Logo

    perel

    Explore "perel" with insightful episodes like "The Joint - 16 April 2022", "Episode 93: It's Been A While", "06 #miłość: A co jeśli mój partner/partnerka umawia się z innymi? Czy mogę na to pozwolić?", "05 #miłość: Dla wszystkich, którzy kiedykolwiek kochali, czyli za co kochamy Esther Perel" and "Episode 26: Gay Men's Relationships - Reconciling the Living Room with the Bedroom" from podcasts like ""The Joint Radio Show", "Astrology Roast", "7 oddechów", "7 oddechów" and "Gay Therapy LA with Ken Howard, LCSW, CST"" and more!

    Episodes (12)

    The Joint - 16 April 2022

    The Joint - 16 April 2022

    And on with the show...

    Notebooks out completists, here's the playlist in full...

    • PEREL / MARIE DAVIDSON - Jesus Was An Alien (Club Edit)
    • DAVID HOLMES - It's Over If We Run Out Of Love (Darren Emerson's Huffa Remix) (featuring Raven Violet)
    • LE MOTEL - Rápido
    • MANIC STREET PREACHERS - Borderline (6 Music Festival 2022)
    • V4 VISIONS - Joy In The Jungle
    • DIGGA D - Life Of A Real G (Freestyle)
    • HOLY FUCK - Ninety Five
    • CHLÖE - Treat Me
    • HORACE ANDY - Safe From Harm
    • SPECIAL REQUEST - Straight Off The Block (Tim Reaper Remix)
    • NAPPYNAPPA - Shoelaces
    • yaya bey - keisha
    • DJ SUGAR C - Stupid Rich
    • WILMA VRITRA - One Under
    • TESS PARKS - BREXIT AT TIFFANY'S *
    • KELLY LEE OWENS - Sonic 8
    • lorelei k - Bartender
    • ODD NOSDAM - Good Day
    • SEA POWER - Green Goddess (Live Acoustic)
    • mBtheLight - release
    • ICEBOY VIOLET - Atone//Blankface
    • JOCKSTRAP - Concrete Over Water
    • BODEGA - Statuette On The Console
    • DONNAY SOLDIER - I'm A Donnay Soldier (Bangin' Tune Mate)
    • GG MOTHRA - Hell Na
    • MERCURY - RUNNING ROUND
    • MODEL ZERO - Little Crystal
    • GOME - Bier & Gold (Extended Version) (featuring Tightill)
    • LUNGO - Altitude
    • WORLD GYM - Eres Mi Sueño
    • SURYA SEN - Earn It
    • CONFIDENCE MAN - Angry Girl

    * The inspiration for this week’s lyrical heading.

    06 #miłość: A co jeśli mój partner/partnerka umawia się z innymi? Czy mogę na to pozwolić?

    06 #miłość: A co jeśli mój partner/partnerka umawia się z innymi? Czy mogę na to pozwolić?
    W tym odcinku o tym, jak odzyskać ukochaną osobę, dając jej wolność bycia sobą i wyzwolenie z ograniczających ról matki i żony. Zyskiem z wolności jest kontakt, bliskość i erotyczne spełnienie. Jakie są koszty? I czy ostatecznie wolność i autonomia się opłaca? Dla wszystkich, którzy kiedykolwiek kochali - druga cześć rozmowy zainspirowanej przez podcast Esther Perel "Where should we begin" (https://whereshouldwebegin.estherperel.com/, odcinek: S4 Episode 1: You Want Me To Watch The Kids While You Go Out With Another Guy?). W rozmowie cytujemy też książkę Sylwii Urbańskiej "Matka Polka na odległość" oraz "Dzieci księży. Nasza wspólna tajemnica" Marty Abramowicz.

    05 #miłość: Dla wszystkich, którzy kiedykolwiek kochali, czyli za co kochamy Esther Perel

    05 #miłość: Dla wszystkich, którzy kiedykolwiek kochali, czyli za co kochamy Esther Perel
    Miłość to bliskość i bezpieczeństwo, pożądanie to przygoda i ekscytacja. Czy da się utrzymać jedno i drugie w długoletnim związku? Co w tym pomaga a co przeszkadza? Czym jest zdrada? To tematy, które eksploruje Esther Perel, światowej sławy terapeutka par. Zapraszamy do jej świata wszystkich, którzy kiedykolwiek kochali.

    #9 Esther Perel über die größten Herausforderungen in Liebesbeziehungen heute

    #9 Esther Perel über die größten Herausforderungen in Liebesbeziehungen heute

    Wie kam es, dass Esther Perel eine der renommiertesten Paartherapeutinnen weltweit wurde? Welche Fähigkeiten braucht man als Paartherapeut*in? Woher gewinnt Esther Perel Inspiration für ihre innovative psychotherapeutische Arbeit? Was sind die größten Herausforderungen in Liebesbeziehungen heute? Was rät sie Paaren in ihrer Praxis, damit diese sich erfolgreich mit den heutigen Herausforderungen auseinandersetzen können?

    Das Interview wurde in Englisch geführt.

    Esther Perel ist Psychologin und Paartherapeutin und zählt zu den innovativsten Stimmen zum Thema Partnerschaft. Mit ihren zwei TED-Talks erreichte sie mehr als 20 Millionen Menschen weltweit. In ihrer New Yorker Praxis hat sie bereits Hunderten Menschen geholfen, Beziehungskrisen zu bewältigen. Ihr Podcast “Where should we begin” erfreut sich mit über 15 Millionen Hörer*innen großer Beliebtheit. Im März erschien ihr Buch und der US-Bestseller “Die Macht der Affäre” in deutscher Sprache.

    Viel Spaß und Inspirationen beim Hören dieser Folge!

    191: How It All Fits Together with Keith Witt

    191: How It All Fits Together with Keith Witt

    With so many different potential approaches to helping your relationship, how do you choose the one that’s right for you? And how do you make sense of them all together? John and Julie Gottman, Sue Johnson, Esther Perel, David Schnarch, Stan Tatkin, Ellyn Bader and Peter Pearson, Terry Real - they’re all describing different ways of getting the same thing - a loving, thriving, passionate relationship. Today we’re going to tackle how it all fits together, so you’re better prepared to steer your own relation-ship. To help us integrate in a way that makes it practical and clear, we’ve invited Dr. Keith Witt back to the show. Keith Witt is an integral psychologist, which gives him a unique perspective in making sense of all these roads that lead to Rome. His most recent book, Loving Completely, details his approach to bringing all of the essential parts of you to your relationship. Along with having written 7 other books, Keith has conducted more than 55,000 therapy sessions with his clients! If you’ve been wondering how to make sense of it all, this episode is for you!

    Also, please check out our first three episodes with Keith Witt - Episode 158: Loving Completely,  Episode 80: Bring Your Shadow into the Light and Episode 13: Resolve Conflict and Create Intimacy through Attunement.

    As always, I’m looking forward to your thoughts on this episode and what revelations and questions it creates for you. Please join us in the Relationship Alive Community on Facebook to chat about it!

    Sponsors:

    Along with our amazing listener supporters (you know who you are - thank you!), this week's episode has two great sponsors, each with a special offer for you.

    For a unique gift to discover meaningful stories from the life of someone important to you, visit Storyworth.com/ALIVE for $20 off a subscription. Share the memories with your family, and preserve them in a beautiful hardbound book. It’s a perfect Mother’s Day gift!

    Want to experience a Luxury Suite or VIP Box at an amazing concert or sporting event? Check out Suitehop.com/DATENIGHT to score sweet deals on a special night for you and your partner.

    Resources:

    Check out Keith Witt’s website

    Read Keith Witt’s new book: Loving Completely: A Five Star Practice for Creating Great Relationships

    Check out Keith Witt’s other books as well!

    FREE Relationship Communication Secrets Guide - perfect help for handling conflict…

    Guide to Understanding Your Needs (and Your Partner's Needs) in Relationship (ALSO FREE)

    www.neilsattin.com/integrate Visit to download the transcript, or text “PASSION” to 33444 and follow the instructions to download the transcript to this episode with Keith Witt.

    Amazing intro/outro music graciously provided courtesy of: The Railsplitters - Check them Out

    Transcript:

    Neil Sattin: Hello and welcome to another episode of Relationship Alive. This is your host, Neil Sattin. And if you can hear it in my voice, I'm particularly excited for today's conversation. Of course, we've had so many different viewpoints represented here on Relationship Alive because there are so many roads that lead to Rome, the Rome of romance and romantic partnership, and how we sustain loving, thriving, monogamous relationships, and it's not always that one road works for any one person. And this has come up several times in the show, this question of, well, “so and so says their way is the way and they sound so convincing when you're talking to them, Neil, so what do I do when it doesn't work?" And this happens sometimes.

    Neil Sattin: So, if you've tuned in for a while then you know that the reason that I have all these different voices on the show is because I really believe strongly that it's whatever works that's important. And I suppose for myself I might put some boundaries around that; what I'd be comfortable with or where I'd feel a little edgy or stretching, but for the most part, I think that it's up to you to really get informed about what's possible and then make choices that really align with you or maybe stretch you in a direction that feels like a light way to be stretched. At the same time, they all form part of this big puzzle that makes sense. And so, I wanted to have a conversation today about how we integrate as much as possible the way that we think about all of these different methodologies so you can see how they all fit together, they don't exclude each other, for the most part. They actually all find a place in the big picture of how we make relationships, what we want them to be. And as much as some of the people on my show might want you to think otherwise, this is my personal belief.

    Neil Sattin: And so to have this conversation, I've invited one of my favorite guests to have here on the show who also happens to be someone who's very good at integrating all these different approaches. His name is Keith Witt. He has been here before to talk about his books, "Loving Completely", "Shadow Light", "The Attuned Family"; and he is an integral psychologist among other things. And so the integral perspective, I think will help us understand how all of these different pieces fit together in a way that actually does make a coherent whole, it makes sense. So, Keith, thank you so much for joining us today on Relationship Alive.

    Keith Witt: I am always happy to be on your show and it's one of the pleasures of my life, our conversations.

    [laughter]

    Neil Sattin: Awesome, well, the feeling is mutual. I do want to say before we dive in deep that we'll have a transcript of this episode. If you're interested in downloading it, you may want to read it a few times, you can visit neilsattin.com/integrate 'cause we're going to be integrating everything today. Or, as always, you can text the word "PASSION" to the number 33444, follow the instructions and you'll be able to download the transcript to today's episode. So, Keith, let's start with maybe where you orient in terms of this conversation. And before we got started, you were talking about this sense of, as we talk about all these different schools of thought, we're really talking about the founders of modern relationship theory. So, where do you put yourself and how do you make sense of where you are in this conversation about how we're tying all of these things together?

    Keith Witt: Well, first of all, being a founder is a peculiar thing. I've developed various systems, all of them interrelated generally, under the integral umbrella. And integral has worked for me greatly. [chuckle] The reason why integral has worked for me greatly is the integral is a meta theory, not a theory. And so, I had actually generated systems and written some books about systems before I encountered integral. But then the integral, looking at the world through the objective and the subjective, the individual and the collective; looking at the world through types of people, states of consciousness, through people being at different developmental levels, including therapists, I realized that when you put any system into that, including the systems I developed, it expanded. And it made me just fascinated with the commonalities that affective systems, particularly of relationships and of love because I think everything's relationships is.

    Keith Witt: And so, one of the things that's different for me and other founders is that, even though I've... If you look at my eight books, there's essentially seven different systems interrelated of doing psychotherapy and of doing couples work. I'm not particularly invested in any of them. Those systems are useful, they're coherent, they have a lot of technical and theoretical interconnections with everybody else and with the research. But I agree with exactly what you said. Ultimately, when a couple or an individual wants to love better, they come in, it's the goodness of fit with the therapist and it's how effectively they move forward, and there's an alchemical experience that happens with that, that can only be described in the intersubjectivity of the session. And meta research on psychotherapy has shown this again and again, and one of my favorite meta-analyses, which they took lots of studies and put them together, they found out a couple of very fascinating things. One, therapy helps people, okay? That's good news for everybody.

    Neil Sattin: Good to know.

    Keith Witt: The second thing that the variance of change was explained by 40% in this meta-analysis, 40% of the variance of change was client variables; how resilient they were, what kind of social networks they had, what kind of resources they had; 30% of the variance of positive change was the relationship, what was the solidity of the intersubjectivity of the alliance between the clients and the therapist; 15% was placebo effect. If you go to somebody, give them a bunch of money and they expect to change, you're going to change.

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: In fact, that's something that has completely confused the field when it comes to the whole psychotropic thing. Probably 30% or 40% of the effect of most antidepressants is placebo effect, 8%-12% is probably the drug. Okay, so 15% placebo effect, 15% method of treatment. Okay, well, method of treatment 15% is significant. In poker, 7% is skill and the good poker player always wins but that 15% isn't as big as the client variables and it isn't as big as that 30% of the alliance. And so, I'm aware of that and so I hold my systems lightly, even though I love them. And so, I look at the other systems and I look at my relationships with the other systems, and I get a lot out of all of them. But also, I noticed that as we moved through the fields, our own little blind spots tend to affect how we absorb systems, how we enact systems, and how we integrate them. And I find that interesting because every time I find a blind spot, that's an opportunity to wake up. And this is where our conversation went when we were talking about this. So, how do they fit together? Well, as it turns out, even though they look very different from the outside, most of them fit together quite well in terms of the constructs that the various therapists bring to bear with couples and individuals for that matter and what they have to do in a session to help people move forward.

    Keith Witt: So, that's pretty much it. My Loving Completely approach is approach that I love a lot, and you can check it out in my book, "Loving Completely". And my book, "Waking Up" that was the first book that I wrote after I had my integral awakening, is one of the first texts on integrally-informed psychotherapy, and it has sections in it around integrally informed sex therapy and marriage counselling. And I'm quite proud of that, and I think that works a lot, but are those more effective than Gottman's approach. Schnarch's approach, or Perel's approach, or Tatkin's approach? I don't think so. I think pretty much you have a good therapist, who's enacting their system and is attuned to their clients, they're going to do pretty well. And this goes for me, all the way back to my doctoral research. I was always interested in this, and so my doctoral research was I took three different kinds of systems and researched them in terms of how much they enhanced the health of clients. Talking plus touching, talking without touching, and touching without talking. And I found that the people got better equally, which led me to conclude that in psychotherapy, people have a natural healing style.

    Keith Witt: And what you want to do is you want to identify it and enhance it and let it and help it grow as you grow throughout a lifetime. And I think that's probably the best way to go, as a psychotherapist and as a marriage counselor, and certainly when I train people and supervise people, that's my perspective. What's your natural healing style? How can we help you expand that and grow within that natural healing style? And that natural healing style has to involve, not just your style expanding, but you expanding. If we don't grow as individuals, we're limited as clinicians.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah, that's... I really appreciate your saying that and it's making me think about that problem of when someone comes to me and says, "I tried. I found an EFT therapist and that didn't work, or I found a Gottman therapist and that didn't work." I wonder sometimes if that might be, because the particular therapist isn't necessarily 100% aligned in terms of their healing style, which you just mentioned, with the system that they've learned. It may be that they believe 150% in the effectiveness of that system, but if it doesn't tap into their own natural alignment and integrity and how they create resonance with their clients, then I could see it falling flat at times.

    Keith Witt: Oh yeah. Before, let me see, probably 2000, I've been doing this since I first started studying therapy in 1965. I mean, I've been studying bazillion systems. And so for me, until I was around 50, every time they discovered a new system, I go, "Oh, damn." Because I knew that I was going to get disintegrated. I was going to learn this system and it was going to disrupt my understanding of the psychotherapeutic universe. I would have to climb into this system and enact it until I could actually enact the system naturally, I could answer questions from the system. And I knew that it would re-organize my understanding of the universe, and it was a lot of work. So, every time I found a good system, I go, "Oh Jesus, not another one." And then I would study it and I would... Sometimes for years, and it was always difficult in the beginning because it would destabilize, and that's very much how development goes on any developmental line. You expand into the current world view, and something comes and causes that world view to not quite be enough, and so the old one disintegrates and you go through that period of disintegration before you re-integrate into a more complex system. And I kept hoping that it would be the end of it. I'd finally get a system that was so great that I wouldn't have to have go through that experience.

