Hugo Schwyzer's Open Salon Blog

Vermont gets it right on "sexting"

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:04:39 -0400

As has been widely reported, Vermont (the first state in the notion to approve same-sex marriage through the legislative process) is now considering decriminalizing "sexting", the much-ballyhooed practice by which teens take and send explicit images of themselves using their cell phones. The absurd prospect of having teenage girls arrested on child pornography charges for sending topless photos of themselves to prospective beaux has encouraged the sturdy Vermonters to do the eminently sensible thing; as Salon writes, "sanity prevails."

From the standpoint of a teacher and a youth worker, the furor about "sexting" seems tinged with both media hype and an unpleasantly salacious curiosity about adolescent sexuality. The chief concern I have is with the emotional well-being of the young people who do share naked pictures of themselves; embarrassment is powerful and regret is real, particularly when -- as so often can happen -- an image meant for one person is shared with many more. I'm also concerned with the dynamics under which sexting takes place: to what degree do the young women (and, more rarely, young men) who take and send these photos with their phones feel pressured to do so? Coercion, peer pressure, and individual agency are key issues in any discussion of teen sexuality. Safe and responsible adults need to be able to initiate conversations with teens about their private lives -- and the misuse of child pornography statutes to prosecute adolescent "sexters" is an ironclad guarantor that those conversations will not take place!

The Vermont law, as proposed, wisely distinguishes between a 15 year-old sending a naked picture to another 15 year-old and a 15 year-old sending that same picture to a 35 year-old she's met online. In the latter case, the law could still be used, as we would want it to be, to prosecute an adult who solicits nude pictures from a minor. The minor would not be charged. Make sure that adults understand that soliciting and knowingly receiving sexually explicit photographs from minors is a crime. Apply that law with a recognition that a relationship between an 18 year-old and a 17 year-old is not dangerously exploitative (despite the minor-adult disparity) in a way that a relationship between a 17 year-old and a 28 year-old almost certainly is. The law, in other words, needs to center the emotional, sexual, and physical safety of young people; it does not need to center the scandalized indignation of adults.

In January, in a post about the "right to a past", I touched on this issue. I've also touched recently on the issue of adolescent resilience, in a post written contra the "one mistake will ruin your life" narrative. To the extent that "sexting" is a reality rather than media-hyped phenomenon, it's important for us to recognize the potentially coercive aspects of this adolescent innovation. But it's also important that we avoid the lurid, exploitative hysteria that so often accompanies discussions of teen sexuality. As long as young people know that adult concern for them is rooted less in an obsession with their chastity and more in an interest in helping them develop healthy, mutually satisfying relationships, teens will be open with us about their lives. If we emphasize that foolish or impulsive decisions don't necessarily need to lead to enduring shame or familial rejection, if we emphasize that our mistakes are character-building rather than soul-scarring, we empower young people to make better choices and recover quickly from the humiliation that is, in the end, the chief danger inherent in the "sexting" phenomenon.

As Vermont, so the nation. May it be so quickly.

Self-Medicating versus Self-Soothing

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:01:25 -0500

Over the holidays, I met with one of my former youth group kids. Miguel is at university now, doing very well. He's in a steady relationship with the same girl he's been seeing since the start of his sophomore year, a year and a half ago. And while talking with Miguel, something popped into my head which I haven't really dealt with explicitly on this blog: the vital difference in relationships between self-soothing and self-medicating.

Miguel and I -- and a lot of folks -- are cut from the same cloth. We are prone to bouts of anxiety in our romantic relationships. For me, one of the most difficult lessons I've had to learn over the years is how to manage that anxiety, particularly when my partner is distant or preoccupied, or when we are going through a quarrel. My wife loves me very much, and I don't doubt her love. But she is also a woman with interests besides me and our marriage (thank goodness), and she is the sort of person who, like most of us, has her periods of wanting to be close and then wanting to withdraw. Miguel's girlfriend is apparently very much the same. And in the early stages of my relationship with my wife -- and with many previous relationships as well -- maintaining my own calm and sense of well-being when she was more distant or simply "elsewhere" was a very great challenge. My mind would rush immediately to the worst: "She's unhappy and wants to leave me". Of course, the "worst" always revolved around my fears about the relationship; rather self-centeredly, I far too often assumed that my partners' moods were usually a response to my behavior, neglecting the reality that there would always be other causes of happiness and worry in their lives.

