Connection in Marriage

Posted on January 24, 2012 by jmdeyoung

Increasing intimacy and connection in marriage is the goal of most couples, but eludes many. There are many factors that contribute to blocking our efforts to grow closer. Disappointments, stresses, relational injuries, fears, misunderstandings, selfishness are some of the factors that distance us.

Attachment theory offers some guidelines for deepening our marital connections. At its very core, attachment theory is about the dance of closeness and distance in relationships and how the parameters of this dance promote physical and emotional safety. Marriage consists of two wounded and imperfect people attempting to provide that sense of physical and emotional safety. How can we as couples overcome our brokenness and establish deeper and more stable connections?

We must make conscious decisions to do the following three things:

We need to be Available. This means being acutely aware our our need to be consistently present in the life of our spouse. We will always have periods of absence. Our absences may be the result of external pressures (work, family demands, etc.) or an internal need for space. Regardless of the cause, we must make an effort to be physically and emotionally present for the needs of our spouse and when we are absent reassure our spouse of when we will reconnect.

We need to be Attuned. All relationships have a dance of giving and receiving signals. We know each other’s moods and we are willing to share our mood, probably the latter more than the former. Attunement suggests we make a concerted effort to be aware of our partners feelings, stresses, joys, and needs, – we are equally willing to honestly share our feelings, stresses, joys and needs. This reciprocal exchange remains relatively balanced in power, where the exchange of information is generally equal across partners.

We should be Absorbed with our partner. This means our primary attention, energies, and physical presence is with our partner. We reserve our very best of ourselves for them. We fully engage with our spouse when needed, and are willing drop all other attention grabbers to ensure our spouse is valued and honored.

These three attributes of a healthy marriage can be derailed by numerous detractors. Maybe we remember how our spouse has been absent from the home for extended periods. Our work or the children have been increasingly demanding. We have a long history of family members or friends who have injured our trust in others. We may fear sharing some of our deepest needs, worrying that they may be rejected or minimized. We make assumptions, and we focus all too often on our self.

To keep the marriage on track to deeper and stronger connections we need to make daily, conscious efforts to be available, attuned and absorbed.

Posted in Attachment, Marriage, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off

Creation in Marriage

Posted on January 10, 2012 by jmdeyoung

I recently attended a presentation by Dr. Meredith Small (Cornell University) who shared some insights about marriage. She reported that she had examined marriage from evolutionary, anthropological, and sociological viewpoints and came to the conclusion that the primary purpose of marriage was for cooperation. Though cooperation serves a vital role in marriage it is only a partial picture of purpose.

Moses explained the purpose of marriage in Genesis using the idea of two people joining together to make something new. “…and the two are united into one.” And some centuries later Paul referenced Moses as a support for the need for husbands and wives to be mutually submissive, “submit to one another.” Marriage at its best is a denial of self (my interests, wants) for the purpose of creating a mutually beneficial relational system that transcends the individual spouses. Sacrifice is the norm. The focus is external and the question asked is, “What can I do for you?”

Our culture unfortunately makes oneness and submission in marriage difficult. Materialism and individualism become distractions. Feminism and fundamentalism, both from opposite ends of the spectrum, promote relational ideals that hinder intimacy and connection. Our cultural experience with marriage suggests the ideal is achieved when I find a soulmate who understands me and meets my needs. Self-esteem is the norm. The focus is inward and the question typically asked is, “What have you done for me lately?”

But marriage in its best moments is about the creation of something that is greater than one man and one woman. Marriage shapes and creates something greater than self. Yes, viewing marriage through the lens of cooperation can be useful, but I think it is incomplete. The cooperation view leads couples to a ledger approach in which spouses keep a tally of their reciprocal exchanges, hoping things are even and protesting when things are not (look at what I contribute, does your contribution match?). A mutually submissive view focuses on personal sacrifice for the gain of the couple as a whole. Sacrifice redeems husband and wife together.

