Why Your Favorite Social Sites Are Stressing You Out and Stealing Your Joy

We all have that friend. You know, the crafty one with a label maker and a house that looks like Pinterest exploded in it? Yeah, her.

As a testament to Pinterest’s massive growth, it appears that a lot of us want to be just like her. We’re flocking to the wildly popular site in hopes of making our houses more beautiful (on a budget!), whipping up awesome crafts for our kids, and preparing meals in Mason jars, one pin at a time.

But what comes as a surprise to many women is how they feel after they’ve lost themselves for hours on the site. It’s not very good.

In a TODAY Moms survey of 7,000 U.S. mothers, 42% of women admitted to feeling Pinterest stress. In the same survey, one in four women said that the pressure they put on themselves to be perfect is a top cause of stress. These women rated their overall stress level at an 8.5 out of 10.

Pinterest “tricks you into thinking that everyone is baking their own bread,” said Jenna Andersen, the blogger behind Pinterest Fail, a hilarious site that exhibits Pinterest-inspired recipes and crafts that go very wrong.

Women are coming away feeling frustrated, inadequate, and stressed when they cannot recreate the idllyic images and atmospheres that Pinterest showcases and that everyone else seems to master. It can be obsessive for many women, not to mention tiring, as many admit to staying up until the wee hours of the night searching for the perfect “this” or “that,” also known as “Pinsomnia.”

“We have a hard time enjoying our own experiences because we feel it’s not worthy of this invisible judge. It’s so easy to get depressed. You start to feel like your entire life has to be like a magazine all the time,” Andersen told TODAY.

Finding Happiness Through Home Decor Sites?

Not since the 1950s have women devoted so much attention to the “minutiae of kitchen towels, bathroom grouting and indoor plant trends,” shares Adriana Barton in her article that explores the link between self-image and our growing obsession in fixing up our houses.

Not coincidently, Home Decor is one of the most popular categories on Pinterest. Other popular social sharing sites, like Houzz.com provide additional digital playgrounds for endless possibilities of “perfecting” our surroundings.

Joyce Davidson, an associate professor at Queen’s University, has studied how women express themselves through their home environments. She explains in Barton’s article that the more social pressures women face, “the more likely they are to actively try to control the things they can, like the body or the home.”

Like body image, one’s home has become a measurement of successes and failings and it’s become a full-blown obsession for North American women.

Davison adds, “The idea is that perfection might be more easily attainable if you buy the right lampshade or vase, but you’re never going to achieve the right-shaped [butt].”

Is It Time For You To “Unfriend” Social Media?

Let’s be honest, as women, we’re really guilty of making comparisons. Even if we’re not actively trying to, it’s natural to see what others have and subconsciously match it up against our current situation. Facebook and other popular social media platforms make it too easy to constantly log in to others’ lives and find dissatisfaction with our own.

In a 2013 study, two German universities conducted a joint study about envy on Facebook and were surprised at just how rampant it is on the social network.

“We were surprised by how many people have a negative experience from Facebook with envy leaving them feeling lonely, frustrated or angry,” said researcher Hanna Krasnova from the Institute of Information Systems at Berlin’s Humboldt University.

These same researchers found vacation photos were the biggest cause of resentment, with more than half of envy incidents triggered by holiday pics on Facebook. The second most common cause of envy was from social interaction, as users would compare things like the number of birthday greetings they received to those of their Facebook friends and how many “likes” or comments were made on photos and postings.

Similarly, in a study from the University of Salford in the UK, participants said they felt that social networks like Facebook and Twitter made their lives worse. More specifically, they noted that their self-esteem suffered when they compared their own accomplishments to those of their online friends.

According to psychotherapist Sherrie Campbell, social media can give us a false sense of belonging and connecting that is not built on real-life exchanges. This makes it increasingly easy to lose oneself to cyberspace connections and give them more weight than they deserve.

“When we look to social media, we end up comparing ourselves to what we see which can lower our self-esteem. On social media, everyone’s life looks perfect but you’re only seeing a snapshot of reality. We can be whoever we want to be in social media and if we take what we see literally then it’s possible that we can feel we are falling short in life,” Campbell told newssite AlterNet.

An article by Relevant Magazine about “Instagram Envy” further puts this into perspective:

The danger of the Internet is that it’s very very easy to tell partial truths—to show the fabulous meal but not the mess to clean up afterward. To display the smiling couple-shot, but not the fight you had three days ago. To offer up the sparkly milestones but not the spiraling meltdowns.