It's not just folks with the common "Borderline" diagnosis who have trouble managing anxiety in relationships. I've noticed that a great many people, particularly in the early stages of serious love affairs, have a tremendously difficult time coping with a partner's withdrawal or distance. This has come up before on my blog, particularly in terms of disparate sexual desire (most recently and briefly, here.) Leaving aside the specific issue of whether sex can ever be obligatory, there's little question that when it comes to that issue -- as well as many others -- few couples ever go through their lives in perfect harmony. Whether it's affection or conversation, it's very common for one person to want "it" more than the other. This can fluctuate, and roles can even be reversed, but the general rule is that some degree of uneven desire for something important will be present in almost every longterm relationship.

I'm concerned today with how the higher-desire partner manages his or her frustration and anxiety. And here's where that distinction between self-medicating and self-soothing becomes so vital. Self-medicating is about more than turning to drugs or alcohol, though those are classic self-medicating devices. Self-medicating means dealing with anxiety by doing something that provides a temporary rush of excitement sufficiently strong to distract one from focusing on the relationship. Using pornography addictively, overeating, overexercising, compulsive shopping, disappearing into a marathon "World of Warcraft" session -- all of these can be strategies for self-medicating. Flirting with others to relieve the sense of dependency on one partner, and infidelity itself are also famous self-medicating strategies. Self-anesthetizing might be a better term; while some medicines do in fact heal, the kind of self-medicating I'm talking about here involves the use of a temporary analgesic to mask the pain and anxiety.

The problem with self-medicating, besides the obvious ones inherent in infidelity and most compulsions, is that it does nothing to deal with the root cause of the anxiety or to bring about healing in the relationship. Like masking a chronic injury with painkillers, self-medicating in response to feeling unwanted only delays dealing with the problem until a later date. Self-medicating does nothing to address the root problem in the relationship, which is sometimes not the disparate desire itself but the anxiety that that lack of equilibrium causes. While it's enormously tempting to look for a quick fix when one isn't getting what one wants from a partner, common sense tells us that what we end up doing when we self-medicate is exacerbating the problem. When we are reactive or compulsive or simply numbed, we are almost always going to end up appearing less desirable and less appealing to our lovers in the long run.

So how is self-soothing different? It's a difficult distinction for some to grasp. There are similarities to self-medicating. Both involve the deliberate effort to refocus one's energy away (temporarily) from the relationship that is triggering the anxiety. As long as the focus is relentlessly on the other person ("Why won't she talk to me?" "Why is he so distant" "Why doesn't he want sex anymore?"), then the higher-desire partner can neither get relief or deal with the core cause of their own fears. But while self-medicating involves taking up a strategy for numbing oneself against the pain that another person can cause, self-soothing is focused on doing deliberately loving actions for one's own self. Self-medicating is reactive; self-soothing is proactive. Someone who wants to self-medicate says "How can I make this anxiety go away NOW?" And the answer, all too often, lies in "checking out" through overwork or drugs or alcohol or flirtation or spending or eating or... you get the idea. Someone who wants to self-soothe asks the question "What can I do right now to remind myself that I am whole and complete, as I am, lacking nothing?" If the goal of self-medication is to anesthetize the pain that comes with feeling so connected to another person, the goal of self-soothing is to focus on loving self-care. The goal of self-soothing is not to provide the illusion that one's partner doesn't matter. The goal of self-soothing is to provide the reminder that the self matters first and foremost. That's a vital distinction, and it drives the choice of strategies to which one can then turn. And those strategies can be nearly as varied as the ones for self-medicating.

One way I was taught to learn to self-soothe rather than self-medicate was to ask myself a question whenever I felt significant anxiety in a relationship, and it was time for me to stop trying to "fix the problem" and "solve" the other person. "What would I be doing for me", I asked myself, "if I weren't so focused on this relationship right now?" Of course, the first answers that popped into my head were self-medicating ones! But I asked myself a follow-up: "What can I do right now that's going to help me feel better about myself tomorrow as well as today, regardless of what my partner does?" The focus was on me, but not just on immediate pain relief. It was on self-care. And what I found was that I had lists of things I had wanted to do but chose not to for the sake of being perpetually available for the relationship. The books I hadn't read, the movies I hadn't seen, the hikes I hadn't taken, the friends I hadn't made plans with -- it always amazed me (in relationship after relationship) how much self-affirming behavior I had made the choice to forego just so I could "be there" for my partner, wife or girlfriend when she might need me. Most of the time, my partner hadn't asked me to give these up; resentment would thus be misplaced. Most of the time, I had cut back on doing the things which made me feel good that weren't directly connected to the woman in my life. So when she needed her space, or when we were quarreling, I had far too little to fall back on that would serve to remind me that my happiness wasn't entirely contingent on this other person. I figured out, eventually, that the desire to self-medicate, to look for the quick fix, would always come up as long as I didn't have a support system in place for those times when the focus needed to be away from the relationship itself.