So let me offer some questions for reflection:

1. What wounds from my past (family of origin, past relationships) make it difficult for me to sacrifice? I would suggest these wounds are core seeds for fears that keep us in a protective stance from being completely vulnerable.
2. In what ways is my marriage “more” or “greater” because “two have become one.” How is the “two become one” practically played out in your married life? More specifically, what is your most recent memory of feeling connected with your spouse in a way that promoted feelings of security?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off

Facebook and Adopted Children

Posted on August 29, 2011 by jmdeyoung

AN UPDATE: Following the post of this blog, the recommendations have been incorporated into a pledge for parents. You can access the pledge on Facebook, and by clicking “like” you are indicating you pledge to educate and teach your kids about safe use of social media. Please raise awareness and encourage your friends to take the pledge.

POSSE – Parents Offering Safe Social Media Education. (Click Here to take the Pledge.)

An increasing problem with my work with foster and adoptive families is a child’s access to Facebook. This social media tool has opened a Pandora’s box of communication and family contact issues between adopted children and their birth families. Not all of these connections are bad or harmful but many times the family connection that is made can be overwhelming emotionally and even retraumatizing. I have discussed these issues with many families and have a few suggestions for managing Facebook and other social media.

1. No child younger than 13 years of age should have a Facebook account. This is the stated Facebook policy. You can read more at this link: http://www.facebook.com/help?page=937

My concerns as a family therapist and child development expert about the Facebook age limit is twofold. I think a parent has a hard time justifying the deception involved in establishing an account for their underage child and unspoken support for lying that their child witnesses. My second concern is that being 13 does not automatically grant a child the necessary maturity to manage all social aspects of social media.

2. No child should have a Facebook account if their parent does not have an account. Their parent should be their first “friend” and the parent needs to be at least a semi-expert on the many aspects of Facebook.

3. All passwords should be in the parent’s possession. Facebook explicitly states they will not provide a child’s password to a parent.

4. Regarding Facebook, a parent should participate with their child when deciding who to be friend or which friend requests to accept. This provides an excellent opportunity to discuss social interactions on the Internet. Helping your child with early friend requests will begin to transition into trusting their ability to manage this skill more independently. This process should be no different than any other skill we have taught our children. We move from increased supervision to independence.

For Foster and Adopted children

5. There needs to be clear ground rules established for the possibility of contact with birth families and expectations for how contact will be handled. Every situation is unique. Some adoptions are open. Some children have birth family members that are safe and some that are unsafe. These issues need to be thought about carefully before the Facebook account is created.

6. I am aware of some children and families that have registered their adopted children on Facebook under a pseudonym. In some cases there seems to be a rationale for this type of account.

Posted in Child Development, Parenting, social media, Teens, Young Children | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

Spanking

Posted on July 14, 2011 by jmdeyoung

There was a recent SMU study by George W. Holden. The website is: http://blog.smu.edu/research/2011/06/spanking_discipline_or_assault.html

The research was originally intended to focus on parents yelling at children in their daily interactions. Mothers agreed to have audio recordings made of their evening activities with their children. The researchers analyzed the recordings and reported frequent incidents of corporal punishment that were concurrent with yelling and high levels of frustration from the mother. The majority of spankings appeared to be “knee-jerk” reactionary responses when parents were frustrated rather than thought out consequences for a previous behavior. There are really no reported examples of parents explaining to their child why they were getting a spanking before or after the swat(s). One parent is recorded spanking the child in response to being kicked by the child. This tit-for-tat, “let’s see who is bigger and stronger” type of response is unfortunately more common than it needs to be in parenting.

The research is informative. Spanking as a form of corporal punishment is very accepted in our culture and is particularly promoted within conservative Christian groups as a higher form of consequence or punishment, ordained by scripture (spare the rod…spoil the child). Unfortunately spanking becomes a default consequence for misbehavior and threats of spanking in anger are followed by swats in anger that are not supported by any disciplinary teaching from parent to child. Children in these family environments become effective at avoiding getting caught or lying to get out of trouble. The important decision making skills necessary for healthy development are not taught.

I support parents who utilize corporal punishment, but not as a default disciplinary technique and never in anger. I think parents must also carefully consider the unique characteristics of their child when making disciplinary decisions. What works for one child may not work for another. This research should remind us all as parents that spanking children has a unique place in parenting and does not need to be our “knee-jerk” response to misbehavior.

