Love Lessons

Levi Johnston in Playgirl

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:49:09 +0000

Ok, maybe I am getting too old- but doesn't it seem that Levi Johnston is a little too young to be posing nude for Playgirl? I am not against ladies having eye candy; women like to fantasize about six packs and cute little butts in much the same way men ogle breasts and cute little butts. But still, shouldn't there be an age limit? This makes me feel like a "chicken queen" (a term the gay community used to use for men who sexualize young men).

I know that the fashion world has been dressing up young girls for years, calling them women and using them as seductive or sexy models- but I think it is something to be resisted, not to be copied. We know that the sexualization of female children has already occurred- if you don't believe me look at some of the mainline fashions for girls under 12. Five year olds look like they are going to sing in a bar... It's revolting actually, and I don't like it anymore when we prop up boys and use them as adult sex symbols.

I am not sure where this fetish for teenage flesh came from, but I think we should avoid it. Adult women and men are plenty sexy enough and beautiful enough to hold our attention. And just for one extra thought: I know Playgirl is desperate for attention and putting Levi on their cover will be a big marketing score, but don't they care about making a model out of a guy who had sex with his girlfriend without a condom and proceeded to become an unwed father with an unwed mother? Hopefully these two young people can pull together and give their child some consistent love and loyalty, but really, making him a poster boy is not exactly sending the right message to teenagers or to young adults. I am not asking him to be shunned- just not celebrated. Playgirl should want us to ogle a guy who is a man-and who knows how to play safely.

Ask Your Doctor!

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:52:20 +0000

A recent study indicated that 70% of 1,200 women surveyed had experienced some kind of sexual health issue. The survey, commissioned by the National Women's Health Resource Center and the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals indicated that 22 percent of these women were concerned about the issue they experienced, ranging from a lack of sexual desire, arousal, inability to have an orgasm, vaginal dryness or pain during sex. Many of these women indicated that they would be comfortable talking about these issues with a doctor, but less than 18 percent actually sought a doctor's help when they experienced one. These results spurred those organizations, in partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to launch a national campaign called Sex and a Healthier You, to better educate women about healthy sexuality.

This reluctance to bring up issues about their sexual health, coupled with doctor's reluctance to include questions on sexual health as part of their patient's treatment, is a reason to worry about the quality of overall attention women's sexual life commands. Anecdotally, doctors tell me they just don't have enough time to ask "those kinds of questions." And, in confirmation of the importance of addressing sexual health with patients, another national study indicated that nearly twenty percent of women reported experiencing a sexual dysfunction after being directly asked about their sexual health by their health care provider, but only three percent of women spontaneously brought it up.

Now, on the one hand, I don't want to concentrate on women's sexual problems to the exclusion of their sexual pleasures. But, on the other hand, women do have sexual issues and they are not getting heard, much less attended to. Which means that no matter whose commercial interest it is in to talk about sexual dysfunction, the fact is that it exists, and very few women know who to talk to about it-much less who could offer them valuable consultation or a solution to their problem.

Women, especially older women, too often assume that sexual problems are an inevitable part of aging- but that is not true, and it is especially not true for issues such as lack of lubrication or pain during intercourse. Even feelings that feel intractable- such as lack of desire (no erotic attraction to anyone) or lack of arousal (which I will define here as no sexual excitement during foreplay or love making) can be. Our sexual health is part of our overall health, and it should be discussed as part of our life long need to be aware of our body and to take care of it. The fact that very few medical programs give a significant amount of time to sexual health, or teach most physicians how to take a good sexual history, is sad and scary all by itself. But beyond that, doctors and other health professionals at least should inquire about their patient's sexual life and see if there are any issues that the patient consider distressing. Given health care pressures these days I know that many doctors are stressed and pressured to see more patients than they can adequately treat. Sexuality just doesn't rate unless it's the presenting problem. However, I don't buy the argument that it's not as critical a part of a check up as the condition of our hearing or bone loss. Sexuality is critically important to so many women. The Sex and a Healthier You study- and other studies -make it clear that sexual response is not only an important issue for women, it is a critical one for their mental health and the happiness of their relationship. If doctors are squeamish about this subject, they need to get further training. At the very least, they should ask questions and have a list of good referrals available.