Because community—the rich kind, the transforming kind, the valuable and difficult kind—doesn’t happen in partial truths and well-edited photo collections on Instagram. Community happens when we hear each other’s actual voices, when we enter one another’s actual homes, with actual messes, around actual tables telling stories that ramble on beyond 140 pithy characters.

Real relationships—on special this Christmas!

While your favorite sites are not to be made out as villains, when they start to make you feel a host of not-so-pretty ways, it’s worthy of stepping back and seriously assessing the hold social content has on our lives.

As we’re in the thick of the holiday season, it’s prime time for pinboards everywhere to light up with searches in hopes of making Christmas just a little more sparkly. This year, instead of spending too much time searching for those cute reindeer cookies (that you know aren’t going to turn out anyway), why not use grandma’s famous recipe that has stood the test of time and was lovingly written on anactual recipe card? Remember those?

Maybe it’s time to take a timeout from trying to duplicate pixellated dreams and competing with what others have and live our messy, unique, and imperfect lives.

Eat macaroni (from a box) for dinner…make a snowman with your kids…build a fort in the living room…sit at the table and actually talk. Your family does not want perfection—they just want you. 

Time. Such a precious commodity we don’t get back from a computer screen. Let’s not waste it in what could be, for what is. This Christmas, take a break, breathe, and have real and unique interactions with those you love.

Written by Leigh Seger

It Is Time For The Church To Take a Stand Pornography and STOP Ignoring It

Is it true, as one survey suggests, that 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women would say they are “addicted” to porn? Really? Has it gotten that bad in the church?

A recent study from Case Western Reserve University sheds some light on this subject. Researchers concluded that there is a strong relationship between religious belief and the perception that personal porn use is an “addiction.”

To be clear, the study did not see any relationship between religiosity to the actual use of porn. Christians don’t use porn any more or less than non-Christians (according to this study). Rather, a Christian who watches porn at a certain frequency is far more likely to say he or she is “addicted” than the non-religious person who uses porn at the same frequency.

Joshua Grubbs, the author of the study, commented, “We were surprised that the amount of viewing did not impact the perception of addiction, but strong moral beliefs did.”

The Church Needs to Speak Clearly to a Sexually Confused Culture

As far as critics are concerned, the answer is a relatively simple one: “What’s causing all the commotion about porn is not its use or misuse, but the rigid, prudish moral standard the dominates the Christian’s conscience. Loosen the moral standard and the perceived problem goes away.”

The first problem with this solution is that it is factually inaccurate. Whole online communities have cropped up in recent years (such as Reddit’s NoFap and PornFree groups), founded by and filled with ardently secular people who are experiencing porn-induced erectile dysfunction and talking about porn addiction as as serious problem.

The second problem with this solution is that this is unsustainable for the Christian. The church’s sexual ethic is not based on ever-changing psychological models and trends. It is based on revelation from the Living God, “with whom there is no variation or shadow of change” (James 1:17).

Still, the church needs to be ready with an answer before the watching world. How should we use the label of “addiction” when it comes to pornography—or should we use it at all? The need to address this question has never been greater because porn use is at an all-time high.

• One in eight searches online is for erotic content.
• More than a third of teenage boys say they’ve seen porn “more times than I can count.”
• More than two thirds of college age men and a fifth of college age women go online for sexual purposes every week.

If the church wishes to have dialogue with a pornified world, then the terms we use to talk about porn should be clear and honest.

Addiction vs. Compulsion vs. Dependence

It might be easy to blame the church for playing fast and loose with its terminology, but part of the reason for the ambiguity around the subject of addiction is that this has been a nebulous concept among psychiatrists and the rest of the medical community for several decades.

We can thank William Shakespeare for introducing the word “addiction” to the English language, but since its inception it has had a turbulent 400-year history.

In the field of addiction medicine, there has been a long-standing debate about the nature of compulsion vs. addiction. This debate is puzzling because “compulsion” is part of the definition of addiction (according to ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine), yet there is no consistent usage of the terms across the board. We regularly speak of compulsive gambling and compulsive shopping, but not “compulsive drug use” or “compulsive drinking.” Any attempts to untangle the language issues or to develop a common framework have failed.

