Lifespan Developmental Psychology Quiz

Click this link to my quiz on Piagetian pre-school developmental stages and research methodology.

Theories of transsexuality

The development of human beings is extraordinarily complex. It is the intricate interweaving of genetic, uterine neuroendocrinological, environmental, social, cognitive and cultural factors which come together during the course of our lives to make each one of us absolutely unique. It is no surprise, therefore, that development in the area of one’s sexuality and gender identity is likewise multi-faceted. Understandably, the theories on sexual and gender identity development which have arisen over the years to explain these identity differences are diverse and complex.

Famously, psychoanalytic theories have proposed that resolving the conflicts surrounding one’s genitalia will have a profound influence on the unconscious processes in gender identity development. Freud claimed that a person’s lifelong sexual orientation, determined between the ages of 3 and 6, depends on how a boy resolves the fear that his father will castrate him and how a girl deal with the contempt she feels at her mother for not having provided her with a penis. Perhaps not surprisingly, this view has largely gone out of favour in recent decades.

Prominent since the 60s and 70s, environmental conditioning theories hold that gender identity arises out of the process of parental identification in the first two or three years of life. Here, for exmple, if a boy has difficulty identifying with a masculine gender identity was thought to be due to an excessive attachment to his mother and absence of a male role model during infancy during infancy. These sorts of environmental conditions could be associated with the development of mild gender identity problems and homosexuality, but do not adequately explain all forms of transgender identity.

In recent decades, neuroendocrinological studies have indicated that the brain’s normal differentiation as male or female may be interrupted if a deficit of testosterone in males, and an excess for females, somehow occurs during foetal development. This would appear to explain someone’s experience of “I’m a man trapped in a woman’s body”. Other interesting findings, such as the tendency for transsexual males to have been born into families with many sons and to have come later in the birth order, add to the mysterious complexity of transsexuality.

One of the most coherent, comprehensive accounts for transsexuality is the theory of gender development proposed by Milton Diamond, termed “Biased-Interaction Theory”. In this theory, Diamond regards a person’s genetics and uterine neuroendocrinological activity as the fundamental organisational factors which will influence the ways in which this person will develop as he or she interacts with the social environment (parents, siblings, culture). Specifically, the course of a child’s psychosexual development depends on whether peers are perceived as are the same or as different. Thus, a typical boy will see himself fitting into the category “boy” and grow up into a sex-typical gender role. The transgender, boy, however, will experience distress in his assigned gender identity, being unable to see himself as similar to other male peers. Finally, this model incorporates the culture’s level of permissiveness as an indicator of how likely the child will be to express his identity.

Diamond’s robust account of transgender identity development reflects the infinite intricacy of psychosexual development and reminds us that we cannot afford to see this experience as resting simplistically on just one or two factors. The mystery and wonder of the formation of the individual cannot be overstated. It is a overwhelming and worshipful thing for parents of both in utero and postnatal children, child-care workers and teachers to contemplate. We must respect the individuality of each human being, knowing that God is at work in the ”typically” and “atypically” developed alike. Indeed, in areas where science is still unable to take us, we know that God is not unknowing, uninvolved, or unsympathetic:

You[, God] knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Psalm 139:13-16, New International Version

References and access to Diamond’s publications is available online via his website. Australian-based research and various forms of assistance to transsexuals and their friends can be accessed via the Gender Centre website. For an informative audio presentation on the development of sexual identity, check out the most recent podcast at The Psych Files.

References and suggestions for further reading:

Brown, D. G. & Lynn, D. B. (1966). Human Sexual Development: An Outline of Components and Concepts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 28(2), 155-162.

Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., & Gooren, L. J. G. (1999). Transsexualism: A Review of Etiology, Diagnosis and Treatment. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46(4), 315-333.

Diamant, L. & McAnulty, R. D. (Eds.). (1995). The Psychology of Sexual Orientation, Behavior, and Identity. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Diamond, M. (2006). Biased-Interaction Theory of Psychosexual Development: “How Does One Know if One is Male or Female?”. Sex Roles, 55, 589-600.

Lips, H. M., & Colwill, N. L. (1978). The Psychology of Sex Differences. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lips, H.M. (1997). Sex and Gender (3rd Edition). CA: Mayfield Publishing.