    Keith Witt: And then after I was 50 and studied integral and wrote about integral, I realized that I was enjoying the process now, that when someone came up with a new idea, like EMDR that it actually was... EMDR is wonderful in certain situations dealing with trauma. And so that was great when as soon as I identified it as a great system, I saw a research that persuaded me, I dived in and I had a lot of fun learning and acting EMDR until I could bring it into my repertoire of theoretical and practical understanding. Now, what did that reflect? That reflected my consciousness changing.

    Keith Witt: I shifted from being more egocentric in my understanding to being more open, so my unconscious was actually aware. Keith, there will be great systems that will happen and when they arrive, they'll help you grow and be a better therapist, they're wonderful. And so, my subjective reaction to them shifted from, "Oh, no," to "Oh, boy." And this is how you notice that you grow. You don't notice that you grow particularly because you have a new idea, you notice that you grow because you have a different natural reaction to something that you had a different reaction to before. And it's very difficult to notice a shift of world views from the inside. It's easier for other people to give you feedback about it until you get to a certain level of development in the integral, we call that the "second tier" and then it's just easier to see that kind of stuff. And so that's been my experience with this over the decades. That's my current experience with it.

    Neil Sattin: Great, yeah. And just to give you listening, a full sense of what I'm bringing to this conversation, I mentioned in the introduction that a lot of this is about you finding tools that work for you. I also have another bias that comes from my position of being able to talk to so many of the founders of relationship theories, which is... And it comes from my upbringing I think, which is this kind of like, "can't we all just get along" mentality. In an ideal world I'd be having this conversation, Keith, you would probably still be there and we would have everyone on a stage as a panel, but the express purpose of that conversation would be like, "Let's figure out how we can all work together." And my understanding is that, that's been challenging in the field to bring everyone together like that, but that's another thing that... My own agenda that I bring to this conversation is, I want everyone to get along and to commit to the overall betterment of how effective we can be in our lives or as therapists or coaches, or people who help others. It's really important to me.

    Keith Witt: Well, Amen.

    [laughter]

    Neil Sattin: And some other things that you were mentioning made me think immediately of John Gottman. And I can't remember if he mentioned this actually in our first interview, if it was part of what I recorded or if it was just part of my conversation with him. But he talks about how important it is for him to know when he's wrong. He keeps a very detailed record of all the ideas that he's ever had and I think he might have said that he's wrong more than half the time.

    Keith Witt: Yes, he says that. More than half of his hypothesis have been proved false. [chuckle]

    Neil Sattin: Right, right. And so for him, this is one of the things that he stakes his claim around is that, he's distilled a body of work that statistically has been shown to work more than 50% of the time I think, in fact it's like 86 or something percent of the time. And that being said, he's also... What I love about that statement is one, his embrace of the willingness to be wrong, which is so important at any level of relationship, relationship to an idea, relationship to your spouse, so I really appreciate that. And also it seems to be his major critique of people who would use other systems that maybe haven't been empirically proven to be effective because what if you put it under a scientific scrutiny and found that it only worked 10% of the time, like your best placebo on its, without; or sorry, your best drug without the placebo effect. So, that's where it gets confusing for people I think, because they're like, "Well, if my local shaman hasn't undergone scientific study, what do I do with the fact that it's actually been really helpful for me? Versus going to my Gottman-certified therapist?

    Keith Witt: John Gottman is the only founder that I know of whose psychotherapeutic approach and theoretical approach literally arose out of his research. That's not true for any of the rest of us. Everybody else was doing stuff that worked really well for them in certain situations and they saw how things fit together, and then they fitted it together with other stuff that they found out and created a structure. That's not a bad thing. That's how theories historically have arisen, in my opinion, except for say, physics. And John Gottman started out as a mathematician.

    Keith Witt: I went to a three-day workshop with him and Julie, and at the very end, I went up to him, I said, "You know, John, I've done a lot of this stuff, okay? And your system has the most amount of good stuff and the least amount of bullshit than any other system that I've seen." And he laughed because he got it. Another thing that endeared me to him, and I gotta say I am biased towards John Gottman, I love that guy, I think he and Julie are great.

    Keith Witt: In a conference where everybody's talking about how their system is the best, he went up on stage and says, "You know, I think about my treatment's failures." And I thought, "God, John, thank you." I think about my treatment failures too, what the fuck. What can I do different. What's the new stuff? He is a researcher. Now, I use a lot of his research to validate my approach, I've changed things that I've done in response to some of his research. I've changed some of my understandings in response to some of his research. Why? He's just the best and most comprehensive couples researcher around. In terms of my approach, almost every psychotherapist and all couples counselors to a certain extent through psychoeducation, you're basically teaching people about themselves and about how relationships work.

    Keith Witt: The nice thing about Gottman's approach is that he didn't really, in most of his work, he didn't really have confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is what most founders bring to their research, if they do research. Okay, well, if you're doing research to show that your system is great, that's confirmation bias. Now, human beings, when they develop, when they develop from fundamentalist, which is I'm going to enact the EFT system or the crucible system exactly how it's supposed to be, and I'm not going to really think about whether it's working or not, that's a fundamentalist system. I'm going with the structure, but because it's the structure.

    Keith Witt: When you go to a more rational system, a rational system is, "Well, I want to cross-validate things and see how they work, and if they work better, I'll shift into a new system." In between that conformist and that rational system, there's an in-between stage. Susanne Cook-Greuter and Beena Sharma who studied developmental stages, they call it the 3-4 stage 'cause 3 is conformist and 4 is rational; they called it the 3-4 stage. In that stage, people experience themselves as open to input, but actually they have confirmation bias, they're looking for data that support their preconceived notions and they very much resist change.

    Keith Witt: You know, back in the '90s, I went to a David Schnarch workshop. And so, David Schnarch was all about differentiation, a concept he obviously lifted from Murray Bowen and never gives him any credit for, which pissed off Dan Siegel enough in the conference so Dan Siegel called him out on it. It was one of those little conference snafus that happen, it fascinated everybody. So I went up to Schnarch, I said, "You know, I think there is a more fundamental construct than differentiation." He said, "What?" I said, "I think it's health." He said, "That's too broad." Now, maybe he's right. Maybe my orientation towards what's healthy and not healthy is a too broad concept. But his immediate reaction was dismissal. He didn't want to consider that there might be a more fundamental organizing principle than his, okay? There was confirmation bias. Now, he's a good counterpoint, to me, to John Gottman. John Gottman doesn't like people making assertions without doing research, but I don't care, I still love John Gottman.

    Keith Witt: David Schnarch spent minutes on stage during that workshop warning people to not use his stuff 'cause it's all trademarked and I found him arrogant and narcissistic, and to this day, irritating. Now, what is that? Both of them have their own critiques. Why do I find myself really liking John Gottman and irritated with Schnarch? Even more importantly, whenever you get irritated with someone, there's a tendency to dismiss what's great about their system. And this is what is beautiful about integral, integral says, "Everybody gets to be right, nobody gets to be right all the time." And Schnarch's concept of differentiation and holding on to yourself and the whole crucible approach to couples is a really good approach. Okay, that is very effective, particularly with some couples where they keep trying to move out of the container and you keep them in the container until something pops, and out of that pop come something new. And sometimes that newness is a new discovery of love for each other. Now, Esther Perel does a similar thing, but she's more of a practical romantic. I see Schnarch and Susan Johnson as more practical moralistic, in that they seem to literally have moral disgust for other people who disagree with them. [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: I go, "Okay." [chuckle] Maybe that's what irritates me about them. Like Susan Johnson says, "If you do your work, you have to be slow and soft." Okay, well, that works for her with couples. But you know, as people might have noticed so far in our conversation, I'm not a particularly slow and soft guy, okay? So, my natural healing style, sure, I can get really gentle with people, and I actually was critiqued by Gestalt therapists in the '70s by being too nice to my clients. "You're too nice to your clients, Keith." "Oh, I'm sorry. Just because Fritz [Perls] is an asshole doesn't mean I have to be an asshole when I do therapy."

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: And so, sorry, Susan, slow and soft is not my natural style, okay? It's alright. Now, does that make me less effective than her with a couple? Probably with some couples, I don't know.

    Neil Sattin: Right, and it would probably make you less effective if you were implementing her system.

    Keith Witt: Yes, that's exactly right. And when you learn a system, it's good to implement it. Now, even though I love John and Julie, John and Julie, when they talk about implementing their systems, they use a lot of their research tools. They give people like questionnaires, they give them cards and stuff, and they have their structured things that they recommend people doing. I'm sorry, I don't like doing that stuff.

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: My clients don't like doing stuff like that, but even if my clients liked it, I don't like doing it. If you go to a risk management workshop, they give you a five-page thing your clients are supposed to sign about all the horrible things that they can report you for and that the therapy does and doesn't do. I'm sorry, I don't do a five-page thing. We all have our different styles. Now, that being said, I just love that guy, love him, and every time he gets a new thing out... I studied his last book from the beginning to end several times, and except for the math, just found it utterly fascinating. And I see him as a practical scientific guy. He is a true scientist. John Gottman will change an opinion on a dime if you give him persuasive data. And that's just not true for many people.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah, so, since you've brought up David Schnarch, and unfortunately, he hasn't been on my show yet, so we haven't had the benefit of being able to hear from him directly. I still... I reach out to him every so often and I'm hoping that one of these days he will. That being said, it's funny. I have my own bias when someone doesn't want to be on my show. [chuckle] I'm like, "Well, what's your problem?" What you just mentioned about your experience with him, that seems in some respects, to make sense given that he's staked his claim on differentiation, that that's where he's coming from, differentiation being that sense of holding on to you and your sense of who you are no matter what someone else is throwing at you. And so in preparation for this conversation, I really dove into his passionate marriage work, which is sort of the lay person's approach to crucible therapy, which is what he calls his work in the therapeutic realm. And I found myself really appreciating it, in fact, and it got me irritated because even... I was listening to this one recording of him and he said something that was dismissive of attachment theory and...

    Keith Witt: Yes.

    Neil Sattin: And I love what attachment theory brings to the conversation about relationships, both how you come to understand your own dysfunction in a relationship or how you come to understand the function of the dyad, what that does for you. And concepts of safety and how that enables you to differentiate. I love that, and it kind of bridges into Ellyn Bader and Peter Pearson's developmental model too, which we can talk about in a little bit. But that all being said, when I heard him talking about the importance of knowing who you are, and at the same time being able to remove your distortions of who you are. And he talks about part of crucible being that your partner being there, that's a great way for you to learn where you actually aren't who you think you are, just as one example. Or you get to, through self-reflection, see some of the dysfunction in who you are, and actually work towards growth and improvement. But when he talks about differentiation, he talks about some things that I think are key. You talk about, not only holding on to who you are, but also your ability to self-soothe, so to take responsibility for yourself when you're triggered. How many times have we talked about that on the show? He talks about getting over your reactivity, so taking responsibility for not freaking out at your partner when they trigger you.

    Neil Sattin: Again, so important, and fits right in. And then, he talks about, and I love this concept, the idea... And this is a place where I feel like he's kind of unique, and you can correct me if I'm wrong here, Keith, 'cause you have a broader perspective, perhaps, than I do. But he talks about... He names his approach as a non-pathological approach. In other words, if things are going wrong, then nothing is wrong. It's like, that's what you would come to expect. And that part of what he holds as an ideal in a relationship is the ability to hold onto yourself, to self-soothe, to not get reactive with your partner, and to hold the container of a relationship when things get uncomfortable. And that does seem so important, being able to grow with your partner. If you're so focused on fixing things and one of you capitulating to the other, it's not that there's never a place for compromise, but it's like, I think, and so many couples rush to that, they overlook the actual growth potential that happens in truly experiencing themselves as separate individuals with different ideas about how to live and how to be in the world, or how to be with each other.

    Keith Witt: It's a wonderful approach. It's a wonderful understanding. I like it. And I use those concepts and those understandings, and have, ever since I learned the system. That the system has great efficacy, practically speaking. Now, that being said... So let's just expand. Okay, so it's great to say it's a non-pathological system. Okay, fine. And basically, effective therapists operate from that perspective. Here's two people, they want to change, they want to grow. That power of a human consciousness wanting to change and wanting to grow is so robust that there's a lot of details of self-regulation and moderation and holding on to yourself and understanding. But there's that basic core of power, of human consciousness wanting to grow. That's true, and psychopathology has existence. If somebody has a personality disorder, there's no couples approach that is going... In my experience, maybe I'm wrong, because I've been doing my own work. My lab is my practice. I've done 65,000 therapy sessions. And so, I take stuff into my lab, so to speak. So psychopathology has existence. Sometimes you need to go into that to help people grow. You have tell somebody, like, "You have a distorted view of the world," and need to have some individual work to deal with that, or, "You are so overwhelmed by your trauma history that you have to go resolve that trauma before you can experience sexuality and intimacy with your partner comfortably."

    Keith Witt: That needs to be normalized and there's a subtle bias. In integral, we would call that a pluralistic bias or a green bias, to treat everybody like they're the same. This is what causes David Deida to dismiss psychotherapy in general. Now, that's an interesting thing. I'm a psychotherapist, I teach psychotherapy, I write about psychotherapy, I've generated systems, I'm a founder of systems, I go to David Deida workshops. He generally puts down psychotherapy as being kind of a pluralistic, limp-wristed, egalitarian, second stage, you know, wimps, so to speak. And I still love the guy, okay?

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: Okay, so why is that? Probably part of it is because I see him as a kindred spirit, as a fellow warrior. But when you and I were talking about this earlier, but part of it is I probably have more projections with people like David Schnarch or Susan Johnson, like that moralistic... Maybe there's a part of me that has moral disgust that I don't like and I project onto them. I do that a little with Dan Siegel. I love Dan Siegel's work, I've studied his books, I've listened to his lectures endlessly, I've enjoyed his lectures. And every once in a while though on stage, he starts complaining about how somebody treated him badly or how somebody doesn't understand him or he had to push back, and I just find that icky. I go, "Dan, don't say stuff like that. That makes the rest of the cool stuff that you talk about. You know, you're a brilliant man, and you've changed everybody. Your book, The Developing Mind, was my foundation of neurobiology, interpersonal neurobiology."

    Keith Witt: Alan Schwartz is similar. He says everybody bow to evidence-based treatment. He's irritated with this American Psychological Association privileging the research of, particularly, cognitive behavioral therapy, I suspect because cognitive behavioral therapists and the labs around the country get a lot of money and other people don't. So there's a lot of personality that comes through and yet all these systems have wonderful things about them. So, Schnarch is more practical moralistic in that sense. Esther Perel is more practical romantic, she's practical. All the good therapists are practical. You're with a couple, we're going to help 'em move forward and understand them individually and as a couple, and we have a vision of good relating that's for effective therapists is similar. But she has basically a romantic approach. You have your own way of understanding yourself, and of love, and I support that as a therapist. And you have your understanding of what you want with this relationship and I support what you want. And your partner is similarly. And we deal with that and from an accepting standpoint and a practical standpoint, how can we move forward?

    Keith Witt: You feel enlivened by your secret affair that devastated your partner, I understand how you feel enlivened by that. I understand the draw of that. I understand your resentment at your partner for not being more cooperative and creating better love, the partner is outraged that you did this. Well, I understand your outrage. I understand your desire to love better. It's a very romantic approach, but it fits very well with all the scientific approaches, the moralistic approaches, with even David Deida's mythological approach. David Deida is basically a practical mythological approach. He draws from the wisdom, traditions of masculine and feminine. He used to teach the Shiva and Shakti scale, just brought it out of the Eastern traditions. And yeah, it's practical. This is how we can help you understand yourself, understand your partner, and understand how you enhance the polarity to have the intimacy and safety and love and the passion that you want. And if you get down to it in the psychotherapy session, if you watch any of us doing a session with people, you'd see very similar constructs that we're applying and you'd see very similar interventions.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah, it's so funny I was listening to the first season of Esther Perel's podcast that she put out with Audible. I think it's called Where Do We Begin? Or something like that. And one of the sessions I was like, this might as well be Harville Hendrix that I'm listening to, just in terms of how she was showing up for that couple and talking about safety and the way they were constructing their communication and it was like right out of his getting the love you want workshop practically. So that was fascinating for me and I think worth noting because if you're just a bystander and you're like, say, listening to the Relationship Alive podcast, you can be so persuaded by one person's viewpoint or the other. And in fact, I find myself, like you were mentioning earlier, Keith, persuaded over and over and over again.