Similarly, there is considerable debate about the labels of addiction vs. dependence. When the revised third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R) was being edited, some committee members favored the label “addiction” when it came to drugs and alcohol because it more accurately portrayed a compulsive habit as distinguished from “physical” dependence (which can occur in anyone who takes medications that affect the central nervous system). Those who favored “dependence” felt it was less pejorative; it was a more neutral term that would not stigmatize substance abusers as having a disorder. In end the room was split, and the word “dependence” won over “addiction” by a single vote.

Sex Enters into Addiction Medicine

Sigmund Freud is famous for saying, “Masturbation is the one great habit that is a ‘primary addiction,’ and that the other addictions, for alcohol, morphine, tobacco, etc. only enter into life as a substitute and replacement for it.” Under Freud’s influence, in 1969 Sandor Rado believed drug addicts were accessing pleasure centers of the brain that were ultimately sexual in nature, using phrases like “pharmacotoxic orgasm” to get his point across. Indeed, it was some of these early pioneers of addiction medicine that believed all compulsions had a sexual root.

Many decades later, the pendulum has swung the other way.

Under the general diagnosis “Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified,” the DSM-III-R added the concept of “sexual addiction” to its language for the first time. But only seven years later the DSM-IV (1994) removed the term due to “insufficient research.” In 2009 the term “hypersexual disorder” was proposed for the DSM-V, but this was ultimately rejected.

Much of the debate is centered around both the emotional force and clinical precision of words. Some sexologists, such as Eli Coleman in the late 1980s, prefer terms like “sexual compulsion” or “abusive behavior patterns”—seeing it as a variation of obsessive-compulsive disorder. For these researchers, “addiction” betrays a sort of seriousness that isn’t warranted. Patients can recover from compulsions, but one is “always recovering” from an addiction.

Still, the DSM-IV not only killed the language of “sexual addiction,” it cautioned against calling sexual behaviors “compulsive” as well because sex is inherently pleasurable—unlike OCD patients who derive no pleasure from their obsessions. Other medical professionals objected to this reasoning, believing the OCD definition should be expanded to include a spectrum of behaviors, including “sexual impulsions.”

When the American Medical Association was on the verge of declaring “addiction medicine” a recognized specialty, delegates asked David Smith, president of ASAM, “Is sexual addiction part of the field of addiction medicine?” He knew the medical community feared a slippery slope: would all perceived antisocial behaviors be placed in an addiction treatment context? Smith answered no, sex addiction is not part of addiction medicine. Later Smith commented that his response was as much political as it was clinical.

Why the ambivalence? On one hand, there is a fear in the field of sexual health that any conversation about sex addiction is just a playing into the hands of sex-negative self-help groups. The field of sexology generally focuses on empowering people sexually, not helping people curb their desires. “The unconditional acceptance of sexual desire was the starting point for sex therapy,” writes Dr. Patrick Carnes.

For others, there is the fear that the term “addiction” turns responsible agents into victims, and this is especially true in the criminal justice system. For 80 years, 12-Step communities have been founded on the idea of moral responsibility for one’s actions the need for personal accountability, yet when “sex addiction” is added to the mix there is a fear that this removes all responsibility.

In the face of such ambiguities, it is not difficult to see why the church—and the general public, for that matter—feel free to define the terms in way that make the most sense to them. The medical community certainly isn’t making sense of it for us.

Does Religion Make Us Addicts?

Despite the lack of diagnostic support, psychologists have attempted to explain and define what sex and porn addiction is. Many would agree that sex addiction is “the inability to regulate sexual behavior despite negative consequences.”

Under this definition, because negative consequences differ from person to person, the presence of addiction will vary from person to person. Take the devoted Christian who believes that viewing pornography is sinful, an offense to God, and a betrayal of his conscience. On the other hand, take a secularist who thinks nothing is wrong with watching porn, finds it liberating and enjoyable, and has no social context where his behavior is frowned upon. Suppose these individuals both viewed porn regularly—even every day. Suppose both found themselves compelled to watch it and both indulged whenever they had a chance. Under this definition of addiction, even if both are truly addicted, we could rightly say the Christian is addicted in a way the secularist is not: only the Christian is moving against the grain of perceived negative consequences and indulging in the behavior anyway.

In light of this it makes sense why more Christians would be likely to identify as addicts—they have more perceivable negative consequences to tangle with.