Evil, suffering and the original psychopath

We know about the destruction and hurt inflicted by those who are cruel, cold and deeply hurt. Psychologists describe psychopathy or sociopathy – an existence which seeks self-gratification at the expense of others’ comfort, exhibited in behaviours such as remorseless cruelty, violence or rape. Sadly, those who have been cruelly treated as children often become the ones to inflict cruelty onto others. The humiliated seek to gain power over others. The abused become abusers. Thus, the cycle of abuse continues generation after generation, seemingly impossible to break. Whole family and cultural patterns may be responsible for the continuation of such pain-filled existence.

On one level, such behaviour seems motivated by a ‘pay-back’ mentally: “If I can’t have what I should’ve had when I was a child (love, kindness, warmth), then I will won’t let anyone have it. Instead, I’ll treat them how I was treated (cruelly, coldly, un-humanly), because that’s fair.” Of course, there are much deeper psychological realities operating, but it seems that, on one level, these people believe they are justified to hurt and mistreat others.

This sort of behaviour (cold-blooded murder, programmed torture and genocide, calculated repeated rape) is often described as ‘evil’, since no other language seems to quite do justice to the horrors of it. Furthermore, such a label seems appropriate since many would believe this type of behaviour is beyond explanation: it must be of another world, of the devil. Such postulations may well be true, since it is so difficult to understand what motivates the rapist, murderer, etc. Yet, out of love for neighbour, we must strive to understand, for the sake of the offender, the victim and for the prevention of future crimes of the same type. Inconceivable as it is, psychopathy and sociopathy seems to make sense; it is the product of a cruel and emotionless upbringing…

All this now leads me to pose some questions: “Is there a  place for interpreting spiritual forces of evil psychologically? If so, how do the spiritual realities of the devil and evil spirits intersect with the findings of psychological disturbance? What is Satan’s psychological state? Is Satan is the original psychopath? Is he purely evil, or has he somehow been deeply hurt? Lastly, if psychopathically disturbed people are simply hurt, not evil, then what happens to the concepts of guilt and culpability? How does God judge those who have sought to re-pay the cruelty they suffer as children?” I do not intend to try to answer these questions, but more so I want to dare to ask them.

I think it is worth considering the psychological make-up of the powerful spiritual forces around us.  Indeed, Biblically it appears to me that Satan may display some psychopathic motivation: “[T]he devil has gone down to [the earth]. He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short” (Revelation 12:12), “The devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Perhaps Satan feels that it is unfair that he should suffer, but not others with him. Biblically, it does not appear that Satan has ’suffered as a child’, something which might have explained his behaviour. Perhaps he simply belongs to the category of “evil” by himself, having nothing which has caused his behaviour (psychopathically woundedness) such that we can understand him as we try to understand those who suffer cruelly in this world.

Indeed, those who struggle with the desire to “repay” others with suffering do need to be desperately understood and loved for all the ways in which they themselves have suffered. But it is also right to perceive the evilness of such behaviour and to lovingly to hold each other accountable for our actions, as much as our knowledge of this allows. I think it is appropriate to apply the following verse in a psychological way: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” (Luke 12:48) Some will have been abused so greatly, that a godly life for these people will consist of simply struggling to not hurt others, to such a degree perhaps that others may not even be able to perceive it. But we know God does.

So now we live in a world which has the potential for much cruelty and suffering, which is most probably one of the prime activities of Satan. In Satan’s final short moments, he is wanting to take down as many people with him as he can. He is angry because he knows he has been conquered and will soon be eternally condemned and punished. At Jesus Christ’s  return, all suffering and evil will finally be put an end.

So, whatever the exact relationship of evil, suffering and responsibility, we all are in need of a Powerful Rescuer and Righteous Judge who has promised us vindication and justice against our humiliators, as well as psychological wholeness and emotional vitality; the experience of overflowing fullness of joy and pleasures of the God’s presence (see Psalm 16). We all have the offer of forgiveness, renewal and hope, knowing that “His mercies begin afresh each morning”.

¹ I am the man who has seen affliction by the rod of his wrath.