The Missing Woman

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:50:29 +0000

As I sat listening to David Letterman's masterful Public Relations coup during his initial explanation of his response to being blackmailed, I was impressed-but also quite shocked about the woman who was not mentioned in his initial delivery. That woman was, of course, his wife. She was really nonexistent in his revelatory conversation with his audience. He talked about the "creepy part" of his behavior being the fact that he had sex with women (note the plural) who worked for him- and his audience sort of sniggered at his admission- perhaps not quite knowing how to react. Letterman took his lumps- but also created the atmosphere of being at a table with his best friends who would understand just about anything he did. He surrounded himself in the glow of audience commiseration, and for the moment, suspended judgment. What he did not do was put his wife first- again.

Now someone has brought this to his attention. Maybe it was wife, or maybe it was one of the millions of women who noticed that protecting his wife's dignity or feelings simply wasn't on his agenda when he first brought the situation public. It took days before he allowed a few face saving gestures to his marriage, indicating that perhaps his wife was extremely upset, feeling betrayed and disinclined to make this as easy a confessional expiation of sin as he had created with his audience.

What does he owe his wife? What does any spouse owe the person who is most hurt by their infidelity? Unless this is the result of mutually broken vows and a series of emotional assaults on both sides of the marriage, the very least a person owes a partner is some protection of their dignity and self esteem. The errant spouse needs to explain themselves, and offer to get therapeutic help if, like Letterman, there seems to be a pattern of sexual escapades or a parallel life of extra marital conquests. If they love their partner, they have to bend over backwards to make their spouse understand that, all appearances to the contrary, they are indeed loved and treasured. Their spouse deserves explanations of why this happened- no matter how painful it is to undergo their partner's questions and anger. The unfaithful partner should make sure their partner doesn't feel unattractive, unworthy, and if at all possible, the errant spouse needs to protect their spouse from friends and stranger's musings that perhaps their partner was somehow at fault. True, some non monogamous behavior is an outcome of a shell of a marriage that has long since ceased to provide love or companionship or it is an escape from a sexless or emotionally abusive relationship. Still, when marriages are troubled, the recommended remediation is counseling, or dissolution- an unraveling relationship is not justification for leading a double life.

But of course infidelity often occurs in relationships that seem just fine. Just because there is infidelity doesn't mean the marriage was in trouble. It may only mean that one partner was restless, needed validation, loved the challenge of conquest, wanted an adventure or was impulsive, indulgent or sociopathic.

In a high profile situation like this one, the least Letterman's wife deserved was the first apology-on or off screen. I don't know if his apology will be too little, but I do know it's too late. Maybe he can make it up to her, but as far as I am concerned, I think he gave a performance in how not to handle an exposure of infidelity. His first concern should have been her welfare and his first priority, at least as far as I could see, was himself.

The Limits of Power

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:27:19 +0000

It was a disappointing week for the powerful. We expect them to get whatever they want; they are the Captains of Industry, the Movie Moguls, our most prestigious elected officials, people at the top of their game. But they don't always triumph.

Last week President Obama put his prestige on the line for the Chicago Olympics-and got soundly trounced by the IOC. Mr. Letterman had his way with a number of women who worked under him (it is hard not to have double entendres when writing about this subject) but got backed into a corner by a lowly producer who intended to blackmail him for money and miscalculated how much humiliation the talk show host could tolerate. Rather than pay the money (and live under shadow of more blackmail) Letterman had to admit to his fans that he had been acting in a "creepy" way (his adjective) and basically submit to the drubbing the media gave him, and will give him (not to mention, I would assume, his wife's probable reactions.). Roman Polanski, free and famous for so many years after fleeing the country, was finally picked up in Switzerland, after so much time had elapsed since his crime that I suppose he had convinced himself that even the United States would back down after his longtime successful evasion of the law.

But Power doesn't always win the day. Prestige, money and fame will buy you a lot- sycophants, the best seats at hard to get concerts and restaurants, and generally a much easier and luxurious way through the demands of every day life. Powerful people get used to the waves parting for them, getting put to the front of the line, and getting away with impolite or aggressive behavior. Most, though not all of them, can be uncommonly persuasive and charming. We all love having their light shine on us. No wonder, they have every reason to believe it will continue forever.