Neurology Enters the Discussion

Still, the inability to regulate behavior despite negative consequences isn’t the only trademark of addictive behavior. Ever since the mid-1970s, new understandings of the chemistry of the brain have opened up new language and new sets of data to talk about addictions.

In 1986, Harvey Milkman and Stan Sunderwirth described three primary neuropathways for the addictions:

• The Arousal Neuropathway – High excitement and intense emotions such as fear and extreme pleasure
• The Satiation Neuropathway – Relaxing or soothing behavior; analgesic, self-medicating, or numbing behavior; anxiety-reducing behavior
• The Fantasy Neuropathway – Escaping into unreality or denial of reality

Milkman and Sunderwirth went further to theorize that sex is perhaps the most powerful addictionbecause it transcends each of these primary pathways, offering arousal, satiation, and fantasy.

Neurology also begins to address the seemingly uncontrollable cravings of the addict. The more one masturbates to porn, the more dopamine is released in the brain. Eventually dopamine receptors and signals fatigue, leaving the viewer wanting more but unable to reach a level of satisfaction. This desensitization in turn impacts the prefrontal cortex. As dopamine receptors decline in the brain, so do the amount of neural cells in these prefrontal lobes. The decrease of blood flow to the prefrontal lobes causes what is called hypofrontality, which means the “executive control” center of the brain is weakened. As impulses, urges, and emotions surge from the mid-brain, the prefrontal region is too weak to regulate them, thus the addict feels his or her urges as compelling “needs” that must be satisfied.

The field of neurology has completely reshaped a modern definition of addiction given by the ASAM as “a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory, and related circuitry.” No longer is addiction merely measured by one’s subjective experiences. It is now something that can be mapped by brain scanners and shown in colorful MRI images.

Hard Questions About Addiction and Sin

When interfacing with the world, with church members, and with the medical community, should the church continue adopting the term “porn addiction,” and if so, when?

Christian counselor Brad Hambrick is right when he says that in dealing with subjects like this, it is better to start with a list of questions than a list of answers. The better our questions are, the more humbly we can approach these areas of uncertainty.

• Is “porn addiction”—or whatever we call it—a flaw in character or chemistry? Is this even the best way to frame the question? What do we lose when we fall into the trap of either-or thinking?
• Can we have a “weak” brain—easily given over to addictive tendencies—and yet have a “strong” soul—with a deep and genuine love for God? If we say “yes” to this question in areas like intelligence (i.e. having a low I.Q. but having strong faith), why would we say “no” about the matter of addiction?
• When do labels serve us well? When do labels serve us poorly?
• What other terms might be helpful for describing the phenomenon? Should we opt for terms born in the medical community (dependence, compulsion, etc.), or should we opt for more biblically rooted terms (slavery, transgression, etc.), or should we opt for both?
• How do we understand the tension between the present and future realities of the kingdom of God when it comes to our mental health? How much can we expect to remedy the effects of the Fall before Christ returns?
• Does the “addict” label help someone struggling with pornography to take responsibility and find help? Or does it become a core identity that holds them back from progress?

4 Positions: How Should the Church Speak of “Porn Addiction”?

Among those who discuss this issue in the church, there are (at least) four identifiable camps. You can, of course, find overlaps, but these tend to be the major positions. I’ve given them nicknames: (1) the Redeemers, (2) the Clinicians, (3) the Biblicalists, and (4) the Contextualists.

1. The Redeemers: Addiction to Self is the Root of All Sin

There are some in the church who, regardless of the nuances in the diagnostic literature, think the term “addiction” should be usurped or “redeemed” by the church at large as something to describe all habitual sin. As these people see it, standard clinical stipulations of addiction are unhelpful, relegating “addicts” to those at the far end of the spectrum, when the word should apply to anyone who fails to stop sinful behavior—which is everyone.

By redeeming and reimagining the term “addiction,” churches can level the playing field among their members, breaking down the us-them mentality. When church members are taught that “addiction to self” is the root of all sin, then porn addicts, alcoholics, and drug addicts are not a stigmatized few—they are no longer a lonely group of perverts and lost causes. Rather they can be easily embraced by the body of Christ.

You may ask, “Why redeem the term ‘addiction’ from the culture and from medicine?” Why not, the Redeemers ask. It gives people a vivid picture of the seriousness of sin: something enslaving, habitual, and requiring the help of a Power greater than oneself.

2. The Clinicians: All Sin is Serious, but Addiction is Rare

There are others in the church who take their cues about addiction straight from the diagnostic literature and the medical community, and therefore believe phrases like “porn addiction” are overused in the church today.