    Keith Witt: Yes.

    Neil Sattin: Because everyone's system has so much merit to it, that you might lose sight of where they both offer you something important. Sue Johnson and David Schnarch, it's interesting that you've paired them together because, obviously, they're in some ways they would see themselves as being in opposition to each other.

    Keith Witt: Yes.

    Neil Sattin: And yet, how many times have I seen with clients how important creating safety is to them, taking a stand for who they are? And vice versa, if they're all about the safety and they never take a risk by being who they are, I've seen that be problematic too. So, it's like everyone is reacting to the... What's the word? The distorted, the extended version, like if you go way too far into differentiation, that's not going to be a relationship. If you go way too far into creating safety or your couple bubble, like Stan calls it, Stan Tatkin, then you might lose the edge or the eroticism, which is what Esther would hone in on. You've lost your sense of the other person as other, you're too safe.

    Neil Sattin: So, it's so interesting because even in just this past three sentences or so, you've heard me jump from one to the other to the other trying to show you, like, "Yeah, they all actually feed into each other." If you're really, really stuck, like a lot of people are, I think that's why Esther's TED Talk took off because so many people are stuck. I think she writes in "The State of Affairs" that sexless marriage is one of the top Google searches or something like that.

    Keith Witt: Yes.

    Neil Sattin: So, if you're in a sexless marriage, then when someone starts talking about how you feel too safe and you've come to not think of your partner as someone else. And so here are some ways to get you back to a more erotic, playful space with your partner, then you're going to listen and that's going to make sense to you. But it wouldn't make sense to you if you had no safety in your container and your partner was constantly texting other people and flirting with the waiters and waitresses at the restaurants, and if you were in a totally unsafe world, then that's not going to be a place where Esther's work might, or at least what you might initially think she's getting at. But again, this is just her TED Talk, you hear her in a session and she's talking about creating safety within a couple.

    Keith Witt: Exactly. That practically speaking, everybody comes from constructs that involve relational patterns, a developmental orientation, that people are influenced by unconscious influences and trauma programming. Everybody has a vision of happy relating for every couple they work with. No effective couples counselor doesn't do that. We all, if we have a couple, we immediately start having a vision of how they could be getting along better with each other. And all couples counselors are informed by the psychological and psychotherapeutic traditions, therapeutic relationship attunement, and that kind of stuff.

    Keith Witt: Now, when you look at it, for me, the breakdown between Schnarch dissing attachment theory and Susan Johnson saying, "I have the only couples therapy. We never had a theory before me." Okay? Well, look, if you say to a bunch of founders who have their own theories, "You never had a good theory of couples until me," everybody's going to get pissed off. So, Susan Johnson says that, I go, "Susan, you've got a good system, you got a good theory. You don't have to piss us all off by saying that. You can say, 'I got a couples thing that I prefer to yours.'" And so, John Gottman will go up in a workshop and say, "Well, we have our theory." You know he's speaking directly to that.

    Keith Witt: Now, that being said, Esther Perel and Schnarch make a point that a lot of other couples people miss, they go, "Look, sexuality is a big deal and it's been neglected by the field," and they're right about that. That was true. In the '70s, therapists wouldn't even ask their couples about sex, it just drove me crazy. I did a lot of sex therapy training in the '70s because I realized that to be effective with couples, I need to be really good at helping them have better sex, and integrated that into my work and have ever since. And David Deida's stuff has been priceless around that stuff.

    Keith Witt: And so, the field has grown to that. And to their credit, once again, John Gottman and Julie, they have their system of expanding the conversation about sexuality and the behaviors about sexuality because they've demonstrated from their research that it's not enough to just down-regulate conflict with a couple, you have to up-regulate good times. And as I make... The point that I make in my Loving Completely approach, a marriage is a friendship, a love affair and a capacity to heal injuries and ruptures. That love affair is a big deal. That first star, this erotic polarity between me and my partner, gets more space in my book than any of the other stars. Why? If that love affair isn't happening then there's a lot of problems that arise out of that, and that's that sexless marriage statistics that Esther mentions in her book. I wrote a book called "A Hundred Reasons to Not Have a Secret Affair", I couldn't find a publisher for it. And I read "State of Affairs" and I said, "Well, I like this a lot better than my book."

    [laughter]

    Keith Witt: And really I think that's a really good book about affairs and you can just feel that practical romantic orientation on her part.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah, and when you say romantic, let's just... Can you get more clear on what that means, just so we get you there?

    Keith Witt: Esther has... Now, this is just my reading of her, okay? And I've never talked to her. I hope I do some day. There's this sense for her about love. There's a mystery, a cross-cultural mystery about love, that there's love is, I want to be loved, I want to love and I want to do it in a way that works for me. And if it's not happening, I'm suffering and I want to make it happen. And if it's not happening and I'm suffering, I need to take that suffering into the world and into my own development, into my relationship and make love happen. And there's a certain mysterious quality about it. And yes, there's things that interfere with it like lies and abuse and all that other stuff. And to a certain extent, because she works an awful lot with infidelity and that kind of stuff, you can see our practices shape our theoretical understanding. There's that sense of, if we open that up, then love will happen. Now hopefully, it happens with us as a couple, but if it doesn't, okay. It didn't happen. Love, the relationship just because it ends wasn't unsuccessful, we lose each other, we move on and we find love some place else.

    Keith Witt: Okay, to me, this is very romantic. This is a subjective love-based, romance-based orientation towards eroticism and sexuality. And it's very effective because that's how in terms of the neurobiology of bonding, yes, we go from our various arousal systems, into attraction, into distracting attraction, into romantic infatuation, into intimate bonding, into life stages. Now, what I think Esther misses, because she doesn't seem to be as interested in the science, is that it's an apples and oranges comparison that early attraction, distracting attraction, romantic infatuation, sexual drives, with the sexual drives that exist in intimate bonding, okay.

    Keith Witt: In intimate bonding, I have discovered or it's been my experience, to go into those romantic infatuation circuits, it's very, very intricate and detailed and it's not nearly as easy as finding a new person that you don't know. And so you can't compare, "Well, it's very hard to develop romance and passion with my husband, but really easy with my lover." Well, of course it is. We're wired to have that be the case. That's not the point. The point is that... And now we're getting into an integral understanding of evolution of consciousness. As we expand our consciousness, as we get more world-centric and more compassionate and less bullshit, our relationships are more demanding. And so it's very, very difficult. I haven't found relationships where people have the depth of connection that they want, knowing each other and accepting each other and loving each other deeply, that they have that and that that container, which is powerful but fragile, can tolerate one of them going out and falling in love with another person. And also, that container suffers if they don't do what they need to do to take care of their love affair. They have a love affair that they believe in that they're sustaining with each other.

    Keith Witt: So, why is that fragile? Well, because it requires an awful lot of attention and knowledge and understanding and self-regulation. Why is it great? Because there's deeper intimacy available in that container than in previous containers over the last 10,000 years and it's more demanding. If you have a very, very primitive... Say you have a relationship that's pure conformist. We're getting married, we're going to have kids, we're going to do what the Bible says or the Koran says. In those cultures, women stop having sex with their partner when they stop being of childbirth age, in general. Fascinating study. They just go at that point, they go, "Well, I'm not going to do it anymore." A lot, not always, but a fair amount. Why is that? Because there isn't a developmental layer of intimacy that they and their husband are working for, because they're in a system where he's in charge. She has to do what he says. I say "yes" to sex, until I can't have kids anymore and then I can say "no" if I want.

    Keith Witt: And if we don't have a certain level of intimacy and a commitment to depth, why would we be interested? He would be going after youth and beauty and maybe I'll have an affair or maybe I won't. It just depends. If you're going in, but if you both have the sense of equal depth, if you both are post formal operational, if you both want to sustain your friendship and your love affair and expand it and expand each other, well, then that requires a different kind of inner subjectivity. So these are very complicated forces that are operating on all of us. Now, they're explicit in integral psychotherapy because we always look at lines and levels, and probably, you're going to tell me about Ellyn Bader, probably in their developmental model, because developmental models notice that people's worldviews change, and that relationships, demands of relationship, change as we go into different developmental levels.

    Keith Witt: The other ones, the effective ones, unconsciously adjust for different people's worldviews, but sometimes don't consciously do it, because it's not visible to them, consciously, but unconsciously, in the session, they get a feel for it and they attune to it. Just like if you're an effective therapist... Stan Tatkin has practically nothing about sexuality in his system, but I'll bet if people come in to his system suffering from not being sexual, he climbs in, understands their experience from the inside, finds out where they're turning each other and on and off, and helps them find the kind of safety that they need to move into eroticism.

    Keith Witt: And eroticism's very central, because it's like the canary in the coal mine. Everything else has to be going pretty well for you to be good lovers with your partner. It's very rare, as a couples counselor, for people to come in saying, "Yeah, we're both fulfilled, sexually. We enjoy sex, we have sex regularly, and we want a divorce." That actually happens once in a great while, but that's like one in 100. Usually, when people come in and say, "Sex is great," there's a solidity to their relationship, and they're coming in to talk about other kinds of issues; money issues, sometimes... Often child issues and parental issues, sometimes physical issues, that kind of stuff.

    Neil Sattin: Okay, so... Yeah, there are several different directions that I feel myself being pulled, and...

    Keith Witt: Great.

    Neil Sattin: I think where I'm going to go right now is on this practical level, because I want this to all be practical, and we're talking about all these systems as practical systems. I think I heard Schnarch say that... And I don't think this is an actual statistic, I think he was just making a point, which was, in a good relationship, sex makes up about 10% of what you think about and care about, but if the sex is bad... No, if the sex is good, then it's about 10% what you think about and care about. If the sex is bad, it's 90%, or non-existent. And so, I'm thinking about that in light of what you just said and wondering, okay, for people listening who are in this place where they're like, "Okay, well, I'm not connecting with my partner erotically. Should I be going to a sex therapist? Should I be going to an EFT therapist to work on my safety? Should I be... " I could feel... I can feel confusion there, around, what do you do, practically? 'Cause so many people might see like, "Oh, you're not having sex? Well, then, let's talk about sex." Others might say, "You're not having sex? Well, that's a symptom of so many other things going on in your relationship, so let's talk about the other things, and we'll talk about sex later."

    Keith Witt: Well, first of all, go to a good couples therapist who understands eroticism. It doesn't matter what system they're operating in, if they're a good therapist, a good couples therapist, experienced and know how to attune, and have the things that I mentioned, those qualities, and understand eroticism. One of the reasons that Schnarch says that is that, in general, human consciousness goes where the pain is. We have a half-dozen sex drives, we don't just have one, we have lots of them. And so, if one of those sex drives is activated in a negative way, say jealousy, that's a lot of pain. Say frustration... Frustrated... This happens a lot with guys after the first baby is born. A baby is born. Okay, their wife kinda gets over the birth, and he finds her utterly adorable and desirable. Yeah, this is adorable and she's in love with his kid, she's full of love, "We're sharing this thing," and he wants to have sex. She's in love with the kid, she's got follicle-stimulating hormone up the wazoo, her desire is down, biochemically. If she doesn't have a commitment to re-establishing their love affair, then he's in pain.

    Keith Witt: And so, what does he do? He makes jokes about it, and there's all these bazillion jokes about men wanting more sex, mothers with small children, and guys... Women don't want to have sex. And these are hostile jokes and these separate people. And, in general, three years after the birth of the first baby, according to the Gottmans' research, 70% of couples are doing worse. But what if you teach them about affection and eroticism and sensuality and say, "You need to sustain this after the birth of the first child. You need to both be onboard with it." Well, if you teach them that, then three years later, 70% of them are saying, "Yeah, we're actually better as lovers." Now, you need... In my experience, that's useful information for me to have, as a couples therapist.

    Keith Witt: And it's useful for me to know the parameters of that. Just like it's useful for me to know about psychopathology. You know, if somebody has some kind of trauma thing or a personality disorder or some kind of debilitating or God knows, you know, bipolar. That kind of stuff. That has to be addressed. That really has existence. You go to a therapist that has a general understanding, and is good with sexuality in general. I don't know if I'd want to go to any couples therapist who didn't understand the principles of sexuality, and the sex drives, and the stages of sexual bonding, whether I was working on sex or not. It's such a central part of the life stages of a relationship, you know. You don't just have one marriage, you have many marriages. And there's different demands at each developmental level of marriage. And you want to be true to those demands and help each other with them, and good couples therapists all do that. Whether they do it consciously or unconsciously doesn't really matter, you know. They do it. Because, they're inside the universe of these couples helping them grow. And they discover these blocks, and they have their own orientation to help people through them, and help people into deep inter-subjective, into love with each other.

    Keith Witt: And so, that's... All good couples therapists can attune. They all interrupt people all the time. 'Cause you gotta interrupt toxic patterns, and they all have some sense of what a positive pattern is. You know, all couples therapists suspend their ego in service of their clients. If you have too much ego in the session, you lose your capacity to help people. All good couples therapists are willing to share their clients' pain. All good couples therapists tell vivid enough stories, have vivid enough metaphors that they register, they land with people. They're bringing their best selves into the work, so that's... If you took anybody from any system and saw them work, and they were effective, you'd see that in my opinion and so, that's their natural healing style. And, you know, you keep expanding that and after a while... And what breaks my heart about this is since people resist change, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of natural healing styles in existence being embodied by great practitioners, that we'll never find out about. Because, you know, there's a resistance in the field to new systems. And these people don't have as much... I don't advocate much for any of my systems.

    Keith Witt: As a founder, I haven't like pushed to make one of my systems famous. Okay, well, that means a lot of people haven't encountered a bunch of my systems. Okay. Well, that's kind of a weakness in my approach as the founder, really. Because if I want to make an impact, I should go out and beat drums about my systems and I don't. I go, "Well, yeah, I like my systems but the other ones are great too. Use the one that... Study the ones that turn you on. Turn that and have that enhanced and expand your natural healing style." What lights me up is people doing that. And if they want to use my system, if they like it, of course, I get a little ego rush from that, sure. That's great. [chuckle] Everybody likes to be told they're great, you know. [chuckle]

    Neil Sattin: You're great, Keith.

    [laughter]

    Keith Witt: Yeah, there you go.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah, and...

    Keith Witt: Well, I'm actually a little embarrassed, but you know, I often do if my clients compliment me extravagantly, I'll get embarrassed. Partly because of the transference stuff, you know. Okay, so people go through stages, and partly because, I'm uncomfortable with my ego. I don't want it to show up in my session. Anyway.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah. Yeah. And I'm thinking of something you said earlier about systems that maybe do or don't actually handle mental health all that well. That there's, you know, a lot of these systems work well in the context of someone isn't suffering with major depression, or borderline personality disorder and that made me think of certain modalities that are helpful with that. Like in particular, what came to mind was Internal Family Systems, Dick Schwartz's system, and...

    Keith Witt: I love that.

    Neil Sattin: And there's been an evolution of that intimacy from the inside out which is basically applying Internal Family Systems to couples therapy.

    Keith Witt: Yes.

    Neil Sattin: And that Toni Herbine-Blank, she's been here on the show to talk about that. This is something that I feel particularly connected to, is this question of how we, in a relationship, actually show up for each other to help heal. 'Cause I don't think that there are many people in our world that have escaped some form of trauma or another. I think we all have like places where we're wounded or where we don't want to go. We're talking about all of these systems in many ways from the perspective of going and seeking help, which I definitely encourage you to do. It's a good idea to go and, as Keith was talking about a little while ago, to have that outside perspective until you're really good at getting outside perspective on your own.