One of the many reasons I got involved in youth ministry a decade ago was because I saw what an excellent self-soothing strategy working with self-absorbed teenagers would be. Mind you, this wasn't the only reason I went into this avocational work. Altruism and self-interest aren't as mutually exclusive as we sometimes like to believe. I wanted to "give back" very badly, and I had and have a passion for working with young people. But I knew that I would get a healthy charge from being around teenagers. Though my relationship with the kids would be uni-directional (meaning that they could come to me with their challenges, but I would never burden with them with my problems), it didn't mean it would be entirely without emotional benefit to me. Focusing on the needs of young people (including those students at the college whom I mentored) gave me a deep sense of satisfaction, and reminded me that I could be useful to a great many folks besides romantic partners. Even when the teaching or mentoring or youth work becomes exhausting, as it occasionally does, I find it soothing because of its capacity to remind me of how much it is I have to give, and that I am called to give to a great many people. Some less gregarious types might find self-soothing in painting, in sculpture, in getting involved with cat rescues. The possibilities are enormous.

But it's vital, I think, for those of us who are prone to anxiety, and prone to be (at least in some areas) the "higher-desire partner" to have a set of healthy, life-affirming coping tools at our disposal. The fewer self-soothing options we have, the greater the pressure we will put on our partners and lovers. The greater the pressure we put on them, the more they will withdraw; the more they will withdraw the more frantic we will become, and the greater the chance we will turn to destructive self-medicating behaviors in order to cope. And when in doubt about the difference between self-medicating and self-soothing, and whether one particular action is one or the other, I was taught to ask one more question: "When the high of doing this wears off, will I feel better or worse about myself physically and emotionally?" When I thought about the question seriously and answered it honestly, I found that even crazy old Hugo could usually grasp the distinction and make the right choice.

Prop 8, boycotts, and villains who aren't villains

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:11:59 -0500

Nine days after the election, the reaction to the narrow passage of Proposition 8 -- eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry in California -- continues to build. Major demonstrations are planned at city halls across the state this Saturday, and a series of grassroots organizations have sprung up to work to overturn this decision. Some advocate a complex appeal to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the voters overreached. (The explanation of how that might work is here). Others talk of another initiative in 2010, accompanied by far better outreach to minority communities and other groups who were neglected by the campaign against Proposition 8. My students are galvanized and excited; when the happy day arrives that gay marriage is restored in California, this time for good, we may well come to see this defeat as a "blessing in disguise." But it's far too early for that sort of reflection; the pain now is real and the work is great.

Many of my students and colleagues are involved in organizing boycotts of those companies which supported Proposition 8. Others, such as Roseanne, are urging a broader boycott of every organization which has large numbers of Mormons on its executive payroll. (The Mormon church gave heavily to the "Yes on 8" campaign). I cannot support that effort. I make a clear distinction between boycotting a company that takes a public stand in favor of marriage inequality and boycotting a company which may have certain employees or executives who have given privately to support Proposition 8. It would be hard to think of many large companies that don't have social conservatives on their payroll somewhere, including folks who use some of their pay to contribute to political causes that I regard as discriminatory. Google and Apple both gave major donations to the anti Prop. 8 campaign, and their CEOs (Page, Brin, Jobs) are all staunch supporters of marriage equality. But it's likely that somewhere, even in San Francisco or Silicon Valley, these major companies have well-compensated employees whose views and donations are diametrically opposed to those of their bosses.

Boycotts have their place; one need think only of Montgomery, Alabama, to be reminded that the conscious decision to withhold financial support for public or private entities is a powerful tool in the arsenal of justice-building. But indiscriminate boycotts have their limits, and I am sure I was not the only progressive pained by the story of Scott Eckern.

Scott Eckern, artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, resigned Wednesday as a growing number of artists threatened to boycott the organization because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California. "I understand my supporting of Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal," Eckern said in a written statement. "I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved."