For the Clinicians, addiction is defined narrowly by key indicators, when several or all of these factors are present:

1. Tolerance: A markedly diminished sexual satisfaction over time when looking at porn
2. Withdrawal: Showing symptoms of irritability, violent dreams, mania, insomnia, violent mood swings, paranoia, headaches, anxiety, and depression when going without porn
3. Progression: Needing larger amounts of porn over a longer period of time to get the same high
4. Unsuccessful quitting: No ability to cut down or control the use of porn
5. Increased time: More and more time and effort is spent seeking out porn and recovering from its effects
6. Sacrifice: Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up in order to use porn
7. Stubbornness: Despite knowing the negative physical or psychological effects, porn use continues

The Clinicians see all porn use as sinful, and therefore serious, but not necessarily manifesting as an addiction. There are a variety of other psychological characteristics they might employ to describe one’s relationship to porn: compulsive, impulsive, abusive, self-medicating—all of which are miserable and serious problems—but are nonetheless not addiction.

The Clinicians see the “addict” label as harmful for those to whom it does not really apply because it comes with a long history of medical and therapeutic baggage, insinuating the addict has no control over his or her actions and requires specialized help. Clinicians don’t want to see Christians pathologize themselves needlessly and would like to see addiction language used minimally.

3. The Biblicalists: “Addiction” is Confusing, Stick to Bible Terms

Some in the church want to see Christians get back to biblical categories for describing sin, no longer depending on modern psychiatric terms. Not only is there no universally recognized clinical definition of “addiction,” they argue, the term has a broad and ambiguous use in the culture. Calling something an “addiction” is confusing at best and deceptive at worst.

Biblicalists rely on the Scriptures for their categories and nomenclature. It isn’t “addiction,” it is slavery to sin. Porn users don’t need to “recover,” they need to repent and be restored in by spiritual leaders. It isn’t “dependency,” it is idolatry. It isn’t “psychiatric help,” it’s discipleship and biblical counsel.

Don’t confuse Biblicalists with moralists. Biblicalists are not the just-stop-it crowd. These are not the suck-it-up crowd. They intimately understand there are a variety of heart attitudes, family histories, and environmental concerns that go into our porn obsessions. They know the church must give good counsel, restoration, love, and admonishment. But they also think biblical categories and terms are one of the primary means God uses renew the mind. Modern psychiatric terms, at best, only serve to distract us from what is really going on: sin, hardness of heart, and a dire need to surrender to God.

Even if one’s sin has led to a “medical” condition, such as a chronic disease of brain circuitry, Biblicalists are skeptical that recovery programs and communities offer any novel, medical solutions. In the end, those enslaved to porn must turn to God’s means of grace to find freedom.

4. The Contextualists: “Addiction” is Helpful for Some But Not for Others

The term “addiction” has a broad use in the culture, not just in the medical community. For some the term simply means enjoying something greatly and spending a lot of time engaging in it (“I’m addicted to reading”). For others, the term invokes a image of a dimly lit church basement where men and women 20-years sober show up for an AA meeting and still introduce themselves as alcoholics.

Like it or not, addiction means different things to different people. The Contextualists say we need to recognize this, using the term when it is helpful and refraining from use when it is harmful. For some, calling the problem an “addiction” is a relief because it finally gives them a label that makes sense of the madness of their condition; they can finally move on and make progress. For others, it trivializes the problem as something medical and therefore excusable. For others, it imprisons them in hopelessness, for they believe that once you’re an addict, you’re always an addict.

Don’t confuse Contextualists for relativists. Viewing porn is sinful no matter how your slice it or what you call it. But Contextualists understand that words have power, and terms like “addiction” and “addict” can sometimes come with great potential or unexpected baggage. Since the medical community does not have a monopoly on these terms—as is evidenced by the colloquial use of “addiction”—the church has every right to appropriate the terms how it likes. But this, of course, must be done with great care and precision, because words have meaning.

Use “addiction” when the label will help, but refrain when it will harm.

A Call to Stand Together: Do Not Outsource Moral Authority

Like it or not, the term “porn addiction” has officially caught on in the church, but it is still taking shape. How it takes shape will depend on further dialogue and discussion.

Regardless of what camp we stand in, when churches use vague terms like “pornography addiction,” it is critical that we define our terms and aim towards charity to those who don’t see eye-to-eye with our definitions.

