have to laugh.”

“So, let’s make a picture of this. Action 1: You are feeling shy and are having a hard time speaking. Step 2: Others laugh. Step 3: You think they are thinking one of these things:

(Here we listed all their thoughts and then rated them in this order. ‘I’m not good enough.’ (All the students named this one.) ‘I’m bad. I’m a fool. They hate me. I’m wrong.’ Step 4: You feel even more shy. Step 5: Others laugh . . . . So, it just goes on and on, maybe even getting worse. Does that seem right?” (Heads nod.)

Interestingly, in Indonesian, the word shy (malu) is also a word for shame. And, indeed, shy and shame feel like cousins to me. Cousins with a big difference. Shy is a normal feeling and results in behavior that can be changed. Shame is an intense and irreparable feeling of core inadequacy, badness, or unworthiness; one is forever doomed. The impact of shame is secrecy, disconnection, and an inability to assess reality. Shame: I AM not good enough. I AM unlikeable. I AM a fool. I AM a mistake. Shy: I don’t feel good enough. I feel disliked. I feel like a fool. I made a mistake.

I explained this difference to the students and we talked about how most of the time they are making up what the others are thinking and it is not at all true. “Oh, I understand. Yes, I’m making it up.” We translated the shame ideas to shy ideas. I AM not a good enough person became I’m feeling not good enough right now. I AM bad became I’m feeling bad right now. I AM a fool became I’m feeling foolish. They hate me became sometimes I don’t feel like people like me. I AM wrong became I made a mistake. They tried out feeling what the difference was between the sentences on each side of the big sheet of paper. Then I whispered in each student’s ear: “You’re good enough even when you feel shy.” Each one shyly smiled.

Back to writing. “Please write about shy again.”

“I’m not shy when I really know about the other person.”

“If I get shy or say the wrong thing, I want my friends are not laughing at me, but they can help me.”

“Stop caring too much about what the other people thinks about you.”

“The best way to not be shy is to be brave and try to do that thing even if you are shy.”

“I’m not shy when someone make me confident.”

“When I’m not shy, I feel like a hero because I’m brave.”

This was a heroic topic for this group of students to explore. During the next week, we tried a few things that I found on the internet to help with shyness. For example, appreciating yourself, breathing from your belly, moving your body, imagining yourself as confident and happy, getting more comfortable with making mistakes, remembering that everyone feels shy sometimes, noticing and writing down your successes.

Now, at the end of the semester, all the students except one, by their own assessment, feel more fluent and confident speaking in English. All of them still are slow to speak in English sometimes. They’re still afraid of not doing well enough sometimes. But they know the difference between, “I don’t feel good enough right now and I’M NOT GOOD ENOUGH and the difference between, “I made a mistake, and I AM A MISTAKE.”

Shame, the cousin of shyness, is a right use of power issue because the feeling is so intense and feels so irreparable that it disconnects people from relationships, disempowers them, and removes their ability to assess reality. When activated by shame, people are out of relationship with others. When out of relationship with others, and unable to assess reality, people misuse their personal and positional power in ways that harm themselves or those around them or in their care. Understanding the dynamic of shame and helping yourself and others disengage from it are high priorities for using power wisely and well.

Related articles:
Shame as an Ethics Issue – Part III
Don’t Underestimate Me: Ethical Use of Power for and With Children
Excessive Impression Management and Interference With Identity

If you haven’t read the novel yet, you might be 50 shades of curious about why Fifty Shades of Grey is the most-talked-about tale in print currently.

A quick search will reveal that the romance between the main characters, Mr. Grey and Miss Steele, revolves around bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, and masochism (BDSM). In fact, Christian Grey appears to really only get satisfaction from sex when it involves inflicting pain or dominance over his partner, which, following criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV-TR) used by mental health professionals to make diagnoses, could be considered a mental disorder called sexual sadism.

[fat_widget_sex_right]

The DSM IV-TR states that “sexual sadism involves acts (real, not simulated) in which the individual derives sexual excitement from the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim.” In order to officially be diagnosed with sexual sadism, individuals must meet the following criteria:

1)    “Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person.”
2)    “The person has acted on these sexual urges with a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.”

In the first novel of the series, Christian Grey appears to engage in sexual sadism only with consenting participants (like Anastasia Steele, the main female character), but he openly admits to being abused (including sexual abuse) as a child and teenager and appears to be at least somewhat distressed by the fact that it’s difficult for him to have a “normal” relationship. He even explains to the character Anastasia Steele at one point that this is just the way he is, almost with sorrow. And although he does have “normal” or “vanilla” sex with Anastasia, he makes it obvious that he prefers sex that involves pain and pleasure at the same time, always with him dominating.

Anastasia also admits to herself that there is something unusual about Christian and his sexual preferences, but she lets her desire for him take over, and she hopes that she can make him want a “normal” relationship with her. She herself has issues with low self-esteem and confidence, which is perhaps why she is so drawn to the seemingly overly confident Christian. Both characters appear to function as well as the average person in their fictional world, but both have issues that could potentially need to be addressed by a professional if they lived in the real world.