    Neil Sattin: But that being said, I like those modalities because the more conscious I think you get of how you heal from trauma, so I'm thinking of, yes, Internal Family Systems, somatic experiencing, the things that really enable you to identify what's happening within you, both your body awareness and how you attune to your body, but also what Dick talks about in Internal Family Systems, literally identifying the different personalities in you who are competing and at war, he calls them parts.

    Keith Witt: Yes.

    Neil Sattin: And then you can bring those dialogues into your conversations with your partner. Then I think there is a lot of potential through that, through co-regulation to actually heal with each other. But I don't know about any studies that show that that's going to be curative if your partner has depression, for instance, but I do have a pretty strong belief that that's going to help you show up in that relationship in a way where you're still feeling connected and you're in integrity.

    Keith Witt: There are studies that show that it is curative to expand into your intimate relationship, your family relationships, and your social relationships to be curative with depression, just like there are many studies, overwhelmingly, that show that exercise is a better anti-depressant than any drug. So, that's all true. And your central point, I think, is huge, and that central point is when a couple has mobilized to, one, have compassionate self-observation of both their healthy and unhealthy sides. In my Shadow Light book, I talk about growing your shadow, and that our unconsciousness is constantly giving us constructive and destructive messages, and that we have resistances, defenses against being aware of them, and to the extent that we do that, we have problems with ourselves and in relationships with other people. Because, let's face it, the more intimate you are with yourself, which is having compassionate awareness and acceptance of yourself and self-regulation, the more able you are to be intimate with other people. So, that's just how it works, ask any therapist, any couples therapist.

    Keith Witt: And Dick Schwartz's approach is wonderful in that, one, he develops... You'll notice there's always a compassionate witness observing these inner parts, okay? Just like meditation increases the capacity of the compassionate self-observation, the witness, as we say in the wisdom traditions, so do these systems that look at these inner parts. Because if I'm looking at inner parts, who's looking? The compassionate witness is looking, and awareness regulates. So, as I'm looking at these parts and I'm identifying the constructive and destructive ones, already I am unconsciously up-regulating the constructive ones, down-regulating the destructive ones. Okay, that's a great language, and it's nonjudgmental, but it's very, very powerful. Now, say you do that with your partner. Instead of taking offense when your partner says something nasty, you go, "Wow, that was that nasty sub-personality." And you go, "Whoa, that was kind of nasty." And they go, "Ooh, that was my nasty self, I'm sorry." Now, at that point, the nasty self isn't in charge. The compassionate witness is in charge regulating the nasty self and now bonding with that partner, and they are collaborating to help shape each other to be their best selves.

    Keith Witt: When you get to that point with a couple that are doing that with their friendship, their love affair, and their capacity to repair injuries, that's a self-sustaining system that creates the great relationships. And you see the great relationships, you see that, it's called the Michelangelo Effect, it's been studied, and people, they end up talking more like each other, and looking more like each other. But even more, they get up... Long-term couples will tend to get happier with each other because they're receiving influence to be better. And it takes a lot of courage and a lot of openness to receive influence, and a lot of self-regulatory capacity, and that always runs from some kind of compassionate witness, and all the systems encourage that. They all have their different names for it, but if you don't have that, then you're kind of left with raw behaviorism. And if you do have that, which most of us do, or formal operational or post-formal operational.

    Keith Witt: Having that compassionate witness be more robust gives us more options, response flexibility and interpersonal neurobiology, they would say. And response flexibility isn't random. I want to choose the healthy responses, which support love and support health and I want to say no to the unhealthy ones. But I have to be aware of them, I have to be able to regulate them. That's where Allan Schore comes with regulation theory, that's where Harville Hendrix. His systems basically force people to self-regulate because they can't go into their fight patterns 'cause he's given them different patterns to do.

    Keith Witt: And so, probably the power of this system is as much by not allowing people to do their hostile patterns as it is giving them new patterns, and I think that's true for Dick Schwartz too in Internal Family Systems, and it's especially useful in trauma because we get overwhelmed with trauma. So, anything that causes us to observe trauma without being overwhelmed, whether it's somatic re-experiencing, EMDR, Internal Family Systems, all those things are drawing from the same well in terms of helping us be aware and regulate and then attach and then connect, love other people and be loved by other people. These are the things that the affective systems have in common. Like, practical mythological, somebody might do better if they see themselves at a particular stage of the Hero's Journey. Great, I love the Hero's Journey, I'm all over that, I've been studying it all my life and practising it.

    Keith Witt: Somebody might do great in seeing, "Well, I have this destructive... An Internal Family Systems thing. One of my firemen is just driving me crazy by giving me all these impulses to regulate myself in unhealthy ways." You go, "Oh, yeah." But he wants that fireman and he wants to feel better and what's a healthy way to feel better? Oh, now, I'm going to these other selves. Okay, these deeper ones. Oh, and here's this injured self that just really never felt good and still doesn't. Oh, well, we need to love that self until it begins to feel like a legitimate person who's in pain. When that begins to happen, say a childhood injury, most people hate that little kid who was abused, if you had early abuse. Once you start loving that kid who was abused, feeling the pain but loving him, saying, "Hey, look, it wasn't your fault they molested you or beat you up," things change, there's more freedom of motion and you can love better.

    Neil Sattin: Right. And this goes straight to the strengths of a system like EFT, and that's based around attachment and why it's so important to recognize the bonding, the safety, the ways that you are trying to regulate your safety in relationship. And if you're not conscious of that, how the ways you do it are probably going to be jeopardizing, ultimately, the safety of your relationship, even though, ironically, you're trying to keep yourself safe in those moments.

    Keith Witt: Yes, and now here's the paradox of the whole attachment stuff. The attachment theory just kind of blew the lid off of the developmental orientation. People have been resisting psychoanalytics... The cognitive behaviorists, the cognitive therapists have been resisting for decades the psychoanalysts' assertion that infancy and early childhood really matter. Well, attachment theory showed that it really does, that we do get set up for secure and insecure attachment, and that there's elements of that that go all the way to the adult attachment industry that the researchers in Berkeley, I forget their name... Mary Main came up with. Yes.

    Keith Witt: Now, there's a little switch here because that attachment has to do with mother/infant attachment. Okay, now, we go on to couples and then we gotta add that sexual component. Adding that sexual component to secure attachment is tricky. I really don't want to be having to be secure with my wife exactly the way I was secure with my mom. I want to have elements of that, but there's not a lot of eroticism there, or hopefully there isn't, and if there is, there's more problems, that would be more complicated. And so now we have to add that erotic component. Now that erotic component has a lot of other elements in it. It has adventure, it has transgression, it has change, it has whoever we discovered we are from a gender standpoint or whoever we discover we are in terms of our own kinks, whatever our culture told us about our sexuality, whether it's good or it's bad.

    Keith Witt: People discover their sexuality, and if they're lucky, the culture says, "Oh, that's fine sexuality." Say you discover you're a heterosexual guy who likes the missionary position. Wow! You know, when you're married. Boy, you're in good shape, you can feel like a virtuous person. Say you discover that you're a transgender person who likes falling in love with the opposite sex, but likes to have fun sex with the same sex, it can go one direction or another, and really like being tied up and mildly humiliated before somebody fucks you. Okay, well, you're not going to get a lot of cultural support, at least from most of the cultures that I was raised in for that. So you're raised in endogenous shame that now you gotta deal with that fucking stuff. This is where Esther Perel's romantic approach is really good. The romantic approach says love triumphs. Love trumps culture, and so if a culture tells somebody that they're wrong, Esther is really good at saying, "Yeah, well, your culture does not understand how you love. And how you love is how you love, and I love that, and I support you." People feel liberated by that.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah. Exactly.

    Keith Witt: Yeah. Well, that's pretty great, and if you're a student of integral psychology, you recognize that when you get to an integral level of consciousness, an integral level of consciousness has a felt sense of appreciation from multiple points of view, and a diminished fear of death and of other things, okay? A felt sense of appreciation for multiple points of view, that means I have a felt sense of appreciation for however I am wired and how my partner is wired. And now we don't have a moral problem in finding our love affair, we have a practical problem, you know, more practical... All these things are practical. Practically, how do we create eroticism, erotic polarity, given who we are? It's not like either one of us is more or less morally correct. It's we are who we are, and now, where's the opportunity for movement and growth and passion? And good therapists go there.

    Keith Witt: Whether they're at an integral altitude or not in their regular life, most good therapists are at an integral level during their work. If I observe their work and I track that around the characteristics of second tier functioning, most effective therapists are at that level when they're doing psychotherapy. They have felt appreciation for multiple points of view, they have diminished fear of everything, they have a profound sense of being able to shift the power dynamics to the growth hierarchies and the dominator hierarchies in the direction of greater love. They have a developmental orientation that intuitively tells them what's healthier and less healthy, and what's more love and less love, they're guided by that.

    Keith Witt: And that's not just rational at all, that's rational plus intuition, plus something else. Now, you can do that something else directly by doing contemplative work and having your own understanding of the infinite, or you can do it unconsciously. But basically, good therapists are a channel from something larger than themselves into the session through their systems and their personality. And when that channel's there, magic happens, often. And if you don't have that channel, you suffer as a therapist. And if you continue at it, you'll find it, and that's that natural healing style. But when you get there, it's connected to something way larger than yourself.

    Keith Witt: Now if I talk with John Gottman about this, because you can't observe this and measure it and study it and do a questionnaire about it, you go, "We should leave religion out of psychotherapy." In fact, I saw him do that once when they were talking about mindfulness. And so anytime he sees any kind of existential system coming into science, he gets uncomfortable. But it's not that he doesn't do that and he and Julie don't do that, they bring a sense of the sacred and sense of a sacred mission to every single class that they teach and session that they do. But in a way, they can't acknowledge it because they have to kinda anchor themselves... At least John can't, because he has to anchor himself, and you know... "Well, really, what I'm doing is I'm coming from my research." Yeah, John, you are, but there's something larger than you coming through you when you're teaching this stuff. I can see it, I can feel it, because I have no problem with it.

    Keith Witt: I personally do not feel limited by everything has to be validated by social research and science. There are some things that you can only discover from the left quadrants. And that's from phenomenology. Phenomenology is real, but you have to develop the contemplative instruments to perceive things, you have to... And once you have those instruments, then you can perceive things like a channel into the other world. It's as visible as a blood cell is on a microscope. But you have to develop the instrument. That instrument is contemplative work in your own spirituality and your own development as a human being.

    Neil Sattin: Wow. This makes me think of a system that we haven't chatted about here yet. And it ties in a little bit to attachment theory, and also kind of feeds into bio-hacking. And I'm pretty sure that I talked with you privately about the book, "Cupid's Poisoned Arrow", when we were talking about...

    [laughter]

    Neil Sattin: Karezza. And I'm thinking about the way that fostering what they call "bonding behaviors", behaviors that are oxytocin-producing, which is all about our pair bonding, all about our attachment, and diving into those behaviors allow you to experience a form of transcendence which feels very contemplative in terms of one's sexual connection with their partner. And now, we're talking about sexual development in a way that isn't entirely about eroticism, but that... And they talk about it in that book because their theory is that... And I'm saying "they", but it's Marnia Robinson who wrote the book...

    Keith Witt: That's right.

    Neil Sattin: Is that it's the chase for erotic polarity and the dopamine cycle that actually causes habituation to your partner and escalates the demise, potentially, of your relationship and your attraction to your partner, whereas if you're focusing on things that promote oxytocin and bonding, that might... Sue Johnson, I haven't talked to her about Marnia's book, but I could see her liking it from the perspective of like, "Oh yeah, it's all about attachment and fostering safety." Well now, you're able to do something that's also sustainable, because we don't develop a tolerance for levels of oxytocin and vasopressin in our systems.

    Keith Witt: So first of all, I laughed because you mentioned that book to me and I went, "Okay, so this is one of those situations where here's a system." So I thought, "Okay, well, I'll check it out." So I went online, read the first couple chapters, and oh, really? And so I bought the book and I've read it. Now, no offense to Marnia. I think that this system is really, really powerful, and I think it's powerful not just for the reasons that she mentioned, I think it's powerful for other reasons. It's not just oxytocin that is increased by practicing karezza. You also increase vasopressin in men, which is a male bonding hormone. Also, you increase testosterone. Going into sexual arousal and not resolving it into orgasm, keeping it into that state increases the levels of testosterone, which increase levels of erotic urgency. Okay, that's another thing.

    Keith Witt: Also, if you look at all the the practices, including the tantric practices, you'll see that the first levels of most practices involve renunciation. Any time that a human being takes one of the drives and does renunciation with it, it puts them into kind of a stark connection with their own material that they have to then wrestle with. And if you do it with a partner, together, you two are now engaged in a shared tantric practice. That shared tantric practice of we are now monitoring our levels of connection and love and passion too, because when you do karezza, you go to a certain level and you don't want to get too high or too low. But you're at a level of a erotic charge and a level of bonding, and you kinda stay there, that's why you don't have orgasms.

    Keith Witt: Now, personally, renunciation is not my favorite, as everybody can probably tell from my tone of voice, of practicing. I love orgasms, and so the way that I manage that in my life is I have frequent sex and frequent orgasms. Now, that keeps me attached to my wife. Why? Well, the habituation part of eroticism and so on doesn't just run off of erotic habituation. When you enter the intimate bonding stage of relationship, you have the depth of connection with your partner where you recapitulate your family of origin levels of intimacy, that's when the more primitive and the older and deeper defenses come out. Those defenses were designed to protect you and to separate you from people that were acting badly. And they happen to happen in intimate bonding and they separate couples.

    Keith Witt: Couples that work through, reach through those defenses into pleasurable contact of all sorts, that's another way of keeping that sense of special connection alive. Doesn't have to do with eroticism necessarily, it has to do with walking into the room and seeing your partner and smiling, and feeling the pleasure of your smile and their smile. It has to do with passing her and stroking her head, and her feeling the pleasure of that stroke. Couples that consciously practice those particular kinds of techniques, those couples are upping their oxytocin levels on a regular basis. You turn those kinds of practices into habits, then you habitually are increasing oxytocin level. You turn adjusting anger into regulating it into deeper contact, which is what you do when you're working with wounding, so you start out separated by anger and then you become connected by resolving it into love for each other, that actually plays on those same cords. Because habituation happens in many ways, not just one or two ways.

    Keith Witt: Now, the karezza stuff works really well. It keeps you charged with your partner, and the people that do that kind of stuff report the same kinds of benefits that people who consistently practice any of the tantric techniques. And I think if you're wired for that and you and your partner like that, go for it. It's the same way, I was talking to a guy recently, and I said... His girlfriend wanted sex more frequently than him, and he was doing his best, I said, "Well, what gets her off?" He says, "Well, she likes Fifty Shades of Grey." I said, "Oh, constraints. Restraints." He said, "Yeah." I said, "Well, how do you feel about it?" "Well, it's okay. Now, it doesn't really turn me on, it doesn't turn me off." I said, "Well, good experiment, go get some restraints and play with them after you guys get turned on." If you're going to do something new, get turned on first because you get more disinhibited when you're aroused. And so, say they do that, okay? Well, then, he's brought that element in that has kept the eroticism alive, because those restraints might be a fetish. I hate DSM. DSM pathologizes fetishes. Every time I find a fetish with a couple and it doesn't completely turn off the partner, I go, "Oh boy."

    [chuckle]

    Neil Sattin: And just to be clear, DSM, you're talking about the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, right? I want to just remove that from BDSM, which is what you're also sort of talking about in the moment.

    Keith Witt: Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The DSM, otherwise known as "the book of woe"...

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: Has a bazillion things that are human problems, and then has a diagnosis for them. And some of those are quite useful and some of them are not useful and some of them are bullshit. And everybody in the field has a lot of hostility towards the DSM, but we have to use it because it's a common language. So a fetish is a problem if it interferes with individual relational health, and it's an asset if it can bring eroticism. But my point about it is, to me, the karezza practices fall within that, and you can see, karezza started in the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. And so, to me, what karezza ushered in was the egalitarian marriage between two educated people wanting to maintain a certain kind of special inter-subjectivity that was deeper than the people around them. And this was a sexual way of doing it.