It is also critical, when employing patently psychological terms that we never “outsource” moral authority to the social sciences. In a study of the popular evangelical magazine Christianity Today from 1956 to 2010, Jeremy Thomas found that while outward opposition to pornography has remained steady and robust over the last 50 years, during this same time, evangelicals’ anti-pornography declarations have become increasingly secular. More than half a century ago, pornography was judged by the moral authority of Scripture. Today, more secular forms of moral authority are used, such as psychological health or humanistic conceptions of individual rights. This, Thomas says, is evidence that the church is outsourcing its moral authority.

The church must remain clear that pornography is not essentially wrong because it is addictive, but because of its titillating and deceptive message: it rips sexuality from its relational context and presents human beings not as creatures made in God’s image, but as sexual commodities, something to be bought and sold.

Pornography’s message is antithetical to the gospel of Christ which says: “This is my body, which is given for you” (Luke 22:19). Pornography says: “This is your body taken by me.”

Written by Luke Gilkerson

Defining Intimacy

An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves physical and emotional intimacy . Intimate relationships play a central role in the overall human experience.  Humans have a general desire to belong and to love which is usually satisfied within an intimate relationship. Intimate relationships provide a social network for people that provide strong emotional attachments, and fulfill our universal need of belonging and the need to be cared for.

It is a familiar and very deep and close effective connection with another as a result of a bond that is formed through knowledge and experience of the other. Genuine intimacy in human relationships requires dialogue, transparency, vulnerability and reciprocity. The verb "intimate" means "to state or make known". The activity of intimating (making known) underpins the meanings of "intimate". 

To sustain intimacy for any length of time requires well-developed emotional and interpersonal awareness. Intimacy requires an ability to be both separate and together participants in an intimate relationship. Murray Bowen called this "self-differentiation". It results in a connection in which there is an emotional range involving both robust conflict, and intense loyalty.  Lacking the ability to differentiate oneself from the other is a form of symbiosis, a state that is different from intimacy, even if the feelings of closeness are similar. 

From a center of self-knowledge and self differentiation, intimate behavior joins family members and close friends as well as those in love. It evolves through reciprocal self-disclosure and candor. Poor skills in developing intimacy can lead to getting too close too quickly; struggling to find the boundary and to sustain connection; being poorly skilled as a friend, rejecting self-disclosure or even rejecting friendships and those who have them. Psychological consequences of intimacy problems are found in adults who have difficulty in forming and maintaining intimate relationships. Individuals often experience the human limitations of their partners, and develop a fear of adverse consequences of disrupted intimate relationships. Studies show that fear of intimacy is negatively related to comfort with emotional closeness and with relationship satisfaction, and positively related to loneliness and trait anxiety. 

Intimate relationships have four basic ingredients: respect, trust, acceptance and knowing (each other), which can take place through both verbal and nonverbal communication.

1. Respect has to do with honoring each other with regard, validating each other as inherently worthy, treating each other as if the other person’s thoughts and feelings are important and matter. Eye contact, attentiveness, and how you listen to each other are nonverbal expressions of respect. Certainly there are verbal communications that convey acknowledgement and humble reverence.
2. Trust has to do with feeling safe enough to be open and honest with each other, feeling that you can count on your partner being there for you, knowing that you are always looking out for each other and that you can count on each other to act responsibly – that is, “do what you say.”
3. Acceptance has to do with unconditional acceptance: not holding each other to idealized standards, but rather embracing each other’s limitations, flaws, character defects, differences, quirks, moods. Acceptance is appreciating each other as a unique individual, not wanting the other to be someone else or thinking that he or she should be someone else. Acceptance means not being fixated on assumptions about each other.
4. Knowing each other means becoming acquainted with subtleties and nuances in the other. We can only do this through deep, personal sharing. Mutual understanding is one aspect of knowing; the ability to do so on an ongoing basis is another; and the insights and revelations that occur by virtue of time spent together another aspect still.

The degree of intimacy experienced is a direct reflection of the intimacy one has with self. 

Building Trust Despite His Relapses: Hope for Wives of Porn Addicts

Written by; Kay Bruner

This is a story I hear a lot from women: “My husband just can’t seem to kick the habit. We’ve been in this fight for years now. Whenever he gets caught, he seems to feel really badly about it. He’ll do all the right things. He seems really open about it. He’ll confess to me and others, he’ll block all the sites he’s used, he’ll go to counseling. But a few weeks or months later, he’s back in it again. I just don’t know what to do any more.”