² He has driven me away and made me walk in darkness rather than light;

³ indeed, he has turned his hand against me again and again, all day long.

⁴ He has made my skin and my flesh grow old and has broken my bones.

⁵ He has besieged me and surrounded me with bitterness and hardship.

⁶ He has made me dwell in darkness like those long dead.

⁷ He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains.

⁸ Even when I call out or cry for help, he shuts out my prayer.

⁹ He has barred my way with blocks of stone; he has made my paths crooked.

¹⁰ Like a bear lying in wait, like a lion in hiding, he dragged me from the path and mangled me and left me without help.

¹² He drew his bow and made me the target for his arrows.

¹³ He pierced my heart with arrows from his quiver.

¹⁴ I became the laughingstock of all my people; they mock me in song all day long.

¹⁵ He has filled me with bitter herbs and sated me with gall.

¹⁶ He has broken my teeth with gravel; he has trampled me in the dust.

¹⁷ I have been deprived of peace; I have forgotten what prosperity is.

¹⁸ So I say, “My splendor is gone and all that I had hoped from the LORD.”

¹⁹ I remember my affliction and my wandering, the bitterness and the gall.

²⁰ I well remember them, and my soul is downcast within me.

²¹ Yet this I call to mind and therefore I have hope:

²² Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail.

²³ They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.

²⁴ I say to myself, “The LORD is my portion; therefore I will wait for him.”

²⁵ The LORD is good to those whose hope is in him, to the one who seeks him;

²⁶ it is good to wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD.

Lamentations 3:1-26

Underbelly, Sex & Psychopathy – The case of Terry Clark

Having been watching this series of Underbelly: A Tale of Two Cities, it has been facinating, enthralling and disturbing to see qualities in the relationships between characters such as trust, fear, respect, cowering, allegiance and power working themselves out in such an interesting period of Australian history (1970s-80s).

So far the main character – Terry Clark – has been revealed as the devious drug trafficking-boss; the persuasive and empassioned two-faced person-user; the brilliant and calculatingly cruel mastermind; the perfectly charming seducer and womaniser. Last night’s episode gave particular insight into the psychopathic and narcissistic aspects of his personality. Not knowing any of the true story apart from this series, I am basing my observations entirely on the character of Terry as revealed by the Channel 9 TV series.

Firstly, Terry is characterised by a cold, calculating attitude and remorselessly cruel treatment of anyone who threatens his drug importing schemes. He uses people for his own ends, buttering them up with praise and flattery, only to turn on them when they fall out of his favour. Superficially, he is warm and generous, lavshing money, parties and praise on his “friends”. However, without much warning at all, these so-called friends soon discover the daker side of Terry’s personality, and his perfectionistic standards don’t permit second chances. The result is that those failing to perform or “cracking” under police pressure don’t last long, usually ending up savagely murdered, battered and buried.

The underlying issue seems to be Terry’s incapacity to genuinely feel the reality of another’s emotions – an inability to empathise. This particularly came to the fore on last night’s episode when Terry threatens to kill his ex-girlfriend over her taking their son back to New Zealand: “If you take him away from me, I’ll kill you.” She aptly replies: “What do you think that will do to him? You don’t know how to love him. Until you can feel somebody else’s pain, you don’t know how to love.” Here, Terry’s obvious emotional coldness is verbalised in terms of his inability to feel another’s pain.

Interestingly, this comment seems to make an impression on Terry, since it stops him for a moment, catching him off guard. Momentarily aware of his emotional deadness, it saddens him, thus experiencing a genuine emotion. His super-cool façade is prized open, revealing a instance of grief and perhaps anger over his lost, emotionless existence. This momentarily living in his ‘heart’ rather than in his ‘head’ reveals that he is not simply a purely evil monster after all. He is not a monochrome Dr-Evil-carboard-cut-out villain of darkness. Some part of him is still emotionally alive; he is hurt – with a deep sense of powerlessness – and trying desperately to hide this pain behind his perfectionistic strivings, coldness and accomplishments of power and prestige.