So it appears that one of the main characters of Fifty Shades of Grey may have a diagnosable disorder related to sexuality, or at least has abnormal sexual preferences and a traumatic past that hasn’t been resolved yet. He has major difficulties maintaining any lasting romantic relationship, and yet the relationship between Christian and Anastasia seems to have been received in a somewhat positive light, considering the large following of readers.

The Experts Weigh In
Several mental health experts have offered their insight into the unusual relationship found in Fifty Shades of Grey (and the two other novels in the series). Reef Karim, a board-certified psychiatrist, the founder and medical director of the Control Center for Addictions, and author of Why Does He Do That? Why Does She Do That? and host of the new show Broken Minds on the Discovery channel, said that the novel is definitely making people think about normal and abnormal sexuality and possibly changing some people’s minds.

He said in an e-mail that the main question people are wondering is, “What is normal and abnormal sexual behavior, and when is aberrant sexual experimentation and behavior considered a mental health diagnosis?” “The really interesting part of psychiatric diagnoses is that many are based on a behavioral spectrum where the interruption of an individual’s social, relational, occupational, and functional life is a key factor in making the diagnosis,” Karim said. “This book has become a literary piece of pop culture that is challenging many to review their thoughts on normative and ‘out of the box’ sexual behaviors.”

He said that there could be concerns about a link between sadomasochism (S&M) and childhood abuse as well, since that is mentioned in the novel. “There is definitely a connection, but many people with no psychiatric or psychological history report enjoying BDSM primarily as a novel and alternative way to connect with each other,” Karim said.

Despite (or because of) the unusual relationship involving pain and pleasure (and emotional issues), many women appear to be captivated by the novels. Karim suggests this is because women enjoy having sexual fantasies, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they want the type of relationship found in the novel to become more than a fantasy. If anything, women might be more prone to sexually experiment during or after reading the novels.

However, he doesn’t think the novel is capable of completely changing sexual norms, so sexual sadism and sexual masochism will most likely still be considered mental disorders according to the DSM in the future. “I believe the novel opens up the conversation of BDSM, kink and sexual norms, but it’s much more in the curiosity range than actually changing research-driven professional medicine,” Karim said. “Expecting an increase in sex shop purchases is different than changing a clinical manual.”

Karim explains further why the novel is so appealing to women (and men), even with the dysfunctional (and sometimes even depressing) personalities of the characters. “In regards to sexual research, many women fantasize about submission, and many men fantasize about dominance,” he said. “Even though men and women are more equal than ever in regards to occupation and finances, we are still very different sexes, and definitive gender and role-based fantasies do exist,” he added. “Many people in our society have hidden (or not so hidden) fantasies involving kink, S&M, or altered sexual behavior. 50 Shades of Grey has opened up the conversation of previously hidden sexual desires and fantasies of many women.”

He said the novel could help couples become more creative in their sex lives, but going to any extremes is generally not beneficial. “The introduction of BDSM can add to a couple’s sexual tool box, but occasionally it can get out of control,” Karim said. “When extreme behavior leaves the bedroom or involves extremes in the bedroom, it can negatively impact the relationship. I’ve treated couples who use BDSM as a novel, fun experience in a healthy and intimate way, and I’ve treated other couples or individuals who became obsessed with the act or re-created a previous abuse history with a lot of painful markings.”

Overall, the BDSM series is encouraging men and women to discuss sexuality more openly with each other. “The book mentions childhood abuse and difficulties with self-esteem that contribute to the psychological make-up of these characters, but it has also found a way to tap into the S&M lifestyle curiosity shared by many men and women,” Karim said. “It may actually normalize the behavior, when done in moderation, as not something strange but perhaps just another form of sexual expression. Life isn’t always black and white; sometimes it’s fun to live with a little grey.”

Kari Tabag, a licensed clinical social worker, works with adolescents and college-age men and women and has read the series. She said the novel has passages that hint at mental health issues like posttraumatic stress, codependency, BDSM, and alcoholism.

Although she agrees that the novel can improve people’s sex lives through fantasy, role play, and experimentation, the sexual expectations people might have after reading the series might be set too high, leading to disappointment. Also, she emphasizes that the actual relationship depicted in the series is very unhealthy in many ways. “Christian and Anastasia’s relationship is not a healthy one. They are codependent and are too enmeshed with each other,” Tabag said. “A lot of women are codependent and are what I call ‘daddy hungry.’ This novel depicts two people who have abandonment along with trust issues.”
There are even more unhealthy aspects of the fictional relationship, according to Tabag:

• When Anastasia finds out that Christian only dates women with brown hair, it is a dead giveaway of his childhood abuse and abandonment. In fact, Anastasia refers to him as her “boy,” which is not healthy.
• Anastasia repeatedly feels that she is not worthy of Christian and vice versa.
• Christian is obsessed with Anastasia and even follows her to another state when she visits with her mother.
• They both are looking for someone to take care of rather than focusing on healing themselves. A healthier relationship involves two people who have their own separate, independent personas, making them well-established, well-rounded, self-reliant individuals.
• Christian wants Anastasia to give in to him and give up all control, and he lavishes her with gifts as a reward.

Although the relationship in the novel is not healthy, BDSM is not necessarily as terrible as it’s made out to be. Tabag suggests our society is not necessarily mature when it comes to accepting and understanding sexual preferences outside of ‘man on top.’”