And then they’ll say to me, “You guys got better. How did that happen?”

We did all the stuff that everybody does:

• Filter the Internet appropriately
• Find accountability partners
• Go to groups or individual therapy

Why did it work for us, when other people are doing the same things, and it’s not working for them?

It’s always just seemed like pure dumb luck to me, until I happened across a YouTube video by renowned marriage expert, Dr. John Gottman.

In his research, Gottman has found that couples who have a high level of trust within the relationship have a corresponding set of behaviors.

He identifies these trust-building behaviors as “sliding door moments”: small, seemingly insignificant moments when there is a choice to be made, for or against the relationship.

Gottman says, “In these moments, there is the possibility of connection with the partner, or turning away from the partner.”

Gottman tells a story about how, late at night, he wanted to finish reading a book, but saw from his wife’s face that she needed to talk. For him, that was a “sliding door moment” when he could either be self-centered, or relationship-centered.

When I watched this video, I thought, “Wow, that’s exactly it. That’s what Andy did. That’s how I knew he was serious about me, about our marriage, and about his recovery.”

It wasn’t just that he did the right behavioral things perfectly, because he didn’t. Anybody who’s been in the game a while knows this phrase: “Relapse is part of recovery.” He’s relapsed, and he does relapse, on the road to recovery.

But there is now something different about him, and it’s this: he turns toward me. He turns toward our relationship.

When he was in the addiction, he was all about himself. Recovery started when he was willing to sit with me and listen to all the hurt, all the fear, all the anger, and stay with me emotionally in that horrible, horrible sea of broken glass that was our life at the time. Recovery continues because he keeps turning toward our relationship, every day, in a million different little ways. He cares about me, and I know it. I trust him, that when he falls, he’s going to get back up and turn toward me again.

The other part of that picture is that I’ve had to work on my own emotional self, and be willing to turn toward him, too. If I withhold and punish him emotionally, that is not healthy. That’s me being all about myself, in revenge for him being all about himself. We’ve both got to turn toward.

So, how does an addict get past pure behavior change and into relationship building? And how does a spouse know when it’s not just an act, but that it’s real and true?

I think it’s this: when the addict has the capacity to turn toward the relationship, to look outside of himself, to care deeply how the spouse feels, you’ll know good things are happening.

Put together a pattern of those trustworthy behaviors over time, along with a spouse who is able to receive those things, and you’ve got a relationship that can be healthy again.

Emotionally and spiritually, it’s clear that the person is choosing connection rather than isolation. Chemically, and less obviously, the person is also in a significant healing process. He is sitting with emotion and learning to ride the wave of sadness or anger or fear, without self-medicating. Over time, that heals the body and the brain from addiction.

Andy puts it this way: “It’s just different now. Before, I couldn’t stop thinking about it, couldn’t stop looking at it. Now, even if I see porn for a few minutes, I can say, ‘This is not what I want,’ and stop.”

So that’s the happy story, about when things are successful.

The sad truth is, though, sometimes we get into relationships with people who are not able to care about much outside of themselves, and a pornography addiction is just a symptom of that bigger problem.

Some of you are in relationships with people who say, “This is what I want, and this is what I’m going to do, no matter what you say.”

Others of you have seen a strange pattern of great emotional display with upset and turmoil and attention to the problem with groups and therapy and accountability and all kinds of openness. It seems like repentance, but it just doesn’t stick. The third or fifth or tenth time, you wonder what in the world is going on.

I think what happens is this. The addict is getting decreased satisfaction from their sexual behavior, and in the “recovery” phase, they get a chemical kick as everybody attends to them in the crisis. Once they get into the “normal” phase of managing their addiction, though, and the attention lessens, they need the sexual behavior again. And, since they’ve been away from it for a while, it’s more exciting and efficacious again.

That to me is a deep, addictive pattern, and a case for serious treatment and serious boundaries. We offer a free download called Hope After Porn that’s intended to help spouses who have those kinds of difficult choices to make.

Additionally, I recommend the American Association of Christian Counselors as a place to look for a therapist.

Dealing with “Demons”: Healing from a Shame-Based Identity

Do you ever feel like there is a horrific “beast” inside of you?

Have you thought that something is deeply wrong inside, experiencing disconnection from those around you?

