The following reprint appears with the kind permission of the
Family Therapist Networker
(November/ December 1997)
Exchange of Letters to the Editor regarding Dr. Schnarch's Networker article
(September/October 1997)
Passionate Marriage
Forever an Oxymoron?
By David Schnarch, Ph. D.
Click here to read original Networker 1997 article
Letter to the Editor:
I take strong exception to many of the points in David Schnarch's "Passionate Marriage" (September/October). As a sex therapist with more than 20 years of clinical experience, I honestly tried to learn how his treatment is different from the tried and true practices of thousands of traditionally trained sex therapists. At the end of the road I was left asking, "Is there any there there?"
Schnarch dismisses, as largely ineffective, traditional techniques of guiding, talking, skill building, mirroring, validation, and overall communication. Yet his own descriptions of face and hand caressing, sharing of fantasies, guided kissing and touching accompanied by monitoring and disclosing feelings, is pretty much traditional sex therapy practice.
Schnarch's most famous prescriptive standard, the "eyes-open orgasm," seems sensually dictatorial and counter intuitive. My dog Yorky closes his eyes when I rub his tummy, which I think is a universal mammalian sign of pleasure and trust. The "eyes-open orgasm" not only limits the blind and visually impaired to second class orgasms, it dictates a neuro-sensory style of orgasmic intensity that ignores individual preferences and sensitivity. So, must I keep my eyes open to fully appreciate the intimate drama of a Beethoven crescendo, or am I allowed to immerse myself in the singular auditory medium that conveys his genius? It seems arrogant to prescribe how couples should universally prioritize their sensuality.
How couples behave in bed is not remarkably or even reliably an authentic expression of their emotional connection as Schnarch claims. If there is anything our culture is stupendously poor at it's sex education and development. Sex is the most contradictory, confusing, elusive, and politicized topic on our cultural map. Sexual satisfaction can vary quite independently from our sense of love. Over half of the couples I see for non-sex related marriage counseling report their sex lives are just fine. Many couples continue to have satisfying sex long after the relationship has broken off, for it still feels safe, satisfying, and familiar. Similarly, some couples who honestly love each other by any legitimate measure are still plagued by sexual dysfunctions.
While Schnarch implies that his approach is a preferred clinical method to overcome sexual and intimacy disorders, this seems an empty assertion, given that he offers nothing more than a discussion of a single case accompanied by no published outcome statistics. In fact, we have only his clients' reported affirmation that they feel better about their sex life, a goal that might be accomplished just as well by giving both a shot of testosterone, a week at Club Med, or a weekend of Imago Therapy. But the question remains are the results durable, demonstrable and replicable? Aye, there's the (sensual) rub!
Michael Freeny
Longwood, FL
Dr. Schnarch's response:
Michael Freeny's critique of my work appears to make three seemingly contradictory points: "We've been doing this for years; this is nothing new." "How dare you dismiss what's widely accepted." And, "Nobody really knows anything about sex, anyway." Each hampers development of better sexual and marital therapies and stifles therapists.
Sex may be a mystery to Freeny, but a therapy that deals with the sophisticated system of sex and intimacy in emotionally committed relationships now exists in the Sexual Crucible Approach. If he cannot see the difference between my clinical approach (based on differentiation, intimacy and anxiety tolerance) and conventional sex therapy (based on genital function, sensate focus and anxiety reduction) in my Networker article, then I suggest he read my books as carefully as did Dr. William Masters (who appreciates the paradigm shift).
Freeny's posturing as protector of the handicapped is unwarranted. It demonstrates what I call the "tyranny of the lowest common denominator," which constrains our field from developing approaches that speak to our highest potentials rather than our fears, limitations and childhood wounds. It's also evident in Freeny's reference to sensuality with his dog. Much of contemporary sex therapy and marital therapy focuses on mammalian behavior rather than uniquely human aspects of sexuality, intimacy and love.
When Freeny argues that loving couples can have sexual dysfunctions, he mirrors conventional sex therapy's focus on genital function. My point was that sex provides a window into ourselves and our relationships through our style of interaction, not simply whether our genitals work. When loving couples have sexual dysfunctions, their love is reflected in how they handle them; likewise, many couples have "nondysfunctional" sex that bespeaks their emotional alienation. The fact that half of Freeny's couples report "just fine" sex together even after their relationship has broken off--illustrates how few couples develop their capacity for profound engagement and what happens when they don't.
I use eyes-open sex as a tool for enhancing differentiation and intimacy, rather than as the behavioral prescription Freeny implies. The Crucible Approach avoids the dictatorial prescriptions and proscriptions of conventional sex therapy that preclude a well-differentiated clinical stance. Being sensitive to clients' preferences includes discerning between true sexual preferences (based on choice) and pseudo-preferences (based on limited sexual development.). People who have sex and orgasms with their eyes open often close their eyes for different reasons and meanings than do people who have to close theirs. In Buddhist Tantra and Jewish Kabala sexual practices "looking into each other" is standard fare for developing spiritual union. Are these approaches arrogant or dictatorial for pointing out this vehicle for profound connection and personal development?
Finally, I appreciate Freeny's concern for empirical validation. However, he may be unaware that studies indicate that couples with desire problems treated with conventional sex therapy show little or no increase in sexual passion immediately following treatment, and return to pretreatment sexual frequency within two years thereafter. Anytime Freeny wants to fund a study comparing the benefits of testosterone, Club Med, Imago Therapy and Crucible Therapy on couples' sex and intimacy, I will eagerly participate.
David Schnarch
Marriage & Family Health Center, Evergreen, CO.
November/December 1997 NETWORKER
All materials, and contents of this website, unless otherwise noted, are copyright 1991-2008 by
David Schnarch, Ph. D. All rights reserved. Intellectual property laws also apply. No reproduction for any
reason is permitted.
"Sexual Crucible®", "Crucible®", "Crucible Approach™", "Passionate Marriage®",
"Passionate Couples™", "Resurrecting Sex™", "Intimate Proposals™", and "Harnessing the
natural processes of differentiation in emotionally committed relationships™" are trademarks and
service marks of David Schnarch, Ph. D.
|