On the one hand, I understand the outrage. It's one thing to work closely with someone whose views on the capital gains tax are different from your own. It's another thing to ask a gay or lesbian person to give time and energy to an organization led by a man who believes, deep in his heart and in his wallet, that your relationship is not deserving of the same fundamental awe, reverence, and societal approbation as his own. When it comes to mounting a stage production, it is perhaps deeply unreasonable to ask a gay or lesbian artist or actor to devote time and energy to working in the close, intimate proximity of the theater world with someone whose time and money goes to causes so fundamentally hostile to one's very identity. It's all very well for heterosexuals to protest that a belief in traditional marriage ought not to be misinterpreted as private animus to gays and lesbians -- but the reality is that intent is at best only half of the truth. Perception is the other half, and it is not an unreasonable perception that those who voted "Yes" on Proposition 8 are unwilling to embrace gay and lesbian relationships as fundamentally equal. It's also not unreasonable to expect gay and lesbian artists to be unwilling to devote time, talent, and treasure to supporting a theater whose artistic director -- no matter how kind, hardworking, and talented he may be -- uses his salary (derived in no small part from gay and lesbian labor) to support a cause so fundamentally inimical to their most basic human interests.

That said, it appears a good man has chosen to leave his job, a job he was good at:

Although many contacted by The Bee disagreed with Eckern's stance on Proposition 8, they lauded his artistic contributions. Adrienne Sher, who worked with Eckern for seven years on the League of Sacramento Theaters board, said she was inconsolable. "He's done more for theater here than anybody. He was the League," Sher said. " … He struggled morally over every issue that came up. I think he's a hero, and I'm just crushed that this has happened." "I am stunned that this happened," said Stephanie Gularte, artistic director of Capital Stage. "I don't feel anger or hostility to either side, but I do feel great sadness and I think the Sacramento theater community has lost an important leader." Added Buck Busfield of the B Street Theatre: "We know that every political and social movement has casualties, and it's really sad that it should be Scott, who is such an incredibly, decent talented man and a friend of ours." Busfield used a theatrical allusion to sum up the conflict: "You want your villains to be villains, and Scott's not that."

In the hurt and rage over Proposition 8's passage, the temptation to "look for villains" is immense. On the other hand, the temptation to lament boycotts as "unfair" ignores the reality that the boycott has been and will continue to be an important component of any civil-rights struggle. The $64,000 question: how do we channel anger productively and generously? How do gays and lesbians and their allies engage against a monstrous injustice without stooping so low as to paint those on the other side as monstrous? How do we honor the truth that many of those who oppose gay marriage are not only well-intentioned, but have what is to their mind sound, well-thought out theological reasons for taking the stance they have? Can we distinguish between those who are genuinely hate-filled and homophobic (an admittedly not insignificant number) and those who sincerely agonized over this issue before casting that fateful "yes" vote?

Boycotts and marches have their place in civil society. Non-violent disobedience has its place as well. There is such a thing as righteous anger; those of us who are Christians saw it flash forth from Jesus on more than one occasion. But righteous anger finds a way to see the humanity in those on the other side; Martin Luther King was adamant on that point. As a consequence of righteous anger, a good man has resigned his post. The artistic community in Sacramento has suffered a real loss -- but it is a loss no more real than the loss that has been visited on the gay and lesbian citizens of California. Those already wed must endure a hateful, anxiety-ridden legal limbo for who-knows-how-long; those who long to marry but did not do so before November 4 must wait indefinitely for their next opportunity. Justice delayed is justice denied, as we all know. And those who gave time and energy and money to support a cause that was fundamentally antithetical to justice cannot expect acceptance and bonhomie from their colleagues whose rights have been stripped away as a consequence.

Few of us come from families where everyone agrees on these issues. Many of us have had heated rows over this very issue of gay marriage, rows with those whom we love. Most of us have experienced that cognitive dissonance of having someone you love very much hold a view that is incomprehensibly horrid in your eyes. (Some of those to whom I am close are nodding their heads as they read this, thinking of me.) We mustn't compromise principles for the sake of superficial harmony. At the same time, we've got to work even harder to not let righteous anger twist into hate or bigotry. The vast majority of the protests against Proposition 8 have accomplished this; outbreaks of ugliness have been blessedly, even miraculously few. Let's keep it that way, and as we discuss boycotts, let's do so with the thoughtful goal of using our dollars as votes for justice. As to how we best do that -- well, let the conversation continue!