Viewpoint From a Submissive
Kasi Alexander, the author of several books and short stories about alternative lifestyles, such as Becoming Sage and Saving Sunni, has herself been involved in the lifestyles of polyamory, BDSM, and power exchange. She currently identifies herself as a “slave,” and the partner in her polyamorous relationship is the “master”; she could also be referred to as a submissive. She said in an email that the relationship between Christian and Anastasia is not necessarily a model of the typical BDSM or power exchange relationship. The characters themselves are also not typical. For example, Christian Grey was abused as a child and became involved in BDSM at 15, and he now avoids “vanilla” sex and relationships.

“Very few people in the lifestyle immerse themselves so deeply that they have no desire for a relationship outside the parameters of power exchange,” Alexander said. “The ones who do are using the lifestyle to mask other personality defects, not the other way around. Accepting your dominant or submissive tendencies does not kill the desire for intimacy, closeness, or connection.” Also, the character of Anastasia Steele is low in self-esteem, self-worth, and confidence, which is not usual for submissives, Alexander said.

“Many people assume that submissives give up all responsibility for themselves, are doormats that cannot stand up for themselves, and so are taken advantage of by predatory dominants,” Alexander said. “That couldn’t be further from the truth. Submissives are stereotypically extremely strong, capable people. Many of them crave submission as a way to temporarily escape the huge responsibilities they take on in their “vanilla” lives.”

Alexander adds that the BDSM lifestyle can even be considered therapeutic in different ways. “In my own relationship, we have used our power exchange to work on my self-image and body issues, increase my self-confidence, and achieve many goals, including writing and publishing three books (so far),” she said. “Other kinky people that we know use sensation play as therapy or catharsis to work through feelings of inadequacy, childhood abuse issues, and various kinds of mental health issues.”

The BDSM element of 50 Shades of Grey just takes the typical romance/erotic novel a little further. “Women have a genetic inclination toward alpha males, so we love our fictional heroes to be large, powerful, and a little scary—someone who has the ability to hurt us but doesn’t,” Alexander said. “And almost all BDSM play is based on the intensification of physical experiences. So the fantasy of the physical ‘danger’ (intensity of experience) goes along with the mental domination of having a strong alpha male taking over your life. It’s erotic, even if it’s not what we want in our actual day-to-day lives.”

She said BDSM and power exchange have the potential to make relationships more sexually fulfilling, but just like in any relationships, it’s a matter of communicating wants and desires. And just like in other bad relationships, abuse and manipulation can happen, but that is a matter of individual personalities and relationships, not a characteristic of BDSM as a whole. She said it’s important to make a distinction between mental conditions and different sexual preferences and alternative lifestyles. “The most important aspect of the mental disorder consideration is the difference between true sadism and kinky sadism,” Alexander said. “A vast majority of ‘sadists’ in the BDSM community derive no pleasure from inflicting pain unless the recipient is enjoying the experience, whereas a true sadist is not concerned with the benefit of the other person.”

She believes that people will eventually become more accepting of these types of lifestyles and realize that they can be beneficial to people who can learn how to make them work.

“More education is needed to show people that polyamory is not cheating, BDSM is not abuse, and power exchange is not manipulation,” Alexander said. “The important thing to keep in mind is the benefit for the people involved. BDSM and power exchange can be done badly and for the wrong reasons, but they can also be used for personal, professional, and spiritual growth and for the enhancement of relationships.”

Related articles:
What Do Your Sexual Fantasies Mean?
The Good and Bad Sides of Porn
Exploring Alternative Lifestyles in Your Relationship

This years 2012 contenders in the GOP election process are presenting themselves as devoutly religious people. But what lies within these candidates beneath their religious presentation? Often in life we don’t get to see what lies beneath a person’s “good self” presentation, also called a mask. We don’t get to find out if that person really is religious, kind, caring, or not. The discrepancy is often hidden.

How does this occur? Children responding to trauma or abuse experience mean-spiritedness and destructiveness. It may even start out as simple anger, but anger that gets buried or distorted and twisted into something destructive. Many of us know not to act it out, for fear that we will be punished, made bad, abandoned. So, instead, we create a mask self to hide our destructive self. And we hold onto our mask for dear life, defending against discovery. In the meantime, our buried mean-spiritedness does have an effect on us and those around us, if only unconsciously.

Eventually, though, what we’ve hidden beneath our mask does manage to find its way into the open. It may slip through the mask in words we mean, but didn’t mean to say; in actions we’d like to take, but didn’t mean to act out; in actions we don’t take, but want to.

Lately many masks have been falling off—and the abuses of power and other dangers beneath the masks have been revealed. Numerous government leaders, corporate executives, and others have been exposed or have exposed themselves for their abuses of power: some sexual (Anthony Weiner); some financial (Bernie Madoff); some legal (Idaho Senate Republican Caucus Chairman John McGee, arrested June 2011 for DUI and vehicle theft); some ethical (Michael Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray); and some spiritual (among evangelical leaders, Richard Roberts, son of Oral Roberts, arrested January 2012 for DUI; among yogic leaders, Gurudev of Kripalu, who required celibacy of unmarried students while at the same time having sexual relations with some of his students; and among New Age leader, James A. Ray, who misused the Native American sweat lodge, causing several people to die, then fleeing the scene).