But a cat can look at a king, as they say. Other people, with less power, envy them. People who do not have the same kind of sway in the world sometimes get a chance to have the last word-and it is almost irresistible to take it. The IOC had the delicious position of keeping Presidents from several countries in a supplicant position. The police that arrested Roman Polanski could treat him as just another rapist and runaway felon- no matter what France's cultural minister thought of the producer's artistry. And a producer who was beneath Letterman's radar could attempt to hold him up for money and failing that- succeed in holding him up for scrutiny, accountability, embarrassment, public disgust, and perhaps, exposure to legal sanctions

In the end, all of these people may have their way with the world again. But the powerful are targets as well as archers. Power is a liability as well as an asset, and while not all the backlash or application of the law against powerful people may be justified or fair, the fact is that there is some comfort knowing that the perks of power are not absolute.

Keeping the Curtains Down

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:03:02 +0000

The latest revelations about John Edward's sex and romantic life are not only sordid; they are sad. His ex staffer, adviser and friend, afraid of missing his chance at kiss and tell journalism, has written a book proposal that labels Edwards as the father of his lover's child and even indicates that Edwards had promised to marry this woman once his wife died.

How would you like to be Elizabeth Edwards reading this? I have seen a lot of heartless revelations, but this one takes the cake. I don't know how it was leaked to the press, but I can only imagine that whoever did it wanted the widest possible notoriety for the news. The people involved no longer existed as human beings. The story was shared for a profitable book sale, and I suppose, the political aide realized he could not keep up the charade of paternity forever.

Still, the lack of compassion for Elizabeth Edwards is breathtaking. There seems to be no acknowledgment of what this information will do to her. She may have already known the child must be her husband's.... but it is another thing entirely to see him planning his life after her death before she is gone.

There just doesn't seem to be any heart left in political America. A good story is worth a lot of money- and that seems to be the only consideration. No one is entitled to a backstage any more, and people who are innocently demolished in the unveiling are just seen as collateral damage. Too bad.

Well, my heart does go out to Elizabeth Edwards. She deserves so much better. She is a valiant woman, trying to tell her story, to preserve a little dignity and not just be a passive victim of her husband's betrayal. It's impossible to do however, when no one, not even the most trusted of advisers, will allow anything- no matter how devastatingly destructive it is, to stay hidden from view.

The latest revelations about John Edwards sex and romantic life are not only sordid, they are sad. His ex staffer, adviser and friend, afraid of missing his chance at kiss and tell journalism, has written a book proposal that labels Edwards as the father of his lover's child and even indicates that Edwards had promised to marry this woman once his wife died.

Did Madoff’s Penis Punish the Public?

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:32:39 +0000

Madoff's mistress has a new book out detailing her affair with everyone's most hated financial advisor. In her text she notes that he has a small penis, and while that didn't seem to inhibit their sexual pleasure, she mentions it partially, I assume, in revenge for his treatment (emotional and financial) of her, and partly because she thinks it may somewhat explain his personality.

What do you think? Did Madoff's grandiosity emanate at all as compensation for his small penis? Did he know that his wealth would help women overlook the fact that he was under endowed? She seems to think so. Or, was he naturally arrogant, insidious and pathologically unconcerned with the welfare of others? Would he have behaved exactly as he did if he had a very large penis?

I know this seems ridiculous- but like many exaggerations, there is an interesting particle of truth in this. The truth is that no matter how many times we can say a more elegant version of "it's not the meat, it's the motion", only a few men will buy it. If there is a person out there who has not received a penis enlargement ad on the internet, please let me know. You must be very special or have a better spam guard than I do. That is, however, not my only piece of data on this subject. As a person who has answered people's sex questions for over thirty years, I can tell you that one of the most common ones from men, is some variation of "how do I enlarge my penis?". I have met men who have tried operations, weights (I'm not kidding) and various kinds or worthless herbs and creams. I have talked to men who are totally miserable because they believe their penis does not measure up.