Bigotry or Conscience? Pro-choice, anti-gay marriage voters

Sat, 8 Nov 2008 20:11:29 -0500

In a comment below a post-election reflection at my blog, Hector (a pro-life Anglo-Catholic Obama voter with a strong social conscience) remarked, in regards to the various state results:

It’s truly sad that many social conservatives in America appear to care more about whether something is called ‘civil union’ or ‘civil marriage’ than about the protection of innocent human life.

In the last two or three election cycles, a pattern has developed that was confirmed again on Tuesday. Every single measure designed to limit the rights of gays and lesbians (in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and California) passed. Every single measure designed to further restrict abortion failed (in California, South Dakota, and Colorado). Outside of California, these votes weren't particularly close. Certainly in the Golden State, hundreds of thousands of voters chose to "split the ticket" on Propositions 4 and 8 -- voting to ban gay marriage while voting to protect the right of teenage girls to seek abortion without parental consent.

To both the true believers on left and right, these are perplexing results. Who are these hundreds of thousands of folks who support abortion rights for minors but oppose gay marriage for consenting adults? The statistics make it clear that a great many people voted "No" on 4 (to require parental notification) and "Yes" on 8 (to eliminate same-sex marriage.) I'm an ENFP; I know a great many people, but all the Californians I know voted one of three ways: "No" on both 4 and 8, "Yes" on both 4 and 8, or "Yes" on 4 and "No" on 8. I haven't met a single soul who voted "No" on 4 and "Yes" on 8. Clearly, they exist. Clearly, they determined the outcome of the election. Open call, readers: if you know someone who did vote that way, ask them to come and comment here (anonymously, if they prefer.) I'm fascinated to know what the moral calculus was for that particular combination.

In any event, this decade social conservatives are losing on the so-called "life issues" almost every time they hit the ballot. A "death with dignity" proposition passed this year in Washington: several states have passed bills to legalize embryonic stem-cell research, most famously Missouri in 2006. The pro-life movement continues to claim that Americans, particularly young Americans, are re-thinking abortion -- but recent election results suggest otherwise. Americans are as willing as they ever have been to protect choice.

But social conservatives are enjoying great success in limiting marriage to a man and a woman. That's true in "red" states like Arizona, "purple" swing states like Florida, and solidly blue states like my own California. I expected Proposition 4 to fail, but I honestly didn't foresee Proposition 8 passing by a 500,000 vote margin. I would never have imagined that Los Angeles County would reject gay marriage, and am as bitterly disappointed as a heterosexual cisgendered person could be. The polls show that black and Latino voters, galvanized by Barack Obama, voted heavily against gay marriage. Many cited religious convictions for rejecting same-sex marriage. However, many of those same voters cast ballots to protect abortion rights for minor girls. Does anyone know of a parish in which the pastor preached against gay marriage -- and in favor of abortion rights? Me neither.

Most of the social conservatives whom I know and respect are far more concerned about protecting the unborn than they are about banning gay marriage. I know many folks like Hector, and my friend Russell Arben Fox, who combine progressive and tolerant views on homosexuality with a fervent commitment to what is often called the "consistent-life ethic." Rooted in a belief that real love means protecting all the vulnerable, many consistent-life types stand against war as well as abortion, stand for animal rights as well as the rights of the unborn. They fight against factory farming, the war in Iraq, euthanasia, capital punishment, and abortion. They tend to be agnostic on the issue of homosexuality. They want the state to intervene to protect the innocent in the womb, but are open to gay marriage as a viable social arrangement. I know these consistent-lifers well; I was once one of them. I still feel the moral sway of their arguments.

But alas, the religious right is not in the hands of the consistent-life ethicists. The lesson of the 2006 and 2008 elections is clear: abortion is a losing issue for Republicans, gay marriage a winning one. And that saddens me. Of course, I'm both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. But I admit that I can see some theological and spiritual legitimacy to the anti-abortion movement; as a vegan with pacifist leanings myself, I'm amenable to the consistent-life argument. But denying the right of two adults to marry seems to me to be far more mean-spirited than the attempt to deny the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. The former position seems rooted in bigotry with tradition applied as window-dressing; the latter, however misguided, is at least rooted in deep compassion for the vulnerable. Then again, I've been a pro-lifer -- but I've never for a minute felt even the slightest twinge of discomfort with homosexuality or the prospect of gay marriage.