But it is a rare thing in a presidential election for candidates to tout their religious connection and the next day, or even the next sentence, to expose their mean-spirited, destructive side.

One candidate presents himself as a religious man, but creates ads that are lies, isn’t concerned about the poor, makes $10,000 bets in the middle of a debate, runs a very ugly, negative campaign in Florida, and repeatedly says he misspoke—things that he actually meant and came through his mask.

Another contender, claiming to be a reformed religious person, forgiven for his sins, revealed how arrogant, grandiose, and dishonest he is, not to mention unfaithful to two wives.

A third candidate, a state governor of, actively used his religious beliefs both as a basis for his policy and in his campaign ads and debates; but in his eyes his religious beliefs provide justification for imposing his will and his religion’s will upon the state and the nation. His state executes more prisoners than any other state in our nation, while he claims to be pro-life; makes it legally mandatory for girls to receive a vaccine even if their parents object; and makes it compulsory for any woman seeking an abortion to be given a vaginal ultrasound—even if it’s against her will and her doctor’s will.

Yet another challenger would like to use whether or not an individual follows “God’s law,” as the candidate defines it, to determine who can claim equality under the law; he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money”; he claims the right to privacy doesn’t exist in the constitution; and he maintains it’s dangerous to use contraception in this country.

And still another contender quotes the golden rule, but only for foreign policy, not regarding race relations at home, and it turns out he’s revealed himself as racist.

What used to be hidden beneath the mask, especially the mask of “religiousness,” is coming out into awareness in the election process these days. But, most religious and spiritual traditions don’t teach about this truth, at least as far as common knowledge reveals: Identifying with our spiritual self cannot safely occur without also identifying and resolving the destructive aspects of ourselves (even if we don’t act them out). Since this is not taught, most of us don’t know what we’re seeing and experiencing. Most of us don’t realize that we’re witnessing the religious/spiritual mask falling off and the destructive, mean-spirited aspects of people coming out into the open from beneath it.

It may be coming out blatantly, obviously, and undeniably. It may be coming out vicariously, or second-hand. Like the people who cheered, “Yeah!” when a candidate was asked if he was saying society should just let an uninsured man die.

What lives within us beneath our mask is coming out, allowing us to see it, know it, and utilize what we see to help heal it. First, in our individual candidates and leaders, by our insisting that they do their own work with their destructiveness before they can run for office and lead us. Second, in our society and our world, by seeing it, naming it, talking about it, and not settling for it. And third, but probably the most important,  in ourselves. We need to see beneath our own masks, what is destructive and mean-spirited in ourselves, however hidden it may be. We need to commit to and actively work to heal those parts of ourselves, for the sake of the life within us, for the sake of the life immediately around us, and for the sake of the life all over our world.

Do you remember your first bully—the girl who called you fat, mocked your choice in clothes, or spread false rumors about you? Of course you do. It’s like a first kiss, a first drink, the first time you drove a car. Only this is a memory you wish you could forget. You may not recall her exact words, but you remember the girl, the time, the place. Did you ever wonder why she did it, what provoked her meanness, how she got to wield so much power?

Bullying is an intentional act of aggression in which the perpetrator belittles, controls, intimidates or harms another person. Attacks are often unprovoked, and exploit an individual’s vulnerabilities or weakness. Although male bullying is typically straightforward, often involving physical aggression or blatantly hostile taunts, female bullying may be more subtle, and therefore, harder to detect. For girls, bullying can be a means of gaining popularity, jockeying for power among peers, or asserting control. Since it is more covert, teachers and parents may overlook clues, or assume the behavior is just a normal part of social interactions.

Some forms that bullying can take include:

• Deliberate exclusion, alienation, or ostracism of a peer for no apparent reason
• Verbal attacks, such as spreading rumors or lies by word of mouth or on the internet
• Making prank phone calls, or sending harassing e-mails or text messages
• Overt forms of aggression, such as stealing, making threats, or name-calling
• Covert forms of derision or humiliation, such as giggling or whispering about the victim when she is nearby, eye-rolling, being friendly one day and ignoring her the next
• Encouraging other girls to act out against, ignore, humiliate or pick on another child

So, why do girls resort to bullying? Reasons vary, but usually include a need for control, attention, and approval, or an outlet for anger. Girls who bully may appear threatening and commit hurtful acts, but they often harbor underlying insecurities that fuel their behaviors. Some feel lonely, inadequate, and fearful, and bully to feel powerful or hide their insecurity. Some attack first before they are attacked by others. Some are angry about problems at home and lash out at peers. Occasionally, girls who bully learn these behaviors at home due to family members who are abusive or because of a hostile neighborhood environment. Popularity is no safeguard, since often the girls who bully are those who seem to have it all. Frequently, the pretty, popular, athletic girls are the ringleaders who foster a culture of bullying, even though they may have already acquired power in the social hierarchies of their schools.