    Keith Witt: But to be able to do that, you do have to be educated, you do have to be self-aware, you do have to have capacities for self-regulation, you do have to be consciously sexual and have a conscious sexual practice that goes somewhat against cultural constraints, at least in the first part of the 20th century. Now, all those things that I just said are things that make relationships way better that don't have to do with not having an orgasm or maintaining a certain level of connection, but have to do with... Everything to do with intimacy, inter-subjectivity, and the development of consciousness and the co-development of inter-subjective consciousness.

    Neil Sattin: So I'm appreciating that just like every other system that we've talked about, even karezza is a model that it's there for you to try and to see how that affects you. Does it have a positive impact or a negative impact? If you take karezza to an extreme and then you happen to have an orgasm, you might feel shame around that. Well, it's stopped helping you at that point, right?

    [laughter]

    Neil Sattin: So everything in its place, to everything its season. And that being said, it's a helpful seasoning to have.

    Keith Witt: Back in 19... What was it? '79, I was studying with a Daoist priest and martial artist. I was learning a very intense kind of explosive form of somatic therapy called simple linking therapy, and I became his apprentice, and I studied martial arts and healing with him. It was just one of those archetypal things. So in the end, at the very end... So I'd studied hard, I became his number one guy. And in the end, there was this yoga called the yoga of the five dragons, and to get to five dragons you get one dragon every week, and you can't have an orgasm for five weeks. And not only that, because he wanted to make it hard for me, I had to go down to his fighting class in San Diego and I had to fight every guy in that class. It was just one of those martial arts movies things. At the end I was all covered with blood, right? So they had this circle, and they brought this poor, young fucker in, "Come fight Keith." He looked at me and he burst into tears. [laughter]

    Neil Sattin: Oh my God.

    Keith Witt: So then the teacher got in this ring with me and I had to fight, finesse fighting the teacher, so I didn't get killed and I could get out of there. Anyway, that five weeks of not having an orgasm when I was 30 years old was a fucking nightmare for me. Now, I can't remember what effects it had on my relationship with Becky at the time. Becky is way more flexible than me around sex. We were intimate, we were supportive and so on. And it was really useful for me, I remember those five weeks with gratitude because I had to discover new things about myself within that context and about us. And so I can really see karezza being something if a couple practices it, you're going to go deeper into your love and your eroticism with each other, whether you do it for a month or for a lifetime. And that kind of shared practice bonds people. It's kind of like both of you becoming yoga enthusiasts or both of you really loving meditation together, only this has those shared erotic elements that you don't do with other people. That makes couples special. And that special form of eroticism I think makes you stronger with your partner. And if you like it, you do it. But if you don't like it, then you don't have to do it. Now maybe I'm just saying that because it'd be great for me to do it and I don't want to give up my orgasms. I don't know, I can't say, Neil.

    Neil Sattin: Well, I can't tell you how many people I've talked to about it who have literally had that, "You're not taking my orgasms away from me," kind of response.

    [laughter]

    Keith Witt: How dare you!

    Neil Sattin: And I think that that's one of the reasons why it's so important, not that it necessarily become a lifelong practice, but particularly because of those habitual ways that we think about our sexual selves and that we're driven to orgasm, I think that it's helpful to really peel that back a little bit. And as an adult, as a mature adult, to take some perspective on how you even learned to be a sexual being and to re-experience yourself to some degree. And if you're not having orgasms and you're someone who's been orgasm-motivated, then that's going to give you a totally new way of understanding how you're even relating to your partner. And it definitely gives you a much broader vocabulary in bed if suddenly you're like, "Well, I'm not being driven to orgasm, so what the hell am I going to do? I gotta figure this out." So I think it's also a very useful vehicle to just waking up other parts of you that then, yeah, why not, integrate it all. But integrate it from having that new perspective where you're not just being run by the need, and so many people do express that as a need; I'm not sure that it is a need, but the need for orgasms.

    Keith Witt: It's a drive. So first of all, it's a drive. So with the drives, we don't deny... Denying the drives screws us up. Integrating the drives into a larger consciousness makes us bigger people. The great thing about karezza is that when you're pushing towards orgasm, it's more individualistic. If you do karezza you're always in the intersubjectivity with your partner. Couples that are able to do that, "Yeah, I make love and I have orgasms or I don't have orgasms, or whatever," some people don't care to have orgasms during lovemaking, but I like the connection and I maintain the connection. It's frankly way, way easier, if you're doing karezza, to maintain that inter-subjective connection, to feel it, to feel that as the primary mover of your eroticism. It's not getting off that's the primary mover, it's that.

    Keith Witt: And so it's a beautiful system for that. And so, is it a good thing to try? Sure, it's a good thing to try. If you and your partner feel like there's more love and passion if you do it, is it a good thing to continue? Sure, it's a good thing to continue. Is it alarming when you've been acting out on a drive, to go to orgasm, and somebody says, "No, you can't act out on the drive, you gotta suppress your drive." People get all defensive and rather than examine their defensiveness, we'll try to find some reason why you're wrong.

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: Well, in integral you go, "How is this right? How does it fit in to the larger framework of the infinite variation of consciousness?" But still, that still predictably goes through certain stages, and has a directionality. Well, if something's creating more love and more connection and more of an erotic specialness with you and your partner, it's going to be a good thing, in my opinion, if you both feel that. Now, if one person is denying themselves and doing it for you and being pissed off about it secretly, that's co-dependent. And as we all know, being counter-dependent, pretending you don't need people sucks. That's differentiation, pathological differentiation. Being codependent sucks, which is, serving somebody in a way that denies yourself or supports your pathology. Being interdependent, where you two are appropriately connecting in ways that support your individual development and your collective development, that's the gold standard for human beings. And so, we want everything that we can to support interdependence around our friendship, our love affair, and our capacity to heal ruptures.

    Keith Witt: Those three things are central to all the systems, and the karezza fits into it, it fits into it quite beautifully, in my opinion, and, particularly, a pro-sexual system in the beginning of the 20th century, end of 19th century. Remember, Christianity is not pro-sexual. These people were really going against the culture. The minute today, when you go to a... If you go to a fundamentalist church, and you got a pastor saying, "Yeah, I want everybody to have sex every day, for the next year... Month," which happens, this is Christianity, progressive Christianity, moving towards being a more pro-sexual system, and I think that's necessary, and it... And beautiful, and that's the development of that particular tradition, in my opinion.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah, it's... I love how it's become another one of our many paths to Rome. And I also like how you put that into the integral context. I think that's helpful, for me, and, probably, for everyone listening, because we can talk about integral, and we haven't even... And you mentioned at the very top that it's a meta system, so it's a way of seeing systems.

    Keith Witt: Yeah.

    Neil Sattin: So I think it's helpful to understand that evolution, that that's maybe the bias, and it happens to be a bias that I appreciate, of looking at things from an integral perspective.

    Keith Witt: Mm-hmm. Well, yeah. The downside of it is that I can't really... I can't go out and say, "Hey, buy my Loving Completely book, do my Loving Completely system and you'll be a much better couple's therapist, then you will be better than the other people." I don't know. You take my book, and you read it, and you apply it to your life, or you apply it to your practice. It'll probably enhance your life and your practice. As a therapist, will it make you better than other good therapists? Well, it'll make you a better therapist. Will it make you better than other people? I don't know. No. If somebody else is doing a really good work out of their system, and they're getting results, they're doing fine. And if they try to kind of shape themselves into Keith's understanding, bringing integral and neurobiology in the stages of bonding, and telling jokes and whatever it is I do, opening up a channel into the other world and letting that flood into the session, which is what I do in most of my sessions. If you go, "I'm going to try to do that instead of what I, naturally, want to do," it's probably going to screw you up.

    Keith Witt: Now, if you're really excited by that, you go, "Yeah, I want to try that, put myself in that shape." Absolutely do it, and then what you'll end up discovering is your own version of that. And people end up having, I just need to say, whether they do it consciously or unconsciously, good therapists, really, are bringing in something larger than themselves into the container of the session. And just because I can see that and other people can't, sometimes, doesn't mean that it's not always there with people that are doing healing work. I might not, personally, think it's better to be aware of it so it's easier to regulate it up if you're aware of it, but that's not necessary. Consciousness of it is necessary, but the presence of it does make the work more sacred and more beautiful, in my opinion. And in integral, those are your three validity standards. What's true objectively, what's beautiful aesthetically, and what feels good, either subjectively and morally. The beautiful, good and true.

    Neil Sattin: So I'm wondering, and this might be our last question for today, because I feel like we've covered so much territory and, hopefully, this has been helpful for you listening, to get so many different perspectives. And hopefully, if we've pissed anyone off, Sue, John, David, Stan, if you guys are listening. [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: Sorry, you guys, really sorry if I irritated you. I'm just trying to be a truth-teller here. I love your systems.

    [chuckle]

    Neil Sattin: If we've pissed you off, hopefully, it's in a good way. Hopefully, you'll see that this is all meant to be just in service of taking this all to a place where it's really benefiting the most people possible. And that brings me to my last question for you, and this is... I'm just curious to hear your answer, do you think that we'll get to a point where the last book on how to have a good relationship will have been written, and people will just be like, "You know what? We're just going to... This is the book, and there's no [chuckle] other, no... " Some people might say, "That's the Bible." But do you think that we'll get to that place where it's just going to be like, "You know what? Indisputably, this is the book, this kinda covers it." And it manages to encompass the light, the dark, the this, the that, the breadth of the spectrum, and it's all there.

    Keith Witt: [chuckle] Well, so... The short answer to that is, no.

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: That book is not going to be written. "Loving Completely" is my eighth book, and I'm working on a book on trauma now. And that book on trauma, those nine books together are cosmology that's an accurate reflection of how I understand the universe, how I understand people in love and psychopathology and healing and how to move forward developmentally in the world, and support the evolution of consciousness. Okay. So that's Keith's system. It's integrally informed, but still it's got my personality and my psychology, and my bias is all over it. So that's going to be true for everybody. Also, we grow through stages. We grow through an ego-centric, which is age-appropriate to little kids and to ethnocentric, where we're conformists to other standards. They don't have to make sense, which is normal for grade schoolers, to rational at teenage, which we can do critical analysis, but we're attracted to merit-based hierarchies. The pluralistic, which you see a lot in college where there's people who are egalitarian and multi-cultural, to integral where you're looking at everything in authority and goes in a flex-flow standard. You notice how growth hierarchies and dominator hierarchies and chose growth hierarchies.

    Keith Witt: Okay, so every one of those world views responds differently to different teaching about love. When I write, I try to write to all of those world views, but each one of them is listening differently, because we all look at different worlds. And the world views don't stop. They don't stop at integral. You go from integral to a level of connecting where you want to connect with like-minded others that serves the world. You and I are doing that now. That's the next level after integral. There's another level after that where there's a constant relationship with spirit in whatever you do. And then there's another level after that. Now, the more... The higher you go, the fewer people meet you there. But if someone understands that territory and writes a book about it, it's just one of the pleasures of the world to run into that book and go, "Oh, my God." This is what Ken Wilber's stuff did to me. There was a part of my consciousness that was bursting to grow and wasn't finding a map to grow until I found the integral map, the meta-theory, and then bam. It literally transformed my consciousness. I'm a different person in many ways. I see a different world, and I've progressively seen different worlds.

    Keith Witt: And so, what's going to happen more and more, particularly now that there's this explosion of knowledge, is people will write their books from their systems to whoever it is they're talking to. And I'm focusing more on people that are rational and post-rational, but the fundamentalist get stuff out of my book and ego-centric people can. But I'm not writing it to an ego-centric audience. If I was, I would write a book about the warrior in the "Man of Wisdom." When I have ego-centric guys in here, I challenge them to be a warrior of integrity, moving towards "Man of Wisdom." Red, ego-centric power God types guys like that. If I have an ego-centric feminine person, I challenge her to be the embodiment of whatever her concept of the feminine design, moving towards "Woman of Wisdom." Those work very well in my experience with ego-centric world views, but they don't work very well with ethno-centric world views, and so on. And so as we expand and we understand, there are all these world views, all these ways of experiencing the world are valid and that they do develop progressively. You don't skip levels when you grow on a developmental line. And then each one of them is available for different kinds of input.

    Keith Witt: Terri O'Fallon up north does this. She says that, "You have to inhabit certain kinds of states before you can make it to the next developmental level." And those states involves understanding, but they also involve a visceral experience of certain things. If you don't have a visceral experience of, say, the infinite, you can't get to a particular developmental level on your psychosocial line, or your self-line. If you don't have an experience of world-centricism, of all people being connected, all of us being brothers and sisters, you can't really get to a world-centric world view. You have to have that experience. It's a felt experience. So the books all speak to the different stages and the different developmental levels, and different systems. And so, well we'll keep on writing books and we'll keep on coming up with new systems and we'll keep on interfacing it with technology, like neuro-feedback or therapeutic systems, like somatic re-experiencing, EMDR and so on. And we'll keep on refining our understanding of development on what's going on neurobiologically in the different developmental stages, but also, not just individually 'cause we grow up in a relationship, what's going on relationally when you shift from infant to toddler to young kid to sexually aware? Neil, one of... Just a final bee in my bonnet.

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: I have worked with families. I tell families, "Talk about... Control what your kids see. Control images. Screens, whatever, but talk to them about everything." Couples are like, "I don't want to talk to my kid about sex until, they're what, 14 or something, or 11 or... " No. Talk to them about sex when they're two or three. "I don't want to talk about violence to my kid because I don't want him to... " Talk to them about violence when they can talk. Talk to them about everything. And then... But control the images. You don't want them to have traumatic images, but you want them to have a global understanding of how the world works and how they work, because they're sexual beings. They have impulses to violence. How are they going to understand their sexuality, their impulse to violence, their selfishness and so on, unless you can see it, normalize it and help them understand it within the context of development and the cultures that they're in.

    Keith Witt: Talk to them about everything. And from an accepting standpoint, and a standpoint of, "In our family, we focus on everybody developing." And mom and dad a developing just like the kids are developing. Those are the families that seem to do the best, in my opinion, and those are the couples that do the best. It's not like we ever get there. We're always working at loving each other better. I'm going to be working on loving Becky better until one of us dies, or until my brain dissolves or whatever the hell. Okay, so why? Because that commitment, lets me know, I want to make it work now, but I'm always... My job is to make it work a little bit better, because that grows me and it grows her and there's something sacred about that.

    Keith Witt: I'm not just doing it because it makes me happier and I'm not just doing it 'cause it makes us happier. I'm doing it because I think it makes the world a better place. It makes me a better therapist. Those are the reasons... I'm doing it for world-centric reasons as well as egocentric reasons, because development is including the transcendent. You never lose ego-centricism but you do get world-centricism or even life-centricism. I'm doing this, so hopefully people will stop this great "Die off" that we're doing now and start saving the planet. I think that contributing to the evolution of consciousness is contributing to solving those problems and so, that's my attempt to do it. That's a motivation system that runs me, as well as the other ones. And that's true for all of us.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah. It's certainly true for me as well, with the podcast and this work. As I hear you talk about all those different levels of how we're contributing. I'm right there with you, that's... I've sat back and thought about it a lot, recently. Having celebrated the three-year anniversary of the podcast just a month ago or so, and I was just kinda like, "Why am I doing this?" And then, it's interesting, right?

    Keith Witt: Yeah.

    Neil Sattin: Because some of those reasons are personal like, "Yeah, this is Neil Sattin wanting to make his mark on the world." And then... Then I'm able to step back from that and say, "Yeah, and I want to make a mark on the world, I want to make this world a better place and I want to make it a better place for my kids, for you listening, for future generations, for... " Hopefully there are... There's a long future ahead of us, as a planet. And then, even potentially, when aliens finally do make contact with us, or we with them, then hopefully we're in a better position to do that in a way that's actually constructive. That's the first time I've spoken those words, so... [chuckle] I wouldn't have told you, I'm going to have to interview Whitley Strieber now. I'm going to have to get him on the... On this show.