Another facet of Terry’s narcissistic disturbance is reveal in his intimate and romantic exploits – particularly in his performance of sex acts. As revealed in the series so far, Terry has an appetite for women – particularly for having sex with them (the series is very intent on showing us this!). Having impregnated his first girlfriend from New Zealand, Terry is quick to move  in on a younger, more available girl – Alison – while the first is back home preparing to give birth. His lack of genuine attachment is seen in his inability to remain loyal for any lengthy period. Indeed, being alone is probably too painful a reminder of some past abandonment that Terry must find someone to share his lonely nights (bed) as soon as it is empty.

Nevertheless, Terry is an intense lover, and it may seem to stand in contrast to the earlier observations that Terry is emotionally cold to see such a passionate and romantic side to Terry’s personality. Indeed, Terry has the ability to charm and seduce. He knows how to put on sincerity and empathy when it comes to obtaining the sex he wants. He plays his smooth-talker cards and woos the woman with the body he desires. Ultimately, though, the sex is sought as a reflection of his ability to achieve, and the woman who provides the sex meets his narcissistic need to be successful in all areas to which he sets his mind. That he will later decide to have Alison killed reveals the true nature of his “love” for any of these romantic pursuits.

Furthermore, if the intimate relationship for Terry is not a genuinely emotional bond of mutual trust and respect, then the sex itself is not something he is emotionally engaged in – it is but a performance. Terry’s passion and intensity in the relationship is not directed towards her as a prized lover, but it is directed towards himself as a triumphing, accomplished performer. It is a show of his “success” at getting a woman respond positively to him. As Alexander Lowen explains in his book Narcissism about one of his clients, “Being emotionally dead, Erich derived little bodily pleasure from the sexual act. His satisfaction stemmed from the woman’s response… his lovemaking was more a servicing of the woman than an expression of passion.” (pp. 3-4)

However faithfully Underbelly portrays Terry Clark as a ruthless criminal, cold-blooded murderer and grandiose lover, it points us to the reality of the deep emotional disturbance which makes him a tragically fascinating case study from recent Australian history. Many books have now been written about the roots of psychological disturbances, but I would like to refer to one by John Bowlby, a psychoanalysist and attachment theorist, which I happen to be reading at the moment. The book is particularly remarkable since it was written with so much clarity on the topic and yet was written so long ago. Child Care and the Growth of Love is a summary of a World Helath Organisation report prepared by Bowlby in 1951 and details the psychological impact of deprivation in childhood and the importance of love from the primary carer (usually the mother). Written in the context of hospitalisation and institutionalisation of abandoned or unwell children, Bowlby revealed that an absence of motherly love in the critical period of a child’s first years of life will frequently result in depression, excessive demanding, superficial socialising, sexual promiscuity, lying, stealing and aggression, as an adult.

In one example Bowlby described the child who has withdrawn himself emotionally from others, due to the previous intensity of pain of having had his heart broken by the loss of loving relationships (mother, nurses, carers). He wrote (p.63):

To withdraw from human contact is to avoid further frustration and to avoid the intense depression which human beings experience as a result of hating the person whom they most dearly love and need. Withdrawal is thus felt to be the better of two bad alternatives… But experience shows that once a person has taken refuge in the relative painlessness of withdrawal he is reluctant to change course and to risk the turmoil of feeling and misery which attempting relationships brings with it. As a result he loses his capcity to make affectionate relationships and to identify himself with loved people… Thenceforth he becomes a lone wolf, pursuing his ends irrespective of others. But his desire for love, repressed though it is, persists, resulting in behaviour such as promiscuous sex relations and the stealing of other people’s possessions. Feelings of revenge also smolder on, leading to other anti-social acts, sometimes of a very violent character.

Tragically, though such knowledge has been circulating for so many years and though we have more resources and support, we still seem to be unable to escape the cycle of neglect-pain-repression-coldness that continues on throughout the generations. Indeed, until we can find the healing that comes from warm acceptance and unconditional tender love that God wants us to give to and receive from each other, this cycle of pain will go on. Sadly, there will be more Terry Clarks.

So we long for mercy now, and for the healed, whole, resurrection-life to come when Christ returns.

Controversial manliness

I haven’t read it, but Harvey Mansfield’s book, Manliness, seems to have created quite a stir. From what I saw in a 10-minute excerpt of an ABC News debate with Naomi Wolf in 2006, Mansfield is unembarrassed about talking about the differences between men and women, and promoting the “quaint and obsolete” concept of manliness.