Do you maintain a beautiful exterior life while “demons” of  shame haunt you internally?

If so, you likely resonate with these lyrics of the above video:

Shame keeps us disconnected

This video by Imagine Dragons vividly portrays an experience that is all too common for those battling addiction. On the surface, addicts act out behaviors that are self-destructive and confusing. We can be quick to judge them yet slow to understand. Many addicts are driven by deep shame, which can be the result of serious trauma, abuse, and/or self-injurious choices.

Shame is much different than guilt. Shame researcher Brene Brown explains that guilt says “I did something bad” whereas shame says “I am bad”. Those who live with this shame-based mentality tend to view their addictive choices as proof that they’re terrible people rather than seeing mistakes as opportunities to learn and grow.

Carl Jung says that “Shame is a soul eating emotion.” When it feels like “hell” inside, it’s no wonder addicts want to escape to something comforting and familiar. Despite its destructive nature, addiction feels safe, especially when early traumatic events teach addicts that people are unsafe. For sex addicts, this belief plays a key role in their “intimacy disorder“.

Feeling broken and unlovable, addicts may assume others will reject them. Patrick Carnesdescribes this dynamic writing that “Fear of abandonment and shame are at the core of addiction. The alienation becomes a quagmire within which addicts struggle, only to become more isolated”. So, they shelter themselves and others, keeping relationships at an arms distance, as if to say “don’t get too close, it’s dark inside”.

Brene Brown describes shame’s power in this way:

“Shame is the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging. It’s the fear that something we’ve done or failed to do, an ideal that we’ve not lived up to, or a goal that we’ve not accomplished makes us unworthy of connection. “I’m not worthy or good enough for love, belonging, or connection. I’m unlovable. I don’t belong.”

Maintaining this mindset that they are uniquely flawed, isolation and withdrawal become a way of life for addicts. Addiction is often rooted in this shame-based identity. The shame remains, like a low-grade fever, and it doesn’t dissipate on its own. That is one reason why long-term recovery means more than just sobriety. Healing the roots of addiction requires the harder work of healing from a shame-based identity.

The Way of Escape

Despite feelings to the contrary, there is a route of escape for those battling internal “demons” of shame. There  are a few key steps for those wanting to heal from the shame that binds them. The most powerful antidote for shame I’ve discovered is authentic CONNECTION. This comes in the forms of self-connection through self-compassion and connection to others through vulnerability, honesty, and experiencing empathy.

Brene Brown-"Shame needs three things to grow exponentially in our lives: secrecy, silence and judgement"

Inward Connection

Self-compassion is foreign to those suffering from a shame-based identity. But, when practiced over time, it can become an avenue of deep healing. It has been shown that “compassionate mind states may be learned, and may alleviate shame, as well as other distressing outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, self-attacks, feelings of inferiority, and submissive behavior” (Vettese, 2011).

Beverly Engel describes how this occurs with these words: “Shame gets stuck in our neural circuitry” and “we can proactively repair (and re-pair) the old shame memory with new experiences of self-empathy and self-compassion”.  To learn more about implementing self-compassion practices, check out the many articles on our blog about this topic (start here).

Outward Connection

Letting safe people see into the “dark” places within can be an incredibly frightening yet healing experience. Brene Brown shares that “Shame derives its power from being unspeakable…If we cultivate enough awareness about shame to name it and speak to it, we’ve basically cut it off at the knees.  Shame hates having words wrapped around it.  If we speak shame, it begins to whither.” Learning to be vulnerable, to trust others, to reach out in times of distress and pain, and to share experiences that are related to past and present shame, prove to play life-giving roles in recovering from a shame-based identity. Groups (both 12-Step and treatment groups) are a great place to begin this process of healing. Individual therapy can provide necessary connection and healing as well, especially for those experiencing the effects of trauma and abuse. When “we share our story with someone who responds with empathy and understanding, shame can’t survive.” We find true connection.

Thus, surrendering to healthy connection – to self, to others, and to a Higher Power – plays a life-giving role in healing from the shame-based identity. As the lyrics in the above video conclude:

“Your eyes, they shine so bright.

I want to save that light.

I can’t escape this now.

Unless you show me how.”

May those who battle destructive demons find light in the eyes of those who have been there yet live unbound by the shackles by shame. May this road of authentic connection lead to a life of motivating hope, joyous freedom, and heart-felt healing.