    Keith Witt: Well, that's why I love talking with you, why you enjoy talking with me. We share these motivation systems, Neil, and other people that talk to us and share them, they'll... We know each other when we relate.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah.

    Keith Witt: We feel that and you know what, it's... There's something... This is the evolutionary impulse coming through us. It feels sacred. It's something that is in the fabric of the universe to evolve to greater complexity and with human beings, greater complexity is deeper consciousness, more compassion and more love. More care for more. More for all. It's just we feel it. We feel it in each other and we feel it in ourselves and we want to help other people feel it because it's such a great thing.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah, yeah. And I feel in this moment the presence of everyone listening who's here and is hopefully nodding their head at this moment, like, "Yeah, that's why I'm here, that's why I'm listening, and that's why I want to be a part of this conversation too."

    Keith Witt: Yeah. God bless all of us and thank you for listening.

    Neil Sattin: Yes.

    Keith Witt: Thank you for sharing this with us and for growing and for contributing your development and your consciousness to all of us. Thank you.

    Neil Sattin: Keith is there and obviously, we've recommended your books highly here. Is there a particular Ken Wilber book that you think is a good starting place for people whose interest is peaked by our conversation and who isn't already integrally informed?

    Keith Witt: I think the best place to start would be to get the "Kosmic Consciousness" audio tapes that Ken did with Tami Simon, It Sounds True, because once you hear those tapes, 12 of them, and listening to those more consistently than anything else, has lit people up in terms of their understanding, what this understanding of the universe. As Ken, Ken has called himself a "mapmaker." And it's not the mapmakers don't discover, don't create the territory. They draw maps that help us explore the territory. So you do that... That would be the first thing I'd recommend, get the Sounds True "Kosmic Consciousness," K-O-S-M-I-C Consciousness.

    Keith Witt: Now, after that I recommend "Integral Spirituality." "Integral Spirituality" is a wonderful book. The first time I met Ken was when I was on a podcast with him talking about one of those chapters. And he and I have since become friends and he's written blogs for my books since... Like blogs for my books and stuff. And we've interviewed... Done various interviews with each other, but that's when I first met him. And that "integral Spirituality" book, if you've... Particularly, if you've heard "Kosmic Consciousness" it really takes you deeper into the cosmology. At a particular point, you just understand the universe in a different way and particularly, how consciousness exists in the universe and particularly, human consciousness that changes you. In that sense, it's a psychoactive system. You learn the system and you embody it and you're by definition, a different person. You have a larger perspective. Now, it doesn't solve all your problems and turn wine into water, water into wine or anything but...

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: I don't want to over promise you.

    Neil Sattin: Dang. [laughter]

    Keith Witt: I know, that would be great but it doesn't do that. As far as I know, maybe it's somebody else has turned water into wine. But that being said, that's what I'd recommend. "Kosmic Consciousness" first and then if I was advising, do the "integral Spirituality." Now, any of his books are utterly fascinating. I haven't read all of them, but the ones I've read every single one of them has been great, because he knows that territory and describes it in ways that are surprisingly wonderful and very... To me, very applicable that's why I wrote "Waking Up." His stuff, to me at that point, hadn't been adequately applied to psychotherapy and, "Well, I'll do that." [chuckle] I was at a conference, he said the books haven't been written, I went home and wrote book.

    [chuckle]

    Keith Witt: I dreamt about that material everyday for over in a year and then I would wake up and I'd write a 400-page book and I'd wrote... So I wrote a 400 page book and then send it to a couple of the integral people and said, "Hey, what do you think?" And they didn't even remember who I was. It was one of those real bizarre things, but that led me into the system and into meeting people and into my other books and so on. I find it enormously useful in understanding psychotherapy and everything else. And parenting for instance, and integrally understanding of parenting in my opinion, makes you a hugely better parent because it makes the interiors of your child and the world views of your child way, way more visible. And gives you direction about how to guide your child to more fully occupy their current world view, and then give them little hints about going to the next one because you can't skip world views, you have to go from one to the other. It helps you with sexuality, it helps you with your physical health, it helps you in your interface with culture, it helps you in your work.

    Neil Sattin: Keith, Keith, you're getting into water into wine territory here.

    [laughter]

    Keith Witt: Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. Getting a little evangelical here, hallelujah brothers and sisters. I'm not that, it's not for everybody. If you don't like integral that's fine, you can grow. You can transcend. I have no problem. I love you just as much if you hate integral. No problem. Just saying, just 'cause I love it. It's like karezza and you, just 'cause you love it doesn't mean everybody has to.

    Neil Sattin: That's right, that's right. Well, Keith, it is always a pleasure to have you here on the show. I love your spirit, your wisdom and your willingness to go there despite how it might irritate people, not that we had that much of that here. And as you mentioned, it's just always great to connect with you for the podcast. So thank you so much for your time and enthusiasm today.

    Keith Witt: Well, thank you for having me on again. I had really a lot of fun.

    Episode 8: Sex is Broken

    Episode 8: Sex is Broken

     

    The Sex Episode 

    Hannah and Alexa talk about sex and how it’s broken in many ways.

    Disclaimer: much of the content in this episode focuses on heterosexual, traditional, cis-gendered married couples. This is because Hannah and Alexa primarily with these couple configurations and both identify as heterosexual, cis-gender women. This episode covers a lot of material and is an overview of several issues. Other configurations, identities, sexual orientations, and preferences were not intentionally excluded. Future episodes will expand the conversation and will be more inclusive of others.

     Hannah begins the episode by sharing her reasons for why she thinks this is an important topic and why it was so important to her that Broken cover sex. As someone who has been a therapist for 15 years, a woman for 41 years, and someone who was married for 10 years and is now divorced, Hannah shares that over the years she has noticed many people (clients, friends, herself) struggle with sex in many ways. She admits that for many people, while sex is a good thing, it’s also messy and confusing, and not something many people feel comfortable discussing. Because sexuality is an important part of our selves, our relationships, and our health, even though it’s uncomfortable and difficult to talk about, it’s important, and so we dedicate this episode to looking at sex and how it’s broken.

    Observations

     Hannah and Alexa share trends they’ve seen in couples they’ve worked with. Hannah says that often, what’s going on in a couple’s sex life is a good indicator of what’s happening in the relationship in general. A couple’s sex life is often a barometer for the relationship, and is often a predictor of the relationship’s level of communication, connectedness, intimacy, trust, openness, comfortability, honesty, adventure, sharing and ability to ask for and meet each other’s needs.

     

    Alexa shares that she’s been surprised to learn that many married couples do not have frequent sex. She says that she sees sex as a tool to stay connected, and an important feature of marriage. Hannah points out that couples differ on how important sex is within their specific relationship and can negotiate their own rules and boundaries about frequency of sex, and that it’s different for every couple. Hannah also shares that sometimes sex stops in relationships without the couple talking about it, because it’s vulnerable, uncomfortable, and difficult to talk about sex. She says that when sex stops, it’s often hard to get it back. She says sex is often “use it or lose it”, if a couple is not having sex, it sometimes falls off and then is very hard to start again.

     

    Couples don’t often have the tools, words, language, or skills to talk about sex.

     

    This episode is about helping to give people some of those tools, words, and skills.

     

    Statistics:

     

    The average American adult has sex 103 times a year.

     

    Couples living together, but not married, have sex 146 times a year.

     

    Married couples have sex 98 times a year.

     

    Single adults have sex 49 times a year.

     

    Married couples are having less sex. On average, married couples are having sex 9 fewer times per year than they were in the 1990s.

     

    Hannah shares statistics about sex in America, but cautions listeners from giving too much weight to statistics because each couple, person, and situation is different. It can be dangerous to compare yourself to others, and there is an amount of bias in studies that measure sexuality since people tend to filter or edit their responses.

     

    Hannah and Alexa discuss these statistics and share that they are consistent in their work with couples and from reports they’ve heard anecdotally from others. Married people seem to be having sex less often, not enjoying sex, viewing sex as a chore, and normalizing these experiences. Both Hannah and Alexa assert that sex in marriage seems to be broken.

     

    So, what is happening in marriage? Why is sex broken?

     

    Hannah educates listeners about the mixed messages we all receive about sex, from very young ages.

     

    Sex Ed

     

    Sexual education in schools is discussed. Sexual education in school is more common today, and Hannah shares that this is important and good, as it’s the only way some kids learn about sex and their bodies, especially if they have parents who don’t talk about sex. Schools are also teaching about consent and boundaries and respect. And these are good things, and important messages for everyone. 

     

    Americans are uncomfortable talking about sex, and sex education in this country lags far behind other countries. Other countries begin sex education at age 4, while most schools in America start with a very limited sexual health program at age 10, when students are in fourth grade.

     

    Sexual education in America is often focused around the dangers of sex. Kids learn that they can get diseases and babies from sex. Kids learn that sex can kill you. Sex is often presented in a scary way that does discuss any of the positive things about sex.

     

    Hannah says that teen pregnancy rates have decreased in America thanks to better sex education and information.

     

    Rates of teens having sex in general have decreased as well. Hannah discusses reasons for this including increased time using devices and communicating with other online instead of in person. Because of this increased use of devices, children are learning fewer social skills and not learning to interact in person.

     

    Children who grow up in religious environments often receive additional messages about sex—that it is sinful, dirty, wrong, bad, and can lead to hell and damnation.

     

    Messages

     

    Hannah and Alexa also discuss the mixed messages girls and boys receive about sex, from society, culture, their peers, the media, and their families.

     

    Girls and Women

     

    Girls receive messages that you should wait until you are married, having sex outside of a relationship or marriage means you are a slut, you should “save yourself”, cover up, don’t dress in a way that could lead a boy to take advantage of you, if you get pregnant your life is over, don’t be a bad girl, sex is dirty, sex is shameful, sex is secret, a gift you give your husband.

     

    They discuss the word “slut”, and the messages girls receive that if they have sex outside of a relationship, they are labeled as a “slut”, “bad girl, or “damaged goods”.

     

    Women also struggle with internal conflicts about reconciling multiple roles, such as desirable sexual creature and mother.

     

    Alexa and Hannah share realizations and conversations from their peer groups about birth control, the fear of pregnancy and the shift in expectations and messages that occurs after marriage, or once someone is in a loving relationship or partnership.

     

    Boys and Men

     

    Hannah identifies that boys and men receive very different messages about sex. Boys often are given permission (implicit or explicit) to look at pornography and sexually provocative images in sources such as Playboy, from early on. Many boys are raised to learn that they aren’t really a “man” until they are sexually active. There is pressure for boys and young men to have many different sexual partners, to “get their numbers up”, “male slut” is not really even a thing. Many men receive messages from a community called the “Pick-up Artists”, and a book called “The Game”. “Hookup culture” and spring break, Greek life in academic settings, and the current culture encourages boys and men to express their sexuality and to sleep with many women. Boys feel this pressure to perform. Many boys also grow up concerned about issues like size and find themselves in a constant battle of comparing themselves with others.

     

    On the other hand, recently, following the #metoo backlash, men and boys are receiving messages about consent and respect and boundaries. These messages are good and important, for both men and women, and they also are contributing to some men feeling conflicted and confused.

     

    Hannah discusses the “Madonna-Whore Complex”, a term coined by Freud about a century ago, to describe an internal conflict many men experience when separating sexual desire from friendship and respect.

     

    For some men, they can feel desire and arousal with sexual objects (“whore”) such as a stripper, porn star or casual hookup partner, but then find it difficult to feel desire or passion or arousal for (“Madonna”) their spouse, the mother of their children, and their best friend and life partner.

     

    This complex can translate into lack of desire, confusion and shame.

     

    Mindset Shift

     

    Hannah says, you spend half your life learning that sex is bad and dangerous and hope to avoid pregnancy, and the other half of your life having sex to become pregnant, have babies and to connect with your spouse.

     

    Alexa points out that the flip that is expected is drastic and is supposed to happen overnight.

     

    Women sometimes “save themselves”, and are virgins at marriage, and then on their wedding night, are expected to give themselves to their husbands, be sexual, be comfortable, know what to do, please their husband, and consecrate the marriage.

     

    This is a mindset shift that is expected to happen overnight, or suddenly, once someone is in a partnership or long-term relationship or marriage. It’s a difficult transition for many people.

     

    Hannah observes that many people have a hard time making this shift. Alexa observes that, as with many mindset shifts, it’s difficult because our mindset is driven by deeply held and firmly entrenched beliefs that are often unconscious.

     

    The difficulty in shifting mindset is often compounded by couples not often having the words, skills, tools, or language to talk about sex or beliefs, or to help each other process conflicting feelings without fear of judgment or shame.

     

    Therapy and coaching is suggested as a tool to help address mindset issues around sex.

     

    The Pressure to find “The One”

     

    Hannah discusses the tremendous pressure and expectations many people put into marriage today.

     

    Marriages are more egalitarian today. Women and men share roles and responsibilities. Most marriages include partners who share financial responsibilities and incomes. Most are dual-earning partnerships.

     

    There is pressure to find “THE ONE”. Marriage is seen as a partnership where you merge lives with another person who becomes your best friend, intimate partner, trusted companion, keeper of secrets, protector, provider, nurturer, and sexual partner.

     

    While the average age of marriage is increasing, so is life expectancy, so marriages, and the potential for marriage longevity is longer than ever in history.

     

    Additionally, couples are less connected to extended families and are more mobile, often living miles from extended families and support. This distance often puts additional pressure on the marital relationship to provide support that may have once been provided by family members.

     

    So today, marriage is expected to provide nearly all of the love, friendship, support, trust, financial responsibility, childcare responsibility, intimacy, desire, passion, and fidelity that a person needs in his or her life.

     

    That is a lot of pressure on one relationship. A relationship that may last 80 years. For life. Monogamy.

     

    Hannah and Alexa discuss lack of sexual desire and low sex drive, and things that can contribute to this.

     

    They also discuss issues that can lead to infidelity. Hannah shares trends and statistics about infidelity.

     

    Hannah also shares information about ways sex benefits health and well-being.

     

    Suggestions and Resources:

     

    Hannah and Alexa share resources for help with all of this. Hannah says that some therapists and other thought leaders are helping couples rethink some of these expectations and rules, and helping couples and individuals to adjust expectations.

     

    • Esther Perel is a psychotherapist and sex expert who hosts a podcast, “Where Do We Begin”, and has authored two helpful books, “Mating in Captivity”, and “The State of Affairs”.

     

    Hannah talks about some of the suggestions shared by Esther Perel, including creating some distance, relying on other supports, the use of the “other” through fantasy, and tools for reigniting desire and passion.

     

    Hannah and Alexa discuss some of the other pressures common in current-day marriages including infertility, financial stress, the pressure to reproduce, parenting, over-programming, competing with neighbors and friends and social media.

     

    When couples are faced with these stresses and pressures, they don’t often feel “in the mood”, sexual desire wanes, and frequency of sex and intimacy decreases.

     

    • Take responsibility for your sexual well-being

     

    Alexa shares her thoughts and beliefs about the responsibility and opportunity we each have as individuals to figure out our wants and needs, and to maintain sexual health and wellbeing.

     

    Hannah shares her frustration with the lack of available resources for women to learn about sex. She says, men have porn, which is typically made by men for men. But women aren’t encouraged to learn about sex and aren’t provided with many tools or resources to educate themselves about the possibilities of sex and desire.

     

    Hannah shares that each of us have different parts of our selves. Our sexual self is a part of us. Some people stop having sex and let that part of themselves die. Many people don’t prioritize sex and think it’s not important or necessary. But in doing that, they lose a part of themselves that can be very helpful to people.

     

    Staying in tune with our sexuality is a way for people to feel alive, stay connected, find power, decrease anxiety and depression, sleep better, be healthier, and feel good. It’s also a way for people to connect with certain aspects of femininity and masculinity. We can look at sex as an untapped resource that might help us feel better and be better.