In the interview, Mansfield speaks about male and female differences in a direct and honest way. He’s not embarrassed that men are stronger than women and more interested in competition (also politics and sports, which are examples of manly competition).

These differences, of course, are generalisations, but they are true generalisations. Though some women are stronger than some men, and some women take more risks than some men, the generalisation that women are weaker and less risk-taking are still true.

Naomi Wolf, of course, reacts in shocked disbelief and reproach. With all her political prowess and intellectual strength, she understandably feels demeaned. At the end of the day, however, neither she nor any woman can escape having a female body (or brain). This is the tragedy of today’s gender-neutral society, in which, according to Mansfield, “women are trying to imitate men, but men are not trying to imitate women“.

Perhaps Mansfield’s most piercing (and controversial) statement is that women are:

…of course the weaker sex. I think it’s quite important that women are physically less strong than men. It means that they can’t exercise the same authority as men with the same easy grace and so they have to try a little harder. So the way they get around this is to either persuade with more seductive tones, or to make a scene.

Ultimately, being bigger and stronger does help one’s sense of authority. You can’t really escape the body, hormones and brain structure you were given. Nonetheless, being a woman doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t be authoritative, but having the body of a man makes it easier than having a woman’s body. I suspect there are complex socio-cultural factors enmeshed in all of this too.

Does all this mean that women shouldn’t be fire-fighters or members of parliament? My, and I think Mansfield’s, answer would be ‘No’. Biblically speaking, the endless number of specific roles are not spelled out, but the Bible writers made it clear that, ultimately, women’s roles will centre around the home and children much more than men’s (Titus 2:4-5). There may be some female individuals who are stronger and more competitive than most men, but the vast majority will not fit this mould.

Nor do I think all this means that men can’t be soft, nurturing and non-competitive. There may be manly ways to wash up, drive the car, relate at work (Mansfield would define this by a man’s competitiveness in how he does these things). There are therefore also womanly ways to do these tasks.

How to do these things, though, is not a matter of prescription. We should expect trends according to gender, just as we do according to generational difference and country of origin difference. Therefore, Mansfield’s reiteration of the age-old advice is necessary for our age: “we have a gender-neutral society, but we don’t have gender-neutral individuals, we have men and women. Different sexes… those differences need to be understood and respected.” Pretty obvious, but obviously not all that obvious.

Finally, I ask myself why it is that so many people want to minimise or ignore the observable differences betweens the genders? Is is because they will feel abnormal if they do not fit the stereotype? I suspect that debate over these issues of gender differences relates more often than we would like to admit to personal insecurity. Just a thought.

Women are like spaghetti

I recently heard it suggested that “Women are like spaghetti, men are like…. lasagne”, meaning that a woman’s emotional connections go everywhere, everything related to every other part of her world. Men on the other hand are more sectioned-off, compartmentalised, less emotionally-enmeshed. Like all generalisations (which are true of much, but never all, of the population), this one seems to have a ring of truth, and I would like to reflect on it briefly.

Now, of course, observable male/female generalisations are just that: generalisations. Regardless of the vast majority who display a certain trait, there are always plenty of men who demonstrate the stereotypical “female” trait, and vice-verse.

I have heard this generalisation in other forms, such as: “Women are like handbags (everything touches everything else), men are like a chest of drawers (everything is in distinct departments)”. It would also fit well with the old one: “Women are like an iron (takes a long time to get them warmed up), men are like a light bulb (you can turn them on in an instant).”

Such differences seem to reflect traditional male-hunter, female-gatherer views. They would fit with the female as nurturer, male as protector well too. More significantly, to me such a difference aligns itself with the Biblical teaching of the husband’s headship in marriage. Being emotionally-less-enmeshed might make the assumption of rational, clear-headed responsibility easier. It would appear to be a strength (as well as a  weakness) in man’s tendency to be less emotionally encumbered.

I do not think that a man’s lasagne-like-ness need imply that he is cold or emotionally disconnected from others. Though being emotionally cold might be perceived as more masculine, even heroic and leader-like, it would be a mistake to approve of poor relating in the name of “important” things like leadership, strength and manliness.