Is this all in their head? Well, not entirely. When we watch porn movies, at least here in the United States, there is an emphasis on bigness. Women's breasts are often gigantic and the men who are picked to be their partners are, I assume, chosen for being well endowed as well as highly disciplined and controlled. Men often take their cue from these pictures and compare themselves to these porn stars (which is a bit like judging one's singing ability to an opera star). And of course both men and women eroticize what their culture eroticizes. So while most women don't care about size, some women do. And if a man with a small penis meets one of those women, it can be a deflating experience.

So, could a penis inferiority complex cause a man to pillage small cities or rape an entire economy? I don't think so-at least I hope not. But people do obsess about what they perceive as their sexual inadequacies, which is a damn shame. There are so many ways to be a great lover-and having a big penis is not required. Maybe if we could get away from bragging about body parts and think about all the ways we can make love, we'd all be better lovers-and maybe, just maybe, not turn our shame or insecurity into a difficult to dangerous personality profile.

How Much is too Much? Further Reflections on the Mark Sanford Story

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:25:20 +0000

People‘s values about the meaning and obligations of marriage vary greatly. For a person who regards marriage as a religious commitment or sacrament, the fact that the marriage vows have been violated by their husband or wife may not release them from their own promises. Other people, who believe marriage is more of a personal contract of love and commitment, have different ideas about what trespasses or disappointments legitimate leaving a relationship.

It is clear in the case of Mark Sandford, that both he and his wife have religious values that tether them to what is now a famously broken bond. Sanford did not just have sex with another woman, he did not even just have an affair; he declared that he had found "the love of his life" and his "soul mate". In other words, he created, admitted and broadcast a momentous love with someone else besides his wife and then, in pursuit of that love, humiliated his spouse and his family.

Onlookers watching this wreck of a marriage may shake their heads at what they think is Mrs. Sanford's incomprehensibly masochistic acceptance of her husband's betrayal. Even people who believe in the same religious sanctity of marriage that the Sanfords subscribe to may believe that this level of abandonment is too much to conquer. I certainly am sympathetic with that point of view.

What is interesting, however, is that Mrs. Sanford is hardly unique. While some people decry how blithely couples divorce these days, I think it is quite the opposite. I am impressed how much people will suffer before they leave rather than lose the person they love- or the family they love. (These may work together or separately). I have seen partners hold on for dear life when their spouse has emotionally kicked them out of their lives. I have seen people swallow being humiliated and disowned-and still hope for reconciliation. Sometimes the motivation is love, sometimes dependency and sometimes attachment to a way of life or the needs of the family. But the urge to resist dissolution, even when under terrific pain and emotional assault is awesome among the truly committed.

But is this good? What have the Sanfords got left? Their family? Maybe. Sometimes children will be able to forgive their errant parent's trespasses-and sometimes not. It is possible they will find a way to normalize family life-but it is not at all clear that will happen. Sanford's children probably feel loyal to their mom and angry about her position. Moving away may be necessary, and it is most certainly symbolic that the children went with her.

And what about the marriage? Can Mrs. Sandford get over hearing her husband publically pine for his lost mistress? Should she? How much can one ego take before it is just crushed? Can she ever feel truly loved by her husband again? She is not facing an errant husband who had a fly by night sexual adventure. She has a man who loves someone else and now is dutifully returning home. Who wants to be her?

I am not for marriages breaking up lightly. There is so much hope, love faith, history and practical concerns that if a marriage can be saved, it should be. But how much should we ask one person to take? Should Governor Sanford lose the love he sacrificed, his wife, family and maybe his career to have? Should Mrs. Sanford lose the chance to have someone who truly loves her and whose loyalty she can count on? Maybe all this can be fixed with a skilled marital therapist and the determination of the two spouses... but I am dubious. Our emotional flexibility has its limits- we are not intellectually capable of willing ourselves back in love-or regaining our respect and trust for someone who has badly betrayed both.

There are many people, including some therapists, who think a marriage and family system should be kept at all costs. I respect that opinion-but I don't subscribe to it. Sometimes a marriage deserves to end.