     

    • Understand your body

     

    Learn about your anatomy and your body. Explore and find the parts of you that “feel good”. Learn more about types of orgasms and about the possibility of sex.

     

    • Get more comfortable talking about all of this

     

    Find people and ways to start talking about this. Find people to start practicing even talking about sex.

     

    • Talk to your children about sex in positive, age appropriate ways.

     

    • Think about the opportunity to find passion in your life.

     

     

    Resources:

     

    Coaching with Hannah Mirmiran or Alexa Thiesen: (402) 715-9710 or hmirmiran@omahapsychotherapy.com

     

    Esther Perel: “Mating in Captivity”: https://www.amazon.com/Mating-Captivity-Unlocking-Erotic-Intelligence-ebook/

     

    Esther Perel: “State of Affairs-Rethinking Infidelity”: https://www.amazon.com/State-Affairs-Rethinking-Infidelity-ebook

     

     

    #08 I DJ Koze, Peggy Gou, Perel, Traumprinz, Against All Logic uvm.

    #08 I DJ Koze, Peggy Gou, Perel, Traumprinz, Against All Logic uvm.
    Wir sind endlich auf Spotify! An dieser Stelle möchten sich Albert und Christopher bei allen Platten entschuldigen, die aus Platzmangel, Willkür und Tagesform nicht in die aktuelle Folge gekommen sind. Das Musikjahr ist gut zu uns und wir zu euch. Diesen Monat sprechen wir z.B. über die Rückkehr von Hamburgs House-Maestro DJ Koze, Hype-Thema Peggy Gou auf Ninja Tune, die zwei neuen Platten von Techno-Mysterium Traumprinz und die sensationelle Leftield-Pop-Compilation auf dem ebenso sensationellen Label Music From Memory. Dazu das DFA-Debüt von Perel, die erste EP der norwegischen RnB-Erneuerer Smerz sowie Geheimtips aus Mühlheim und eine Überraschung von Nicolas Jaar. P.S. Irgendwas mit Actress. Setlist [00:00:00] Intro [00:01:03] Welcome to Spotify! Wir sind umgezogen und haben euch mitgenommen [00:06:22] Zuletzt gehörte Platten: Das neue Autechre-Epos, Gang-Gang-Dance-Skepsis und DJ-Krush-Nostalgie [00:13:56] Coming soon: Actress, Moodymann, Ryo Fukui, John Maus etc. [00:23:35] Video-Talk: Sophie – Faceshopping [00:28:04] DJ Koze // Knock Knock (Pampa Records) [00:42:33] A.A.L // 2012 – 2017 (Other People) [00:49:37] Perel // Hermetica (DFA) [00:58:53] Peggy Gou / Once EP (Ninja Tune) [01:05:33] Thoma Fehlmann & Terrence Dixon // We Take It From Here (Tresor) [01:13:39] Phaserboys // st EP (Aiwo rec.) [01:20:00] Smerz // Have Fun EP (XL) [01:25:13] DJ Healer // Nothing 2 Loose & Prime Minister of Doom // Mudshadow Propaganda (All Possible Worlds) [01:37:06] Marie Davidson // st EP (HoloDeck) [01:43:04] VA: Uneven Paths – Deviant Pop From Europe 80 – 91 (Music From Memory) [01:53:22] Playlist-Talk: Princess Nokia, Tara Nome Doyle, The Streets, Flame1, DJ Playstation, Daniel Avery, S4U uvm.. [02:04:25] Irgendwie ist Musik gut, Ausblick + Verabschiedung

    The Secret to Surviving Infidelity with Esther Perel

    The Secret to Surviving Infidelity with Esther Perel

    Why do people cheat? It’s an age-old question about a seriously taboo topic. It’s also the subject of today’s episode of Shared Secrets, in which the renowned relationship therapist Esther Perel joins me to discuss infidelity, jealousy, desire and reconciliation.

    In the episode, Esther, author of The State of Affairs: Rethinking Infidelity, explains the varied reasons why people stray, even from happy relationships. She tells me about the buffers that couples can develop to shield their relationship from the effects of trauma during difficult times. And we discuss how couples can recover from an infidelity in a way that leads to a more honest, deep and compassionate union than they had before.

    123: Pleasure is the Measure: The Science of Sex and Desire - with Emily Nagoski

    123: Pleasure is the Measure: The Science of Sex and Desire - with Emily Nagoski

    How do you separate fact from fiction when it comes to creating and sustaining sexual desire? In this episode of Relationship Alive, our special guest is Emily Nagoski, author of the New York Times bestseller "Come As You Are: The Surprising New Science that Will Transform Your Sex Life." Her work has been cited by both John Gottman and Esther Perel as a must-read for understanding how desire works, and how to nurture a sexual connection over the long term with your partner. Emily Nagoski and I dispel some modern-day myths about sexuality, and then we reveal some of the new science to help you create more pleasure in your life. And, as Emily says, "Pleasure is the Measure!"

    Transcript:

    Neil Sattin: Hello and welcome to another episode of Relationship Alive. This is your host, Neil Sattin. What if everything that you've been told about sex and desire was wrong? Or maybe not quite wrong, just missing really important bits of information that would help you understand the big picture. As it turns out, there's a lot that we've come to know through science about what turns us on and what turns us off. But this information is relatively new and hasn't quite made it out to the mainstream or the cover of Cosmo, at least not yet. How do you know if what you're experiencing is normal? And what can you do to discover more about who you are as a sexual being and to find more connection and sex in your relationship, without creating pressure on yourself or on your partner? Today's guest has many of the answers to these questions.

    Neil Sattin: Her name is Doctor Emily Nagoski and she's the author of the New York Times bestseller "Come as You Are", which John Gottman says is the best book he's ever read on sexual desire and why some couples stop having sex. Esther Perel also refers to Emily's work. So, if John Gottman and Esther Perel, who, at the moment, come from different camps on the question of sexual desire, if they can agree on Emily Nagoski's work, then you know that she's done something truly magnificent. There's gonna be a lot to cover and, as usual, we will have a detailed transcript and action guide for this episode available to you at neilsattin.com/normal. Or you can text the word Passion to the number 33444 and follow the instructions to get your copy. Emily Nagoski, thank you so much for joining us today on Relationship Alive.

    Emily Nagoski: I'm so excited to talk to you.

    Neil Sattin: So let's start at the very beginning.

    Emily Nagoski: Very good place to start.

    Neil Sattin: Exactly. Where did this book come from for you? It's about desire and it's about understanding what makes us tick. And in particular, it's written for women and about women's sexuality, though there's so much relearning for men to do as well. And I'm wondering if you can just create our garden here for us for this conversation. Where did this book come from and why was it so important for you to write it?

    Emily Nagoski: Sure. I'd been teaching sexuality in some form and some context, for at least 15 years when I started teaching a class called Women's Sexuality at Smith College. Smith is a women's college so I had a class of almost entirely women, 187 of them. And Smith students are not ordinary human beings. Smith alums include Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan, and Catharine MacKinnon, and my favorite, Julia Child. And so the very first day, I'm teaching the anatomy class, of course, I just start with the anatomy. And a student raises her hand and says, "Emily, what's the evolutionary origin of the hymen?" And 15 years I'd been a sex educator, I had never even wondered the answer to that question. So I knew it was gonna be an intense, interesting semester. And it really was. They pushed me really hard. I shoehorned in as much science as I could into this beginner level class. After a semester of really hard work, my last question on the final exam was just tell me one important thing you learned. It can be... Just take the question seriously, you can have your two points no matter what you say. Just tell me one important thing you learned after all this cutting edge science.

    Emily Nagoski: And I thought they were gonna say the evolutionary theory, or attachment theory, or arousal non-concordance, or responsive desire, or any of these other things. And more than half of them, of 187 extraordinary students, more than half of them just wrote something like, "I'm normal. I learned that I'm normal. Just because I'm different from other women doesn't mean I'm broken. I can accept my sexuality as it is, and my partner's even when it's different from mine." I'm grading final exams with tears in my eyes thinking, I don't know what happened in my class, but I think it must have been something extraordinary and I wanna do it again, and I wanna do it on a much bigger scale. And that's the day that I decided to write "Come as You Are." And five years after that is when "Come as You Are" actually got published.

    Neil Sattin: And I love these... There's so many quotes from your book, and one thing that I really enjoyed about reading "Come as You Are" is that literally every chapter revealed something new. So while it all builds on itself, at the same time, I felt like I was walking through a labyrinth and around every corner I found some amazing gem, which is just so exciting when you're reading a book. But this quote toward the end really was powerful for me. And all it is, is this, "The sexuality you have right now is it and it's beautiful, even especially, if it's not what you were taught it should be."

    Emily Nagoski: Yeah.

    Neil Sattin: And that really hit me hard because I think so often we do get lost in thinking it's supposed to be some other way. And when we learn to tune in to what is actually happening in our bodies and accept that, and then use that as the springboard for what happens next, there's so much power in that moment.

    Emily Nagoski: And in one way it's really obvious that the fastest, easiest way to shut down your sexual well-being is to judge and shame your own sexuality as it - is like is that gonna be a turn on in your brain? For you to hate what's happening in your sexuality, obviously not. But if you can release the judgement and shame and be like "Oh, look, here's my sexuality. Being what it is, doing what it does, I know that I've been given a sort of like phantom sexual self of what I'm told I should be, what I'm supposed to do, what it's supposed to be like, and I know I'm supposed to beat the shit out of myself until I meet that standard, but what if? What if just hypothetically I stopped beating the shit out of myself and just enjoyed my sexuality as it is?" It turns out our ability to stop demanding that our bodies be different and allowing them to be as they are, is maybe the single most powerful thing we can do to maximize our sexual well-being. Is it easy? Nope. But it's almost magical in it's power.

    Neil Sattin: And this might be a good time to start with talking about the dual control system. This is something that probably most people don't know about in terms of how they think about their own sexual operating system. Can you speak a little bit to what is the dual control's mechanism and how does that affect whether we're into sex or not into sex, or feeling desirous and aroused or not feeling desirous and aroused?

    Emily Nagoski: Yes, absolutely. This is the fundamental hardware between our ears in the way our sexuality functions. It's a model developed at the Kinsey Institute starting in the late '90s, early 2000s, by Erick Janssen and John Bancroft, and it basically posits that sexuality works the way every other system in our central nervous system works. Which is a dual control mechanism. If there's a dual control mechanism, how many parts are there?

    Neil Sattin: Two.

    Emily Nagoski: There's two parts. Exactly, right? The first one is the sexual accelerator. And if the first part's is the accelerator or the gas pedal, the second part must be?

    Neil Sattin: The brakes.

    Emily Nagoski: Brake. Exactly. The accelerator is the part most of us are already sort of familiar with... It notices everything in the environment that it codes as sexually relevant. This is all the things that you're seeing and smelling and tasting and hearing and, crucially, imagining, that your brain codes as a sexually relevant stimulus, and it sends that turn on signal that activates arousal and desire. But at the same time that that's functioning, there is also a brake that is noticing all the good reasons not to be turned on right now, everything you see and hear, smell, touch, taste, or, crucially, imagine, that your brain codes as a potential threat, a reason not to be sexually active right now. And it sends the turn off signal. So your level of arousal or desire at any given moment is this balance of how many ons are turned on and how many offs are turned off. Sexual well-being is maximized, that is to say, sexual pleasure in the moment is maximized, when you're turning on all the ons and all of the brakes are turned off. And when I was talking about self-criticism and contempt for your own sexuality being a turn off, obviously, if you're judging your own sexuality, is that hitting the accelerator? Almost certainly not. That's one of the very common things that hits the brakes.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah. And I think what is confusing is that it's common for us to idealize one and to completely ignore the other. Or, one thing that was really enlightening in reading about these, is that we come with our own set level for these things. So some of us could have an accelerator that's really sensitive and easy to turn on, whereas others may not. And that doesn't necessarily represent a problem that needs to be fixed. And same with the brakes. Maybe you could talk a little bit more about that and why that... Why that's so.

    Emily Nagoski: Yeah, there, there are individual differences in the sensitivities of the brakes and the accelerator in each person's brain. As far as we can tell from the science so far, they seem to be pretty set. They're not as set as IQ, but we don't know of any specific interventions to change their sensitivity. Let's just assume they're like personality traits like introversion and extroversion, they are what they are. Most of us are heaped up around the middle. We're just sort of all about the same, but a handful of people, for example, will have really sensitive accelerators, and a person with a sensitive accelerator, vroom, right? That's a person who is easily activated, which can be great under the right circumstances and can be pretty dangerous under the wrong circumstances. If a person is experiencing a lot of negative effects, stress, depression, anxiety, loneliness, helplessness, repressed rage we've all got it, and they don't have good mechanisms in place for coping with that negative emotion - they may begin to use sex as an outlet, a way to avoid experiencing those negative emotions.

    Emily Nagoski: And that's where sexual risk taking and sexual compulsivity can come into play, in those folks who have higher sensitivity accelerators. And on the other end of the spectrum, there's the folks, for example, who might have really sensitive brakes, where the least stray thought, stray fingernail, stray noise in the hallway can just shut everything right down. And those are the folks who struggle most with sexual dysfunction, desire disorders, desire differential in their relationship. For most of us though, it's not that our brakes are overly sensitive. It's that we have just a truck load of stuff hitting our brakes all the time and it's much more common. The usual party line about sexual issues is that, well, you should try adding more stuff to the gas pedal. Try role play, and lingerie, and toys, and porn, and fantasy, and all the things, and those are great and you should try them if you like them. Great. And most people when they're struggling with sexuality, it's not because there's too little stimulation to the accelerator, it's because there's too much stimulation to the brake, which is gonna be - some of it - is that self criticism and body shaming.

    Emily Nagoski: For some people, it's a trauma history. For some people, it's straight up stress. 80 to 90% of people find that stress and other mood and anxiety issues negatively impact their sexual desire. For some people, it can actually increase it, but that's a different story. And relationship issues, of course are the major factor in things that hit the brakes.

    Neil Sattin: What's a good way for someone listening right now to get a sense for themselves of what we're talking about and how it impacts them? Like how do I identify what my brakes are and what my accelerator items are?

    Emily Nagoski: Yeah, most people have a good sense - if they just sit down and think about it... I'm interested in sex when these things are happening and I am not at all interested and don't experience pleasure under these circumstances. You can start in a general way with just lists, like what are the things that stress me out that prevent me from being interested in sex? What are the relationship issues that get me stuck so that when I get in bed with my partner, I'm not just getting in bed with my partner, I'm getting in bed with this laundry list of crap, that's just like gunking up the pipes, and you gonna clean out the pipes before you're gonna be interested in sex. Another concrete specific way rather than just generically...if you could think about one really awesome sexual experience you've had, doesn't have to be the best one you ever had, just like a really great sexual experience. Consider what the context was that might have been hitting the accelerator and keeping the brakes off. So what was your own mental and physical state? What were your partner's characteristics? What were your relationship characteristics? What was the setting? Was it in person? Was it in public? Was it over skype? Was it texting and photos?

    Emily Nagoski: Was it in the closet at a stranger's house, at a party, against a wall of other people's coats? Or was it in your own bed with the door shut and the kids over at somebody else's house? What was the setting that worked? Other life circumstances is a really important factor. How stressed out and exhausted were you from work and impending nuclear holocaust? What was your overall stress level? And then my favorite relevant factor is that called ludic factors. Ludic related to the word ludicrous. It just means play, how curious and playful and fun could you be? What games were you playing with your partner that were really working for you? There's actually, if you go to my website, there's worksheets, the worksheets are in the book and you can also just download them for free, that walk you through these contexts. I recommend that you think through three great experiences and three not so great experiences, not three terrible sexual experiences just three like, "meh" kind of experiences and look for what wasn't working for you. And when you actually... It takes some time. But when you sit down and take the time to think through what contexts were really working for me. I don't know why that made that sound. Could you hear that?

    Neil Sattin: No, what did you hear?

    Emily Nagoski: Oh, sorry, my sister is texting me and the alert came on.

    Neil Sattin: Okay.

    Emily Nagoski: Sorry.