In the end, whatever the degree of (“male”) compartmentalisation or (“female”) entanglement, there is always the sauce which binds the pasta, adding coherence, clarity and softness to the whole.

The hideousness (and healing) of being a parent

Becoming a parent brings with it some of life’s most intense emotions, experiences, and revelations. The highs and lows are manifold: joyous expectation, anxious (pain-filled) labour, wonder in beholding newborn life, total readjustment of daily routines, the testing of sleep deprivation, the lowliness of changing pooey nappies, to name but a few.

What I have been realising lately is that becoming a parent is also a profound way of revealing to us some of our deepest, core-most realities, in painful, yet therapeutic ways. In a way, I believe this is God’s design, a gracious depth of insight into our own hearts and minds, and into the heart of God, our heavenly Father, Himself. In this blog, I will discuss what I mean by the hideousness of being a parent.

First of all, my assumption is that in our parenthood we are most likely to display some of the least attractive aspects of ourselves, as well as some of our best. This is because as a parent in relation to our child we are most tempted and most permitted to show our true colours, whether in love or in anger, in our acceptance or in our disapproval of the child. Where else do we have the authority to rule another’s life, to impress our reality onto another? Where else are we able to be most authentic, and get away with it?

The hideousness of parenthood lies in the fact that parents are both expected and allowed to express the depths of their hearts to their kids. Though often the most tender expressions of respect, dignity and affirmation, it can also be expressions of heartless criticalness, proud judging, or smothering neediness.

Imagine this situation: An energetic 4-year-old boy is jumping noisily and calling out around the house. At first the parent, though irritated, ignores the noise, telling himself that it is normal for kids to be like this. The child continues to shout, sprouting out loud nonsense words and sentences. The parent’s sense of annoyance at his son’s “immature” behaviour rising and intensifying inside him. The threshold is reached, and the parent snaps in anger at the child’s “bad behaviour”. The parent shouts abusively, shocking the child in his shell for something the child had no idea was wrong to do. The child is now nervous, on edge. He will have to tread carefully around Dad, lest he displeases him again.

Here we have an example of the hideouesness that a parent is capable of. In a sense it seems fairly harmless, innocent, justifiable. The father was probably tired, worn out after a long week at work. The child had probably made these noises in an effort to upset Dad. It hardly seems all that ‘hideous’. Or perhaps the hideousness of it was hidden.

In my mind, the reason why a parent would respond in this way is because he cannot come to accept such behaviour in himself. There is an intolerance of the child’s behaviour because it was never acceptable for the parent to behave in this way when he was a child. As a child, this parent probably had to vie for mum and dad’s attention, shoved aside or beaten down for his energetic need for their attention. This parent was not loved to the extent he longed for, instead his clammerings for attentive acceptance were squashed or disciplined out of him. Exasperated and empty, his only way of coping was to suppress his longings, cutting off part of his deepest, truest being. Having been denied the completeness of his emotional self, this child could no longer access those parts of him which allowed him to stretch out to others in selfless, abounding love and acceptance. “I can’t have it, so I’m not going to give it to others,” became his ethic.

Furthermore, naked and shamed, this individual no longer desired to appreciate others’ differences and accept them for who they were, but now sought to expose, ridicule and criticise others, just as had been done to him as a child.

What is the hideousness of being a parent? It is the total and absolute license for a parent to inflict on his own child the horrific and emotionally destrcutive abuses that were inflicted on him as a child. It is the cycle of abuse which too often goes unbroken. It is a hideous crime against humanity, yet it is perfectly legal. Parenting can be hideous because we each were once parented.

The privilege of parenting is accompanied by a huge liability: the care of a human being is entrusted to us as parents. There are many ways to butch it up. There are also powerful factors at work in us in our parenting which we may, more often than not, be unaware of. Our own first years of life are generally unavailable to explicit memory. These may have formed us in ways that we are not aware of.

It may take becoming a parent to realise what we are, deep down inside. This is the hideousness as well as the graciousness of God to us in parenting: a chance to know the depths of brokenness and of our need for restoration. It is humbling to know the extent to which we cannot control ourselves, just how infused with fallenness our lives are.