Why Sarah Palin Facinates (and Horrifies) Me

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:27:21 +0000

Whenever I get a surge of anger just thinking about someone, I know that my reaction is not all about them. I know there must be something in me that this person threatens and exhumes, perhaps from childhood- or perhaps from right now. So when I think of Sarah Palin and immediately get that visceral reaction, I know it's not just because she's a Republican. I would not have voted for John McCain even if he'd had a better running mate- but I don't get angry just thinking about him. So Sarah Palin's got my attention in a different way.

Having noodled this reaction for awhile, I have come to the conclusion that it's her extreme narcissism that gets to me. It also occurs to me that I am particularly galled by it because this expression of dizzyingly undeserved self love is expressed by a woman, and not a man. Presently, I am co-authoring a book on Narcissistic Men, and this is a typology that I recognize and understand... it is the man who is a "Captain of the Universe" enabled in his imperiousness and willfulness by fawning subordinates and dazzled women. I could go on, but you know the type. They are usually attractive, bright and often charming people-as long as they are getting their own way. If they get thwarted- they are a nasty bit of business.

I know women are not immune from this disease, but I am always startled when I see it. After all, most little girls, including myself, were told to be nice, play fair, and support others. Even those of us who rebelled and went after our own best interests usually retain some of the "people pleasing" aspects of our early childhood personality. When you see a woman who appears to have no desire to please others, unless she is benefits from her actions, it is a bit breathtaking.

So Sarah leaves me quite breathless. She is grandiose, high maintenance and extremely selfish and therefore deluded about her qualifications. She is used to charming the socks off of most people (and especially men), and she has a certain contempt for everyone as a result of getting away with it a lot of the time. Her speech about "Not being a quitter" just because she was deserting the governor's office in mid-term, was a miracle of contempt for her audience. Her desire to stay on the road and in the spotlight without consideration for her large young family, a special needs baby and a teenage mother of her grandchild, is ambition without the slightest nod to other's needs. She is as ruthlessly self-indulgent and narcissistic as any man ever born. She reconfigures my previous thinking about gender and narcissism.

By what's my personal with this? I suppose as a feminist, I have always felt that ambition and a certain amount of narcissism were necessary tools for women to make their way in the world. I applaud most women who work hard, share parenting, and reach for the stars. I have never thought about what it looks like, however, when there is no responsibility to anyone else, when ambition is unfettered by other values of caretaking - to a family- or to a constituency. Taking a look at the end of the continuum of self love and self aggrandizement has been a sobering experience. It is a revision - a reminder that the balanced life includes a critical evaluation of the self, some humility, and some sacrifice and service.

Sarah Palin gets to me. I wish she would get to everyone who sees her- the fact that she has even one acolyte scares the hell out of me. And it's really not about her politics at this point. I am just scared by someone who has no capacity to love or give or understand her own limitations. I hope she is leaving office to make a lot of cash to spend on even more expensive clothes and other stuff. I dread the possibility that she might be leaving because she has a yen to become an even more powerful national figure. I can only hope that if that is the case, her mangled thinking and her mangled language will not hide the clearest thing about her- she doesn't give a damn about anyone but herself.

Adultery: Everyone thinks its wrong, but a whole lot of people still do it!

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:11:55 +0000

Ok, so a recent Gallup poll says that over 90 per cent of people disapprove of marital non-monogamy. That makes sense: none of us like the idea of someone we love flirting with someone else much less having sex with them. It hurts to even think about it.

But let's face an awkward fact: depending on which study you read, over a lifetime approximately 25 to 50 per cent of married men and women are going to cheat on their partner. Make that 50% plus of cohabiters. Same sex couples are not exempt, either.

But what do we do about it? We make it our number one immorality in polls even though we know that the flesh is weak-and especially weak among those who crave adoration, fame and have the advantages of power and money-in other words, most politicians and world leaders.

We not only try and deny this reality- even this thought, but we have historically tried to criminalize this behavior. I suppose we figure if we can't change human nature we can at least jail it. A case in point, the state of South Carolina makes "habitual carnal intercourse:" outside of marriage a crime potentially punishable with incarceration.