So, once again, if someone who is a strong supporter of abortion rights and a strong opponent of same-sex marriage would like to weigh in (politely), they'd be most welcome. I haven't met many of that tribe, and would like to know the thinkin' process that undergirds their decision-making. Because across this country, they are having their way at the ballot box.

"A Son, Not a Husband": A Response to Jill about Marriage

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:10:58 -0400

Noted feminist blogger Jill Filipovic had a great post up last year: I'm Never Getting Married. It opens:

I actually don’t know if that’s true (her claim in the title of the post), but the closer I get to standard marrying age, the less I think it’ll ever happen — first because I think marriage is kind of a crock, and second because I’m becoming fairly certain that there just isn’t anyone out there who I want to be forever bound in marriage with.

It's an interesting and lengthy post, though Jill doesn't spend as much time on the second part of her reasoning (the near-certainty that there is no one out there whom she wants to marry) as she does on her first. Part of Jill's criticism of marriage is directed at engagement and wedding ritual; she specifically calls out diamonds and bachelor parties. She makes some excellent criticisms of both (particularly the anti-feminist implications in the former and the horrifying behavior of many men at the latter).

Back in 2004, when I was engaged but not yet wed, I posted about diamond rings here. I noted that while I bought my wife an engagement ring, she bought me one as well. Here's an excerpt:

...it’s important to remember that the origins of our traditions do not dictate their contemporary meaning. There is little doubt that the practice of having a father walk his daughter down the aisle to her groom (rather than having both parents escort her) is rooted in notions of the marriage as property transfer. But in the modern world, we are free to take older traditions and remake them, transforming their meaning as we please. What was once oppressive need no longer be so. I’ve known some strong women who walked down the aisle on Dad’s arm dressed in white — and they weren’t property (and they sure as hell weren’t virgins). At some point, oppression is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and these women didn’t feel oppressed by the ritual itself. It is absolutely true that folks will make judgments about a man’s wealth and status based upon the size and perceived expense of his fiancee’s engagement ring. But again, their perceptions do not determine the exclusive meaning! For me, the engagement ring does not symbolize wealth or ownership; rather, it symbolizes sacrifice and enduring commitment. In many traditions, it is customary for a man to say to his bride "with all my worldly goods I thee endow". In the modern world, that means he is surrendering his financial (as well as his sexual) autonomy in order to build a blended life with his partner. That’s no small sacrifice for either party when it is genuinely meant! The engagement ring symbolizes his commitment to share all that he has with her. (I suppose she could wear his 401K plan as a doily, but that wouldn’t be nearly as appealing.)

As for bachelor parties that involve strip clubs or other forms of sexualized entertainment, I'm obviously appalled by them. (I've had small bachelor parties before each of my weddings, though a number of them have consisted of just hanging out with a group of friends of both sexes. None involved strippers.) I've posted many times about the sex industry in all of its forms, and won't repeat those posts here.

I do want to offer a ringing endorsement of what Jill writes on the subject:

Bachelor parties where the boys get together and go fishing or out to a nice dinner are one thing. But the “take the groom-to-be out to watch naked women dance around” is problematic not only because of the feminist issues with paying women to strip, but because it strikes me as a direct statement of power over his to-be wife — the message is that marriage is such a burden and a bore that he has to get all of his youthful energy out before he enters into it, even at his fiancee’s expense.

There's no question that going back for more than a century, pop culture has set men up to believe that marriage means the end of "fun". The jokes about "the old ball and chain" go back to the furthest extent of living memory. And of course, there's a small grain of truth in all of this ugly humor. If your definition of happiness is the pursuit of everlasting novelty, then yeah, marriage will be dull by comparison. If your definition of freedom is the freedom to sleep with as many women as you can, then yes, marriage will seem confining.

But I've already written my paeans to monogamy; I've already said (to the exasperation of many of my readers) that I consider monogamous marriage to be the best vehicle I know for personal growth. (See my marriage archive if you want more of that.) I'm not going to repeat myself here, though I will say again that I know plenty of very evolved, interesting, compassionate people who have chosen alternatives to monogamy. To paraphrase Symmachus, there are many roads to so great a truth.