The depths of our hideousness in our being parents leads us to the depths of healing that parenthood brings.

Too much too soon, or not enough? – Honouring girls’ sexuality

Having been born in the early 1980s, I confess my ignorance about the details of the social atmosphere of the 1960s and 1970s. Yet the more I learn about these decades of “peace”, “free love”, “liberation”, etc., the more I realise how important learning about them is, comparing what is different  between what we take for granted today and what life was like then. Indeed, studying this period feels to me a bit like a lesson in ancient history, yet it is an era that the majority of Australians alive today have lived through, and therefore is directly relevant to those whose parents experienced that era.

It has been Naomi Wolf’s 1997 book Promiscuities which has, in recent weeks, aroused my interest in this historical period. After previously overlooking her as some predictable man-hating feminist with lofty and godless ideologies and nothing particularly relevant to say to me, her book has proven to be thought-provoking, and I have found myself agreeing with her more often than I expected to. Despite her view of sex outside of the marriage covenant as a universal norm, I appreciated her emphasis that female sexuality is an extremely precious gift – something that our world has too often abused, shamed or even sacrificed for the sake of some “higher” calling.

I would like to reiterate a couple of the applications she makes which I think are pretty important, and which are too easily overlooked. In my mind they apply equally to boys as to girls. Firstly, Wolf points out the great need to better protect chidren’s sexual development (by shielding them from inappropriate movies, etc). She sees neglectful parenting and a selfish demand for free speech as the cause of this damaging trend: “Our collective refusal to respect the sexual development of children, in the interest of defending our own freedoms constitutes a collective psychic assault on kids for which we must all take responsibility.” (p.241)

Furthermore, in Wolf’s mind, the distinction between the world of adults and the world of children in recent decades has become so blurred as to no longer exist: “I think that we who were young in the 1960s were perhaps the last generation of Americans who actually had their childhoods, in the… sense of childhood as a space distinct in its roles and customs from the world of adults, oriented around children’s own needs and culture rather than around the needs and culture of adults.” (p.26) This is a tragic reminder for parents to not make their kids grow up too fast.

Lastly, Wolf proposes certain rites of passage for a young girl in the laying of secure foundations for her transition into womanhood. Here, she recommends that a thirteen-year-old girl be taken on a retreat with older women to learn about sex, sexuality, motherhood, and so on. I see the value in giving such recognition and attention to what it means to as a young girl becomes a woman. The silence about human sexuality that still exists in so many homes as children grow up is a devastating tragedy.

These suggestions of Wolf’s are refreshingly thoughtful and practical. Though Promiscuities boldly over-applies Wolf’s very personal and limited experience to a whole generation, it is the intense realness of her (and others’) story which makes it compelling and relevant. As a New York Times review puts it: “Anyone – particularly anyone who, like Ms. Wolf, was born in the 1960’s – will have a very hard time putting down “Promiscuities.”"

Awkward love a means to deeper self-understanding

What do you do when you’ve offended someone but they’re not making it easy for you to approach them about it? How do you express love to someone who wants to shut down an avenue for further communication?

This situation has been on my mind a lot these past weeks. More than once have I recently done the wrong thing by someone simply out of carelessness or absent-mindedness. Am I more careless and absent-minded than I have been previously? I’m not sure, but I am critically aware of the hurt I have caused another when they alert me to it. And I kick myself as soon as I realise I have caused offense.

I suppose it does no good to simply dwell on my past err in the hope that I might somehow find a way of not having to take action about resolving it. It is very tempting to want to justify myself by blaming the other, or explaining away the reason for my careless behaviour. I feel a rage against injustice welling up inside me, wanting to cry out in my defence, getting me off the hook, allowing me to avoid confrontation.

All this seems to be an excuse for my own awkward fear over confrontation and having to say sorry. I think I dislike saying sorry since it is so debasing. It makes me feel like I am grovelling, pathetic and worm-like as I plead for restoration – a second chance at making the relationship work again. I suppose it is pride to not want to have to admit to what I did, mainly out of preoccupation with other things, things which I could justify as worthy distractions from the thing that I neglected to do right. Is it perhaps that in apologising for my poor behaviour I am opening up the possibility for the other person to reject me more, to not reopen the door to restored friendship, thus making me feel even more worthless? This risk is frightening, the source of my crippling dilemma.