Parents should first consider all misbehavior as an opportunity to teach about self-control and relationships. Consequences and teaching around poor choices should be our first concern as parents. Stimulus-response parenting (which the research illustrates) is reactionary and focused on punishment. Relational parenting has consequences for misbehavior but is primarily focused on teaching skills for self-control and relationships first.

Posted in Child Development, Parenting, Uncategorized, Young Children | Comments Off

Teens and Pregnancy – A Statistics Lesson

Posted on May 10, 2011 by jmdeyoung

I love statistics. I know to many of you that likely makes me seem a little crazy, but I like working with sets of data. This is part of the reason I am driven crazy by the reporting of statistics we find in the media. What is typically reported is highly agenda driven and only a tiny sliver of the truth.

The headline will be something like this, “Abstinence Education Does Not Work” or “Teen Birth Rates Highest in the South.” Though the second headline is factually true, and the first headline is a logical leap, neither of these statements provide a complete picture of what is happening with teenage sexual activity.

A frequently quoted source regarding reproductive statistics is the Guttmacher Institute (www.guttmacher.org). This non-profit is closely associated with Planned Parenthood and likely shares political leanings with that organization. All data in this blog has been taken from the Guttmacher website.

When one looks at the birth rate (live births) among teens aged 15-19, it ranges from 18 (New Hampshire) to 63 (District of Columbia) per 1000 teens. Most news reports ignore that highest number from the District of Columbia and report that the 10 highest states are all in the south. They are as follows, New Mexico (62), Texas (62), Mississippi (61), Arkansas (59), Arizona (58), Tennessee (55), Oklahoma (54), Georgia (53), South Carolina (51), and Alabama (50). This is commonly presented as a failure of funding in more socially conservative regions of the country. Most news reports also include that the lowest teen birth rates are in mostly Northeastern States. You can see the actual rates for all the states below.

Let’s compare these numbers with the abortion rates in all of the states. These numbers are rarely reported and they actually present a dramatically different picture. The abortion rate ranges from 6 in Utah to 81 in the District of Columbia. The top ten states for abortion rates (per 1000 teen girls aged 15-19) are as follows, New York (41), New Jersey (36), Nevada (28), Delaware (27), California (26), Connecticut (26), Hawaii (25), Florida (25), Rhode Island (22), and Massachusetts (21). Those rates are obviously lower than birth rates, but 6 of the 10 states are in Northeast and in the District of Columbia, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut the abortion rate is actually higher than the birth rate. More teen moms in those four regions abort their children than carry them to term. This is also a clear regional difference. The abortion rate data for all states is below.

To get a clearer picture of this data we need to dig just a little bit deeper. If you took the above data on abortion rates and looked at the connection to availability of abortion providers (number of providers in a state) there is a very strong connection. They are statistically correlated at a factor of 0.63, significant at the 0.01 level. This numeric gooblygook says there is a strong relationship between the two. That is a level of correlation that most researchers would be thrilled about and basically suggests an undeniable connection.

Many of you might say, “Duh, if there are a bunch of abortion providers then there are going to be more abortions.” True. Many times the data tells us exactly what we might expect. What is interesting is that this strong connection is ignored in all reports about the data. What is reported is the high birth rates in southern states because it seems to fit with a particular agenda. The complete picture is never presented. I think this data raises some interesting questions about cultural values regarding life and particular regional differences. Why do teens in the south seem to have higher birth rates and lower abortion rates? Is it because of a pro-life, religiously influenced value system, or is it just a lack of availability of abortion providers? Do teens in the northeast have higher rates of abortion due to value system issues or are there cultural issues around education and family life that play a role? These questions are still unanswered.

I confess that I have pretty strong conservative political leanings on the abortion issue, and my goal here is not necessarily to add to the abortion debate (I recognize the emotional charge associated with the issue). Rather my goal is to point out the importance of exploring how data is presented. We are only provided a portion of the picture and we have to understand that the presentation of data and statistics in the media is agenda driven no matter what side of the political spectrum. Personally I think the pregnancy rates, though they have dropped are still too high regardless of region and there needs to be a concerted efforts within families and communities to educate our children about healthy sexuality. This data only serves to help remind us that the job of teaching our children is a never done.

 

Posted in Abortion, Parenting, Teens | Comments Off