What!

Things to think about from psychologytoday magazine online.

First I ran across this yesterday. This feels like just one more reason for feeling confused. Read what Dr. E says. And by the way I tried to google it, and couldn't find anything else that says 50 percent of women who are homosexual end up declaring themselves to be straight.

Read it on the psychology today website here.

Dear Dr. E,

Is homosexuality a kind of sickness-a psychological problem-produced by peer pressure, or inborn and natural? Can sexual orientation change? Are there tests to see if you're straight or gay? I'm feeling great confusion right now about my sexuality.

T, Australia


Dear T,

Mental health professionals used to consider homosexuality a type of mental illness, but now it's seen as a normal condition that is at least partially determined by genes. It's common for sexual orientation to be in flux in one's teens and early twenties. One study suggests that 50 percent of the young women who believe they are homosexual end up declaring themselves to be straight within a few years. I wouldn't suggest taking any "tests" to determine your sexual orientation; you need to determine that for yourself, no matter what score you get on a test.

And second... I post this mostly because I had a dream two nights ago where I kept saying or thinking Winnicott in my mind for what felt like the whole dream and I woke up with his name on my mind. Winnicott is a psychiatrist that I think was pretty smart. So I share this in honor of that.

Read this on the psychology today website here. It's a much longer article than this.

GOOD-ENOUGH INTIMACY

Since our intimate partner will never be perfect, what is reasonable to expect? The late British psychiatrist D.W. Winnicott put forth the idea of "good-enough mothering." He was convinced that mothering could never be perfect because of the mother's own emotional needs. "Good-enough mothering" refers to imperfect, though adequate provision of emotional care that is not damaging to the children.

In a similar vein, I believe there is a level of imperfect intimacy that is good enough to live and grow on. In good-enough intimacy, painful encounters occasionally occur, but they are balanced by the strength and pleasures of the relationship. There are enough positives to balance the negatives. People who do very well in intimate relationships don't have a perfect relationship, but it is good enough.

The standard of good-enough intimacy is essentially subjective, but there are some objective criteria. A relationship must have enough companionship, affection, autonomy, connectedness, and separateness, along with some activities that partners engage in together and that they both enjoy. The relationship meets the needs of both partners reasonably well enough, both feel reasonably good about the relationship. If one person is unhappy in the relationship, then by definition it is not good enough for them.

People looking for good-enough intimacy are bound to be happier than those seeking perfect intimacy. Their expectations are lower and more realistic. Time and time again, those who examine the intricacies of happiness have found the same thing--realistic expectations are among the prime contributors to happiness.