The process of bullying can develop slowly over time. Girls who are popular and charismatic may attract others into their circle of friends and make them feel special. They may then try to control these girls, expect favors, or demand that the new girls bully others as well. By controlling a group of peers, bullies achieve power in numbers and go on to terrorize teens they believe are a threat. Individual victims can be targeted at random, but are often selected because of jealousy, noticeable differences, refusal to conform to the group, or a weakness that can be exploited. Bullying also can be sparked by a sudden turn of events in a friendship, where the bully feels threatened and angry, and decides that she must retaliate.

While punches are not thrown, bullying can leave a devastating mark on its victim and engender long-lasting pain and suffering. Girls are particularly vulnerable because of how much they value friendships. Victims can become depressed, anxious, insecure, and feel they are to blame. Obsessive preoccupation with perceived flaws, physical appearance, conformity, and adhering to the bully’s rules of conduct can follow. Conversely, some girls who are bullied become isolated, withdrawn, and even drop out of school. In rare instances, victims can become so depressed and hopeless that they consider suicide as their only option.

Victims often remain silent due to embarrassment, self-blame, or fear of retaliation, so incidents of bullying may go unnoticed. Investigate whether bullying is occurring if your loved one, friend, or student is showing any of the following signs: mood swings, sudden withdrawal from friends, refusal to attend school or social events, sleep problems, academic difficulties, physical complaints, weight loss or gain, or frequent crying.

If you suspect that someone you know is being bullied, it is important to offer support. Reassure the victim that the bullying will end eventually, and that you will help her identify strategies for addressing the problem. One size does not fit all, so a variety of strategies and interventions should be considered depending on the specific situation. Useful websites with anti-bullying tips are listed below. Sometimes getting advice from a therapist or guidance counselor can help. Girls who bully also benefit from counseling, where they can learn to take responsibility for their behaviors and identify appropriate outlets for their anger and need for control.

Prevention is essential, and needs to come from both the family and community. Parents need to discuss bullying with their children, even before it occurs. Teaching girls how to respond to potentially difficult situations, before a problem develops, is critical. Helping young girls improve their self-esteem by developing strong academic, athletic or extracurricular interests, and finding friends who share similar interests (so that social standing is not as critical), may minimize their vulnerability to falling victim. Schools should offer anti-bullying initiatives, including training for staff, programs for students, and counseling services when necessary. When parents, schools, and the community promote an environment where bullying is unacceptable, perhaps fewer girls (and boys) will have to encounter that first bully.

Anti-Bullying Resources and Information:

• American Psychological Association
• GirlsHealth.gov
• KidsHealth.org
• StopBullying.gov

Being the target of bullying can cause a child to internalize and experience a decrease in self-worth. Many children who are victims of bullying become isolated and withdrawn, and often have a limited social circle of friends. “Because many of the correlates and predictors of peer victimization are common in children with ADHD, it is not surprising that children with ADHD are at elevated risk for peer victimization,” said Stephanie L. Cardoos of the Department of Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. “Although more is known about risk factors for victimization than about protective factors, one well-established protective factor for those at risk of victimization is friendship.” Cardoos and her colleague Stephen P. Hinshaw recently conducted a study to determine what affect friendship would have on bullying. “The overall purpose is to understand factors that may both predict and protect  against peer victimization in girls with ADHD, with a particular focus on friendship as a protective factor,” said Cardoos.

The researchers examined data from 228 girls between the ages of 6 and 12, half of whom had ADHD. The girls were evaluated by counselors at several points during a five week summer camp program and the girls listed who they considered to be their friends and which girls they did and did not like. The team found that all of the girls who were bullied exhibited similar symptoms, regardless of whether they had ADHD or not. “Our core finding was that the presence of a mutual friendship moderated the association between each behavioral risk factor and victimization, such that the presence of at least one friend reduced risk of victimization,” said Cardoos. “The current findings suggest that even for those who may be at elevated risk for deleterious peer effects, such as girls with ADHD, peers can play an important protective role.” She added, “If friends protect by intervening directly in challenging peer situations, it will be important for at-risk children to develop a friend in their natural peer group. In contrast, if friends are most important in increasing self-esteem, interventions outside of the natural peer group may be equally protective.”

Reference:
Cardoos, Stephanie L., and Stephen P. Hinshaw. “Friendship as Protection from Peer Victimization for Girls with and without ADHD.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 39.3 (2011): 1035-045. Print.

If Hollywood is an indicator of our most common fantasies, modern Americans want to sleep with their therapists. I am horrified that so many television shows and movies depict romantic relationships between therapists and clients as though they were perfectly normal! The truth is, romance within a therapeutic relationship is as far from normal, acceptable, healthy, and sane as you can possibly get.

The writers of How I Met Your Mother currently have the character Robin dating her previous therapist. The relationship has been rationalized through a series of cutesy excuses: “Well, we only had a handful of therapy sessions … it hardly counted!” and, “Well, if we have a session where the previous client now becomes the therapist, it will all balance out!” ICK!  In no way, shape, or form is dating a current or previous therapist healthy, ethical, or socially acceptable.