Adultery used to be one of the few legal ways to get a divorce in the United States (though not in every state) and a lot of states have, like South Carolina, laws on the books that haven't been invoked for quite some time.

Still, the legislators fondness for showing that they know which road is the morally high one, has kept them from extinguishing these inactive laws. No one seems to want to show that they voted against criminal consequences for Sexual Tresspass.

It might also be true that laws against " habitual carnal intercourse" are one of those laws that would be used so selectively as to be always, on the face of it, well, immoral. Because according to inferences from research, and certainly according to appearances, we'd have to incarcerate most of the politicians and about half the state. It seems like an unwise use of taxpayer money.'

Still, no one wants to accept the truth: our sexual and emotional backstage is not the same as our performances up front. Husbands and wives and conjugal partners of all kinds will have these ruptures and they will be hurtful and sometimes unravel the relationship. Other times however, they will happen and never be discovered, or happen and make the partners live with a new kind of honesty that might lead to long term preservation of the couple.

No one thinks the discovery of what is almost always perceived as a betrayal is easy or desirable. Still, it happens. And to pretend it doesn't or to try and demonize it as a criminal act, is ridiculous. In fact, most couples now say that discovery of a partner's affair would not be an automatic end to the marriage. There is more to marriage or commitment in a couple than sexual fidelity--important as it is. If spouses have the fortitude, they can go to counseling or communicate on their own about how and why an affair happened, and eventually, survive it.

In any case, the issue should be out of the courts, and out of the public eye. Governor Sanford made it our business by disappearing while on duty, and even by using taxpayer funds. But that just shows that passion can make anyone stupid. As unattractive as it is to see a public official or celebrity's inner sexual world stripped open for all of us to see--lets not forget that for most people, this is an intensely private issue--and a common one.

The Power of Sex

Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:38:29 +0000

Senator John Enseign and Governor Mark Sanford have joined the ranks of sexually straying political husbands...a pretty crowded category. Both men have been caught with their pants down, even as they have pontificated about sexual morality to the rest of us.

It may be why watching them get busted is a guilty pleasure.

Of course none of us can afford to be sanctimonious. We all know that there is no one who is pure in all categories, even if we can pass muster in a few. Maybe stepping outside the marriage isn't our temptation-but what about private drinking, a little random shop lifting, or binging on food? Most of us know what it's like to do something we don't approve of, or struggle with a backstage life that has nothing to do with what is happening in front of the curtain.

Somehow though, we come down hardest on someone who has sinned sexually. Even though we know the nature of human beings is to fall in love or lust unwisely, we don't like to admit it- and we are afraid of condoning it. We don't want to be the perpetrator or the victim. Denial of it as a common human fragility is usually our way of denying our own vulnerability to temptation, flattery or an impulsive and compelling crush.

We know the rules- and we respect them. But we also know that those rules are harder to keep than we pretend they are. The fact is that even if most men and women are monogamous, a huge percentage are not-and that percentage grows when you allow for the fact that ambitious, hard driving, fame seeking people are not too likely to be laid back and uninterested in their sexual appetites and emotional connections. They are, let's face it, a high risk group.

So, here's where I stand on this situation. I actually felt sorry for Governor Sanford- it was clear to me that he had deeply loved his Argentinean lady, that he felt he had sinned against God, himself, his wife and his family, and he was miserable about everything that had happened. He wanted punishment, and his frankness and openness about his behavior was testament to his desire for full disclosure and censure.

Well, if you watched his news conference, you know he got his full measure of humiliation. And his withdrawal from GOP leadership will be part of his fall not only from grace but from power. Still, we might consider a measure of forgiveness, no matter what his wife and family decide to do (since their pain is much great than ours). We could acknowledge that the power of sex is great, the flesh is weak-and the discovery of the marital betrayal has its own agonizing consequences. That should be enough pain for those who want to exact it.

One thing, however, I would like to see from our famous miscreants: a little less sanctimoniousness about sexual issues and a lot more compassion when it comes to relevant social policy. The heart has its own urgencies, and our brain is sometimes no match for our endocrine system. Let's just acknowledge that fact and be a bit more understanding and compassionate when the next person -or sexuality related social issue-becomes a headline.