I respect Jill's reasons for -- at this stage of her life -- rejecting marriage. But in her post, I don't read the reason I hear from many young women (and not-so-young women) for their wariness. Whenever I launch into my glowing defense of marriage as a vehicle for personal transformation, someone (invariably a woman) remarks that in most marriages she's seen (or been in) one partner is shouldering considerably more of the burden of creating that change. Almost always, that partner is a woman.

A good friend of mine, several years older than Jill, is recently divorced. She pledges never to remarry, saying: "In the end, most men expect women to take care of them once they're married. I don't mean financially, I mean enotionally. I'm just tired of thinking about someone else's needs all the time, particularly an adult's. I'm prepared to take care of a baby. But I don't want my first-born to be my second child!"

My friend isn't describing every American man. But she's describing all too many. And it's not just a reference to housework she makes. All of the research shows, of course, that even when both parties in a marriage work an equal number of hours outside the home, the woman tends to spend more time on domestic work. But the problem my friend is really focused on is less about doing the dishes and more about emotional intelligence (what's often called "EQ"). Far too many men fail to do adequate self-care when they are in relationship with women. Far too many men becoming enormously reliant on their girlfriends or wives to urge them to see a doctor, to be the sole source of professional encouragement, to monitor their alcohol intake or the content of their diets. Far too many men unintentionally turn their girlfriends or wives into mother figures; in a sense, they outsource their emotional maintenance.

Every romantic partnership ought to be just that, a partnership. And while the partners are rarely going to be equally adept at every physical and spiritual and emotional task, it is important that the overall psychic workload of their union be shared fairly. Too often, women like my friend feel that when they marry, they end up focusing all of their time and energy on meeting the needs of their husbands. And while there is an element of need in even the healthiest of marriages, too often many women begin to feel that they are doing for their husbands what they damned well ought to be doing for themselves. Men can wash dishes (with hot water and detergent). Men can talk about their feelings with their friends just as so many women do, and thus alleviate some of the emotional burden many wives feel to be their husband's sole source of psychological support. Men can stay faithful in body (and in fantasy), even when their wives don't feel like having sex every night of the week.

Of course women have a huge part in this as well. Far too many women have traditionally derived their sense of self-esteem from their skill at providing pleasure and happiness to others. Some women deliberately seek out men who will be emotionally needy; part of the "bad boy" syndrome is sometimes less an attraction to the "bad" than it is to the "boy" who, beneath his truculence and his self-destructiveness, just "needs a little special TLC".

Both women and men can be architects of their own adversity in this regard. I am not absolving women of all responsibility here. But in the end, I'm convinced that a great many women (not necessarily Jill) are reluctant to marry (or marry again) because they believe that their are relatively few men worth marrying. Many women look at the colossal sacrifices other women make in marriage, they look at the legions of husbands and fathers who are emotionally distant or desperately dependent, and they say to themselves "no thanks." They are legitimately concerned that when they marry, a part of themselves will disappear; they fear -- sadly, often rightly -- that they will be forced to neglect their own growth to focus on enabling the growth of their husbands and their children.

I am not a perfect husband. One of my most important jobs as a husband, however, is to strike a balance between genuine intimacy and interdependence on the one hand, and emotional self-sufficiency on the other. Even now, at 40, after four marriages and a decade of therapy (including two years of formal analysis), after a dramatic and enduring spiritual conversion, after years and years of serving as a mentor and a counselor and a gender studies professor, I still have work to do. I still have to be vigilant not to slip into a pattern in which my wife ends up doing for me what I ought to do for myself. It's not my wife's job to make sure I eat right and get enough sleep, it's not my wife's job to tell me that I need to cut back on the exercise.

If I am to be the man God calls me to be, I cannot outsource my self-care to my spouse. My wife and I are trying to save chinchillas, trying to bring about social change, trying to plan for our own futures, trying to be agents of justice and love in the world. And we're trying to have fun while we're doing it. We rely on each other for encouragement, for comfort, for friendship. We focus our romantic and sexual lives on each other, knowing that if we put all our intimate energy into our relationship, we will emerge from our private moments recharged and more ready than ever to do the important work we are called to do.

So what's the bottom line? There are many reasons not to want to marry. But one big whoppin' reason for many women is that they've seen the available men. And while these lads may be cute, sexy, witty, kind, and bright, far too many of them strike the women around them as poor long-term investments. Far too many seem as if they'd end up being sons rather than husbands. And if we who believe in marriage want to see the institution thrive, we need to work on getting our brothers to grow up.