In California, there is a legal clause that states that a personal relationship between a previous therapist and client may be pursued two years after the termination of services. However, research tells us that the power imbalance remains strong, even after time has passed, and that romance in this situation is usually still emotionally damaging to the one who was the client. Hormones, brain chemistry, and emotional issues often inadvertently conspire to lead us toward unhealthy romantic choices, which is why therapists are clearly instructed that “Professional Therapy Never Includes Sex” (this is the name of a pamphlet that every single therapist-in-training in California receives on several occasions). Although specifics vary from state to state, 19 states have sexual exploitation laws forbidding therapists from engaging in sexual contact with clients.

Even though in the movie 50/50, Joseph Gordon-Levitt appears to find care, comfort, and I-don’t-know-what-else in the arms of his intern therapist (I don’t know because I walked out of the movie), your therapist is neither your caretaker nor your best friend. Your therapist can help you develop the skills you need to go out and make friends and find someone to help you through the difficulties of life. But if your therapist tries to convince you that his or her role is to love and protect you, run away! That is NOT appropriate therapy! And if he or she makes any sexually suggestive advances (verbal or physical), you know you are not working with an ethical therapist.

Extensive worldwide research and anecdotal evidence dating back to the origins of formalized therapy indicate that romantic relationships between therapists and their clients, regardless of which role is the initiator, are criminally damaging to the client in the majority of situations. The client is typically left with extreme emotional disruption, feelings of emptiness, isolation and guilt, and a tragically impaired ability to trust.

Certainly the therapeutic relationship is a unique situation wherein two human beings share space in a room while playing particular roles that ask them to maintain strict discipline of their human instincts, but to share the greatest level of openness and honesty imaginable. When deconstructed, the therapeutic hour shows itself to be a very bizarre social construct that is quite challenging to enact in a productive and healthy way. When properly delivered, the benefits of appropriate psychotherapy can be powerfully life-changing. However, there are many ways to get off track throughout the process, which is why therapists need to be well-trained, licensed, ethically and emotionally stable, grounded in common sense, and masters of self-discipline and self-care.

The boundaries around the therapeutic relationship are essential to the success and integrity of our profession, and I find it inexcusable for our entertainment industry to treat the subject matter so lightly and irresponsibly. We know that the mass public derives their sense of “normal” and desirable from the information presented on the screens in front of them. If this were an isolated incident of poor judgment, I could write it off as such. But the theme has become so ubiquitous as to appear in highly rated productions reaching tens of millions impressionable minds worldwide.

I started enjoying the recently cancelled sitcom, Free Agents, until the female character’s therapist asked her out during a session and they started dating. What? After a few therapy sessions, in which he did nothing of therapeutic value, he declared her problem-free and decided to hit on her. My concern is that the writers of these shows may actually be typical, regular people who truly believe that relationships with therapists are normal. If this storyline is depicted in other regular people’s everyday media consumption, a very serious misconception about the purpose and practice of psychotherapy may occur.

Of course, romantic, sexual, and loving feelings can arise between two people who sit close together and speak of personal and intimate issues on a regular basis. A well-trained and ethical therapist will seek professional consultation if romantic or lustful feelings arise and will follow wise counsel as to the most ethical way to proceed. Often these feelings can be worked through and resolved without any negative effect on the therapy. If the feelings persist, the responsible and legitimate therapist will control his or her impulses and refer the client to another professional. With the help of an esteemed consultant, they can determine how best to implement the transition with the client.

The therapist portrayed by Gabriel Byrne in In Treatment struggled with sexual feelings toward a client in the first season of the series. I have not seen these episodes, but I know the series is highly revered and often seen by the general public as an accurate representation of therapy. It was very disheartening for me to hear that this character acted on his sexual impulses, even though he apparently understood the harm that physical intimacy could do to his client. I think these representations are misguided and ill-advised, as they imply that the psychotherapeutic setting is always imbued with sexual energy and tension.

It is not uncommon for strong feelings to arise in a psychotherapy client. For many schools of thought, this is actually an important part of the therapeutic process. However, if the feelings become strong enough to breach the integrity of the therapy, they must be addressed. In the healthiest of situations, the client would admit these feelings to the therapist—the best therapeutic alliances are built on trust and acceptance, communicating to the client that no judgment or disgust will befall them in that room, under any circumstances. If a client shares the feelings he or she is having, the issue can be discussed openly and often can be resolved, bringing greater insight and personal power to the client. If the feelings cannot be redirected and resolved, it is best to help the client find a new therapist to continue the growth work in a nonsexualized setting.

Looking at current blog posts, I see many people justifying their seductions, romances, and friendships with their therapists. Most of these bloggers are writing at the beginning of their relationships and seem not to believe that they may not get a Hollywood ending. I am very concerned that media representations of our profession are casting a skewed and uninformed light on this very complex issue. The general public is clearly buying into the idea that dating their therapists may be legitimate.

Perhaps we therapists can take this challenge as an opportunity for greater enlightenment and education with our clients. It will keep us on our toes (even more) so that we may identify and address misplaced emotional feelings that arise in therapy. This aspect of the profession is difficult enough without added pressures from the mass media. However, our awareness of the issue can serve to reinforce our ethical stance and prepare us for any type of challenge that may walk through our consultation door.