What I do want to say is that reaching out to others in this world is always going to be messy. Authentic love is awkward because it involves our whole personalities, including all our quirks, and playing on our many insecurities. Living and loving as whole persons in relationship with others is so fraught with pitfalls that it is no wonder that so many give up, retreat, close themselves off and shut themselves away as hermits and drop-outs.

Loving my neighbour as myself is not going to be easy, since it is me that so often and easily causes offense that upsets my neighbour. If living with others at work, in homes, suburbs and families so often brings out my worst, I can see why there is such a temptation to recoil and hide from others, rather than extend myself in the vulnerabilities of humble, sensitive love. I am very tempted to run emotionally from those who I don’t click with, who don’t quite understand me, or who don’t give me the benefit of the doubt.

While anger, grumbling, bitterness and a sense of injustice are all legitimate feelings as we rub shoulders with each other in this messy world, I sense that there is more to it than these initial feelings want us to know about. I would say that such feelings are an indicator of deeper aspects of ourselves that we might not necessarily want to allow to come to our attention, memories about parts of us that we have squashed down in the hope that we wouldn’t have to face them. It is at the very moment we wish to gloss over such things that such a discovery is invaluable to us.

I conclude that it is worth the risk of digging beneath gut reactions to find within ourselves the deeper causes of malcontent. I resolve now to turn my mistake and pride into an opportunity for better understanding of what is at work within me, seeking to find how I might relate with deeper maturity into the future. In this way my neighbour’s grief at my annoyance will not have been in vain, nor will my initial awkwardness over how to respond to this grief have been. Thus, my own struggle in loving my neighbour will become the means for deeper self-acceptance as it provides an opportunity to grow in ways that wouldn’t have been otherwise possible.

Curiosity killed the Kat

Katy Perry’s I Kissed a Girl quickly shot to the top of the charts and currently still receives plenty of time on the airwaves. Other than its sheer catchiness, I suspect this song owes its popularity to the fact that listeners themselves are curious, having at some time doubted their sexual orientation and contemplated other options, but not having dared to act on it. Whatever the exact reason, Katy Perry has struck a chord amongst many, and yet, in doing so, has come under fire from others. Indeed, the song has proven very controversial, evoking strong emotions particularly amongst those who denounce it as a backward step in the feminist cause.

As with most songs, there are many possible interpretations as to the precise intention in its composition. The writer at Feministe sees Perry’s song as endorsing male objectification of women, while others see it promoting a healthy sense of questioning of sexual orientation. Personally, I view the song as an honest confession of a young woman’s mixed-up emotional experience as she learns about her sexuality – a necessary and difficult journey for each of us as sexual beings.

In the song Perry reports back on the experience of having kissed a girl at a party – under the influence of alcohol and out of curiosity – “just to try it”. While I first thought that Perry was simply encouraging female homosexuality, on further listening it became clear that she is not so figured out or probably all that keen on other women.

As you listen to Perry retell the story of her ‘decision’ to kiss another girl, you can’t help but sympathise for her in the pain of the moral and personal implications for what was involved in taking that step. Caught between the teaching of her devout Christian parents and the curious desire to explore the unexplored, Perry’s dilemma is understandably agonising. While on one level she feels a joyful liberation, at another she is plagued with guilt, knowing that she has disobeyed the wishes of her parents:

It’s not what, good girls do
Not how they should behave
My head gets so confused
Hard to obey

Above all, Perry is confused and curious about her sexuality – a common experience amongst teenagers and even adults. Yet she is daring enough to let her curiosity prompt her to action. Though she knows her boyfriend will probably disapprove, she sees the girl-kissing experiment as worthwhile. One blog commentator puts it well:

A lot of the time when people are confused, they act in a way that they normally don’t. Maybe she doesn’t mean what she is saying, or maybe she is just trying to get a new song out there for those of us who don’t know what to do and in a way, she is letting us know that there is more people out there who are like us and that we should just be ourselves.

 

References:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/06/30/katy-perry-plays-make-believe/

http://www.duanemoody.com/2008/06/what-do-you-have-against-gay-people-katy-perry/