Steroid use is believed to cause rage, commonly referred to as “Roid Rage.” But a new study suggests that the anger resulting from increased levels of testosterone may actually merely be a means to an end. “The link between aggression and testosterone has sparked the interest of many kinds of people, from a fan wondering whether anabolic steroids might be responsible for his favorite athlete’s wild antics to the scientist hypothesizing about the biological processes involved in violence,” said Carly K. Peterson and Eddie Harmon-Jones, researchers from Texas A&M University and authors of the study. “Instead, researchers now believe that testosterone plays a role in a broader picture involving power and dominance as opposed to aggression per se. That is, testosterone may facilitate behaviors aimed at obtaining and maintaining power and dominance. It is possible testosterone relates to aggression only because aggression can be one of many ways that people attempt to exert control over others.”

The researchers enlisted 43 students for their study and took saliva samples at the beginning of the study to measure cortisol and testosterone levels. The students were given a neutral activity for 5 minutes, followed by a stressful, competitive virtual game. They were led to believe they were competing with other people and the game was designed so that the students were included during the play for half of the game, and completely ostracized for the other half, causing them to experience heightened emotional arousal. At the end of the game, the students measured their emotions. Within fifteen minutes of the game ending, the team collected a second saliva sample. The results revealed that anger was the only emotion that was linked to increases in testosterone. The team believes that the participants needed to be included and dominate the game as a result of higher levels of testosterone. They added, “Although we believe that a motivation to regain control may assist in explaining the observed correlation between self-reported anger and testosterone, future research is necessary to elucidate the precise mechanisms underlying the link between anger and testosterone.”

Reference:
Peterson, C. K., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2011, September 12). Anger and Testosterone: Evidence That Situationally-Induced Anger Relates to Situationally-Induced Testosterone. Emotion. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0025300

It’s a classic. Of all the themes in the history of relational strife, the I’m Right, You’re Wrong story is by far the most common.

Like many things, we often take this argument for granted or overlook the magnitude of its influence. When couples enter into therapy together, it may be a hidden goal for each of them to convince their therapist that one of them is right and the other is wrong. They demonstrate this in many ways—either subtly or in more painfully blatant ways. By doing so, they hope to feel validated, and that feels good.

Being right gives you a rush of dopamine—the brain chemical associated with winning and victory. You may feel strong—even invincible. The problem with needing to be right is that if we hold it too tightly, it becomes a necessary component for feeling good in the relationship. Any time you are outsmarted, out-shouted, or out-whatever, you feel bad in the relationship. So if this is the game you’ve set up for yourself and for your partner, the relationship cannot logically thrive for both of you. When one is right, that partner is elevated to a higher power position and the other is knocked down a peg.

Effectively, this game creates division. We all want to be on the right side of the wall—not the wrong side. But that means your partner has to be on the wrong side. The more this dynamic is strengthened, the thicker that wall becomes, creating more division. You may feel nice and superior on your side of the wall, but you are drifting further and further from your partner. You become less connected, less caring, and may end up contributing less to the relationship.

[fat_widget_right]If you are convinced you are not the problem, and it is your partner that needs fixing, how does clinging to this belief affect the way you treat them or your attitude toward them? In therapy, I am never going to argue whether or not something is true. I am only interested in what works. What is it going to take for you to increase intimacy, compassion, and loving action in your relationship? I’m guessing that being right hasn’t worked so well in the past. Let’s try something different.

The first step will be to knock down that wall. After all, it isn’t made of bricks and mortar, but simply attitudes and beliefs that you alone are holding in place. How do you knock it down? Simply let go of it. Loosen your grip on it, and you will start to see it crumble. Let it go completely, and it will completely disappear.

One way to do this is to give your story a name or a title. The next time it comes up, say to yourself, “Here goes I’m Right, You’re Wrong again.” By doing this simple exercise, it creates a cognitive space between you and your thoughts about being right. It is the difference between being right and just being while having the thought about being right. It may not sound like a huge shift, but try it. You may find it makes a big enough difference that you are not compelled to react in ways that you might have when you were fused to your beliefs about being right.

Put down your weapons, and take off your armor. Nature has endowed us with the proclivity to feel protected and safe, so stripping your defenses may feel vulnerable and weird. This is the part where you have the uniquely human freedom to make an important choice. Many will take a quick look at the prospect of being unguarded and will clench their armor even more tightly. Being vulnerable means you might get hurt. But how do you expect to be intimate while swathed from head to toe in battle armor? Intimacy is best experienced naked—physically and emotionally. Vulnerability is an essential part of being open and deeply connected, and it’s a risk. There’s no other way, but once you make the choice to get naked—so to speak—the rest can be pretty fun.

Each of us has our own unique identity made up of a combination of personality traits, personal and family history, and other attributes. But what happens inside when an identity is not celebrated by a person’s community?

In Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity (1963), author Erving Goffman uses the term “spoiled identity” to refer to an identity that causes a person to experience stigma. For Goffman, “stigma” describes the experience of moving through life with an attribute that is deeply discrediting. This attribute divides people into those-who-are-normal and those-who-are-not, thereby making those-who-are-not less worthy. Spoiled identities include racial minority, ethnic minority, sexual orientation, gender, sex, and religious identities, body size, and visible and invisible disabilities. (more…)

“For years it lay in an iron box buried so deep inside me that I was never sure just what it was. I knew it carried slippery, combustible things more secret than sex and more dangerous than any shadow or ghost. … I saw things I knew no little girl should see. Blood and shattered glass. Piles of skeletons and blackened barbed wire with bits of flesh stuck to it…The iron box contained a special room for my mother and father, warm and moist as a greenhouse. They lived there inside me, rare and separate from other beings. … I knew my parents had crossed over a chasm … The box became a vault, collecting in darkness, always collecting; pictures, words, my parent’s glances, becoming loaded with weight. It sank deeper as I grew older, so packed with undigested things that finally it became impossible to ignore.”
-Helen Epstein, Children of the Holocaust

(more…)

Self-esteem is a relational term. It describes a relationship between you and yourself. Having a solid sense of esteem for yourself puts you squarely in a partnership that is nurturing and accepting, as well as motivating and energizing.

Where does this relationship with you come from? How is it determined?
The answer for most of us is that our earliest relationships in life set the tone for our inner dialogue. This is good news, because it means that we can explore the origins of low self-esteem and intentionally create new relationships that fuel a more positive view of ourselves. Our childhood does not have to be our destiny.

Let’s explore how early relationships might affect self-esteem by looking at three different ways parents discipline their children: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. Of course, parenting consists of more than just discipline, but the methods parents use to teach children right from wrong can have effects that last well into adulthood.

Let’s look at these three typical styles of discipline, and see how they’re likely to affect self-esteem.

1. Authoritarian: In this style, parents are the ultimate and only authority. They rule with an iron hand, and they are obeyed out of fear. Children who disobey the rules – which might be arbitrary or systematic, fair or unreasonable, known ahead of time or stepped on by accident – are punished. The form of punishment can vary, but punishment is the expected outcome of rule-breaking.

This style of discipline can be likened to a military dictatorship. No one gets to vote, and the law is handed down from above. Punishment is swift and merciless.

Children raised with authoritarian parents learn to obey rules, but they do not learn to listen to their intuition or pay attention their own feelings. Their thoughts, values, and opinions are treated as irrelevant by important others. So they learn to treat themselves this way over time.

As adults, children raised in authoritarian homes are likely to have a great deal of self-discipline, but little self-knowledge and generally poor self-esteem. Since their inner workings were apparently irrelevant to their caregivers, they minimize their inner lives and maximize “shoulds” in their self-talk. Such people are intimately familiar with “shoulds.”

2. Permissive: A permissive family is sort of like a country without leadership: it’s a free-for-all, and anarchy reigns. This is terrifying for children, no matter how much kids seem to want their own way. In order to feel secure, children need to know that someone bigger, stronger, and hopefully smarter than them is in charge.

When there are no guidelines or boundaries set around children’s behavior, they come to believe that they do not matter enough for parents to care what they do. They wonder how much they are loved if no one seems to notice whether they’re home at 10 p.m.

It is as natural as clouds for children to conclude that they are unworthy when parented permissively. They may conclude that if they were smarter, prettier, nicer, better in some way then maybe the parent would care. Parental structure lends identity and purpose to a household.

Children of permissive parents often grow into adults who feel lonely, alienated, and unworthy. Their self-esteem is injured by a failure of visibility. They experienced themselves as basically invisible to important others at a time when they needed help to discover who they were, and that they mattered as people.

Permissive parents may sometimes decide to set rules, but children test the boundaries and they often do not stick. As with Authoritarian parenting, the rules are apt to change at the whim of the ruler. This conveys the message that the world is a confusing and untrustworthy place.

3. Authoritative: Authoritative parents have something in common with the rulers of a democratic country. They assume responsibility for leadership, but all citizens have a vote. Children of authoritative parents know where the boundaries are, and they are free to express displeasure with the rules, even if their wishes do not always carry the day.

Authoritative parents use reasonable, age-appropriate punishment that fits the “crime.” Children know ahead of time exactly what will happen if they break the rules, and why. There’s no wondering whether or how they’ll be punished on that particular occasion.

Unexpected punishments and resulting confusion can occur within the other two styles of discipline. Though the rules are consistent and dependable, they’re also flexible enough to accommodate unusual circumstances. For example, a child gets to stay up an hour past her usual bedtime to attend an event that has special importance to her.

Children of authoritative parents enjoy a sense of security about themselves and the world in general. They are more likely to be able to trust others, as well as themselves. They experience the world as a place that makes sense, and others as generally fair and reasonable. They make choices about their behavior, understanding consequences, and develop non-neurotic self-discipline.

It is easy to see why children of authoritative parents have a leg up on others in the self-esteem department. Their objections to the rules are acknowledged and considered. And their good deeds are rewarded as often as the no-no’s are punished.

In other words, children of authoritative parents feel seen and valued for who they are. They know that they matter to important others. Therefore, they matter to themselves. This is the foundation of self-esteem.

All these styles of discipline fall along a continuum. Most parents practice some blend of these, and it is also possible to have one parent with a discipline preference that does not match the other’s.The more often parents are able to discipline with an authoritative style, the more their children will develop good habits, a sense of security, and healthy self-esteem.