    Neil Sattin: That's okay.

    Emily Nagoski: It distracted me. Let me go back. It takes a little time to sit and actually think through six different sexual experiences, but people really do have surprising insights. People who really feel like they know a lot about their own sexual functioning, when they sit down and think in this concrete, specific way, will notice things they never heard before. A friend of mine went through it and what she realized... She's in a long distance relationship, and when she actually did get together with her partner, what she noticed was that the expectation that, "Now that we're finally together, we should be having sex." That expectation, that sense of obligation, was absolutely the key to her shutting down her sexuality. And she only figured that out by thinking critically through the factors that were hitting the accelerators and hitting the brakes.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah. And that's huge, you talk about that particular one like how you feel about whether you are or not having sex, or how you feel about whether or not you should want to have sex in this moment as being another really important factor in whether your accelerator's on and your brakes are out of the way, or your sexual car's coming to a screeching halt.

    [chuckle]

    Neil Sattin: I'm curious to know from, yeah, from your perspective. One thing you just mentioned was the people who do have a really light touch accelerator and the danger for those people that sex could become a compulsion if it's that's easy for them to get turned on and to potentially use it as a way to mitigate and cope with the stress and things that are going on in their lives, and in my experience with my clients, and people I talk to, and in my own experience as well, sometimes that those people tend to find themselves in relationships with people who do not have as light touch of an accelerator, and in fact often have quite the opposite. I'm wondering what do you do, and I think part of this is maybe in what you were just talking about with that, the way that you think about whether you should or shouldn't be having sex, but what do you do to give someone hope who is in a situation - and you describe in your book one of the amalgamated characters, someone named Olivia, a woman who it's really easy for her to get into the mood to have sex and she's with a partner named Patrick for whom it's not so easy. And how do you give a couple in that situation Some hope around shifting that dynamic in a way that, that feels positive for both people?

    Emily Nagoski: This actually touches on what has turned out to be one of the most important ideas in the book, which is the nature of desire itself, how desire is supposed to function in our bodies and our relationships. In the case of Olivia, who is the composite character with a sensitive accelerator, she represents about 15% of women who have pretty sensitive accelerators, it means that she also happens to be a person who, when she is stressed out, her interest in sex actually goes up, which is true for, again, about 10-20% of people. And there's not a gender differential on that one. And she's with a partner, as so many of these folks are, for whom the opposite is true. So if they're both stressed out at the same time, Patrick's interest in sex hits the floor and Olivia's hits the ceiling. And that's not in and of itself a problem, but if they start having opinions about which one of them is doing it wrong, that's when things can get really tricky. Because it's... If you don't have a judgement about who's right and who's wrong and you're just like, "Well, our brains are wired differently. That's how it is," And you can rationally negotiate a compromise, great.

    Emily Nagoski: But if you start feeling bitter and resentful towards your partner for either being too demanding or too withholding, and you're judging and shaming yourself for wanting too much and being too much, or you're judging and shaming yourself for not wanting enough and not being enough, that's when things get really sticky, which is why the "You are Normal." Mantra comes back over and over the book, You are normal, nobody's doing it wrong. Both people are right and healthy and fine. The emotional weight that we attach to different experiences of sexual desire is just a social construct that we're laying on top of it. You get to feel again, totally normal about the way you're experiencing desire. And the practical solution is just to negotiate. What are we gonna do about the fact that I would like to have the sexy sexes and you are not interested in having the sexy sexes right now? How about we compromise in some way that works for both of us, where you stay with me and put your hand over my heart while I masturbate to orgasm? That way you don't have to do anything you're not into and I get to have the connection and the sexual release.

    Emily Nagoski: How's that sound? If we can let go of our judgments of what sex is supposed to be and what desire is supposed to be, that's a perfectly reasonable compromise. That's a really helpful compromise. It's only not helpful compromise if you're like, "But it doesn't conform with my expectations about the aspirational culturally constructed ideal of what my sex life is supposed to be."

    Neil Sattin: Right, right. And so this is great because I'm wondering if you can suggest a good way to notice that in oneself. How do I know whether what I want is culturally constructed, or what I actually want, and what would be really important to have on some level?

    Emily Nagoski: Dude, I don't know.

    [laughter]

    Emily Nagoski: That's the million dollar question, right? I would say that the distinction we're thinking about here is not so much what I want, versus how I feel. The word that I use in the book, that comes from John Gottman's research is meta-emotions. There's how you feel. There's how your sexuality... And this is also language I came up with after I finished Come as You Are. I was traveling all around the country and I was talking to students all over, and a student raises her hand and says, "You say in the book, Emily, confidence and joy. Over and over, you use these words, confidence and joy. Can you tell us what you mean by confidence and joy?" And I was like, "No, I have no idea what those words actually mean." And I had to think about it for a long time. And I finally realized that confidence is knowing what is true, knowing that you have a sensitive accelerator and your partner doesn't, or you have a sensitive brake and your partner doesn't, knowing that the context that works for you is one that is really safe, and familiar, and calm, and quiet, whereas the context that works for your partner is one of novelty, and adventure, and risk.

    Emily Nagoski: And okay, now you know what's true. Joy is the hard part, and that's loving what is true. Even, as I say in the book, when it is not what you were taught, it was supposed to be true. Even if it's not what you wish were true. Boy, would things be simple if two partners always all the time wanted the same level of sex. Desire differential is the most common reason why people seek sex therapy. Desire differential is also really universal. There is no such thing as two people whose desire tracks the same day-to-day.

    Emily Nagoski: Sometimes you have a rough day and your partner doesn't, so you're not interested in sex and your partner is. Some days the opposite is true. There is no such thing as people with exactly the same desire all the time. Just being like, "Hey, that's cool." That's what's true. Fortunately, I also love my partner, and so, we're gonna work it out together. We're gonna have conversations that can be calm and loving and affectionate, because we understand what's true about ourselves, about our accelerator, about the context that work for us, and we love each other and the things that are true about our two different sexualities. There are no judgement, there's no shame, there's just accepting that we are two different people, and it's not just that people vary from each other, it's also that people change over time. When you're in a relationship that lasts over multiple years, you and your partner's sexualities are gonna change and they may not necessarily change along the same trajectories. Joy is loving what is true about both of your sexualities and the ways that they change, whether that feels comfortable and easy or not.

    Neil Sattin: And this conversation, I appreciate that you brought up the requirement to as much as possible have it in a loving way, because those desire differentials can create a lot of stress. And as you just mentioned, for most people, no matter where they are in terms of brakes and accelerator, I think somewhere between 80% and 90% of people, that stress it's going to turn the brakes on.

    Emily Nagoski: Yeah.

    Neil Sattin: Can you talk a little bit about this... How the stress that we're carrying around with us every day... What can we do about that? Why is it so important to do something about it, rather than just sweeping it under the rug or pretending it doesn't exist?

    Emily Nagoski: Right.

    Neil Sattin: And what's on the other side of doing something about it?

    Emily Nagoski: There's a whole lot of telling ourselves not to, in a lot of aspects of our lives. We tell ourselves not to feel that way about sexuality. We try to force ourselves to feel a different way than we actually feel. We fight against the truth and reality, and we do that with our stress too. We tell ourselves that we're supposed to experience, "No, I don't need to be stressed out about that." You try to tell yourself, "Relax, just relax." When your partner, if you're stressed out and your partner is like, "Why can't you just relax? Just relax." Is that helpful? Does that help? Does that make things better?

    Neil Sattin: No, right.

    Emily Nagoski: No, it doesn't make things better, right? No, obviously. What has to happen is, instead of trying to just like not be stressed out, you have to move in the direction of the stress, sink down into it, and allow your body to experience it. Stress is a physiological process. It's like digestion. It has a beginning and a middle and an end. And if we don't interfere with it, our bodies will move through that entire cycle in a healthy, normal way that doesn't interfere with our lives. But as human beings with giant prefrontal cortexes and massively social tendencies to wanna control our emotions in order to make other people feel good, we tend to keep the brakes on, on our stress in the same way they keep our brakes on, on our sexuality. And so, we're walking around with all these activated stress response cycles, stress is the adrenaline, and the cortisol, and the hypervigilance, and the muscle tension, and the digestion changes, and the cardiovascular changes, and like your whole body, and your immune system is suppressed.

    Emily Nagoski: Every body system is influenced by the fact that these stress response cycles have been activated. And if you just tell yourself not to feel it, those stress response cycles will stay spinning inside your body waiting to finish and they will wait forever. Most of us are walking around with decades worth of incomplete stress response cycles, just sitting like rocks somewhere in our body waiting for us to let them go. Fortunately, there's lots of research that tells us what the effective strategies are for completing the stress response cycle. For example, physical activity. This is the obvious one, because the stress response cycle is designed for us to survive threats like being chased by a lion. When you're being chased by a lion, what do you do?

    Neil Sattin: Right, you get the hell out of there.

    Emily Nagoski: You run. Yeah. Our bodies do not differentiate between stressors, so your body responds basically the same way to a lion as it does to your boss or to your partner shaming and guilting you about sex, right? It's basically the same physiological stress response. It turns out, dealing with the stress itself, the physiology in your body requires basically totally different things from dealing with the thing that caused the stress. There is the calm, rational planning and negotiating that you have to do with your partner and then there is the dealing with the physiological stress itself. Just because you've dealt with the stressor doesn't mean you've dealt with the stress. Physical activity is the single most important thing that you can do - when people tell you that physical activity is good for you, that's for real-sy, every day, 20 minutes if you possibly can, literally any form of physical activity, even if it's just like jumping up and down in your bedroom, any form of physical activity is helpful.

    Emily Nagoski: We know that sleep is effective, creative self expression, writing and painting, music. We know that sleep is effective, did I say sleep already? Oh, and affection. So, calm, trusting, especially physical affection, but it doesn't have to be physical affection, it can just be the loving presence of another human is great. You know what's also great? The loving presence of a dog. You know what's also great? Loving presence of a God. If that's what makes sense for you. Whatever counts as a loving presence for you sitting and being with that presence helps to return your body to a state of calmness so that your body knows this is a safe place to live. I am safe right now. But it takes doing something for real, not just telling yourself.

    Neil Sattin: Right. And if you're doing that over and over, especially finding a way to regulate with another with your partner, then that brings about its own level of healing in terms of your right brain coming back online and your ability to operate from the parts of your prefrontal cortex that...

    Emily Nagoski: Right. To think critically, to be curious and creative, all of that comes back only when you have reduced the adrenaline and cortisol levels and reduce the threat level so that the creativity can expand instead of being so focused on just survival.

    Neil Sattin: Exactly. Just for your reference listening, if you want to learn more about healing trauma and ways modalities that can help with that we did have Peter Levine on the show, the creator of Somatic Experiencing, that was episode 29. So it's something for you to bookmark and listen to later, and he'll be coming back on the show as well. But somatic experiencing is just one. There are all kinds of modalities if you wanna work with a practitioner to help you...

    Emily Nagoski: Pat Ogden is another really key person in body based therapy. Pat Ogden and somatic... I forget what it's called. Pat Ogden is amazing and great, and does really, really good work around healing trauma through the body. What I love about body based strategies for dealing, not just with stress but with a trauma is that you don't ever have to have insight. You don't even necessarily have to think about whatever it is that caused the stress or the trauma. It's a different process. You can choose an insight process if you want to, but if you don't wanna go there, if you don't wanna think about it, sometimes you can release this shit from your body without ever having to think about the event that activated the stress. You can just deal with the stress itself without dealing with the event itself, especially if the event is in the past and there's nothing you can do about it now. Body based therapies are wonderfully gentle, indirect, tremendously effective strategy for helping to return your body to a safe state.

    Neil Sattin: Mm-hmm, big recommend from me as well.

    Emily Nagoski: There's a chapter on stress and love, and the stress section is pretty much entirely based on the polyvagal theory and Peter Levine's work, somatic experiencing, and Pat Ogden's work in the body-based approach to stress.

    Neil Sattin: Great. Yeah, and if you wanna learn more about the polyvagal theory, which Emily just mentioned, check out our episode with Steve Porges, which is episode number 34.

    Emily Nagoski: And so you've just interviewed my entire shelf of reference books.

    [laughter]

    Neil Sattin: Basically. That's my goal, Emily. [chuckle] You shouldn't have sent me that photo of your bookshelf, and actually send me more 'cause I don't wanna run out of people. I'm curious if we can talk now about the... 'cause one of the concepts that you discussed that was so fascinating for me was how you broke apart the process of arousal and desire into these different systems in our brain, and there was the enjoying system, the expecting system, and the eagerness system. And I felt like taking it apart like that made it so much easier to understand in a way that's actually practical for people. Can we dive in and just give a little bit more information to our listeners about what I'm even talking about?

    Emily Nagoski: Yeah. When you read sort of mainstream popular science journalism about brain science, they'll refer to this thing, the pleasure centers of the brain. And if they do that, it's a pretty good cue that they either don't know what they're talking about or they're simplifying it in a way that's really unhelpful, because it's not just the pleasure center of the brain. And calling it the pleasure center is like calling your vulva the vagina, like there's so much more to it, and if we ignore the other parts, we're ignoring some fundamental aspects of how the thing works. So if we break it down, yes, there's the pleasure part, which is just the part of your brain that responds to whether or not stuff feels good, and that's a little more complicated and we can talk about the ways that your brain responds differently to different stimuli as pleasurable or not depending on the context. Should we do that now? Or should I wait?

    Neil Sattin: Sure. Yeah, let's...

    Emily Nagoski: Okay.

    Neil Sattin: And I'll bring us back.

    Emily Nagoski: Yeah, the pleasure piece of it is slightly complicated because the nucleus accumbens shell in your brain has an affective keyboard. Everybody's asleep now, sorry.

    [laughter]

    Emily Nagoski: So the deal is, if you're in a sort of a neutral mental state and somebody tickles you, meh. If you're already in a fun, flirty, sexy, positive, playful, trusting state of mind and your certain special someone tickles you, that even if tickling is not your favorite, in principle, like that could feel fun and lead to other things happening, right? 'Cause your brain interprets that stimulation as something to be approached with curiosity and pleasure because you already feel safe, and trusting, and playful. But if you are pissed off at your partner and they tickle you, you wanna punch them in the face. It's exactly the same stimulation, right? The same tickling stimulation but the state of your mind is different, your brain state is different and so your brain interprets the sensation entirely different, not as something to be approached with curiosity and pleasure, but as a potential threat to be avoided or even attacked.

    Neil Sattin: Right.

    Emily Nagoski: And the only thing that is different is your state of mind, so pleasure is not simple. Pleasure is sensitive to the context in which you're experiencing it which is why hot and heavy early on in the relationship, you're in the middle of making dinner and your certain special someone comes over and starts kissing on your neck or whatever. And your knees kinda gets off and you're like, "Oh, that's cool." And things happen. 10 years later, you're trying to make dinner and you've got kids waiting for food and screaming at you and you got 10 years of accumulated frustrations in your relationship. Your certain special someone comes over and kisses on your neck then. You're like, "I'm trying to... Get away from me. What are you doing?" And again, it's exactly the same stimulation, but because the context is different, you experience that sensation in a totally different way, and that is a normal way for us to experience sensations.

    Emily Nagoski: The problem is not the way we experience the sensation, the problem is that the context changed. And it's not that the context is broken, that's just life. There's always the solution, we don't have to change us in order to find a solution, we just notice what it is about the context that's hitting the brakes and making our brain interpret the sensation as something that makes you wanna smack the person in the face and change the context if you possibly can to something that makes you interpret this person's sensations as something pleasurable to be approached with curiosity. That's the pleasure component of it. The nucleus accumben shell, woohoo. The second part of this pleasure center is actually the desire part. Eagerness, I called it in the book. Kent Berridge, who's... Have you interviewed Kent Berridge?

    Neil Sattin: Not yet, no.

    Emily Nagoski: Oh my God, that's the next guy on my shelf.

    Neil Sattin: Okay.

    Emily Nagoski: Kent Berridge or Morten Kringelbach.

    Neil Sattin: Okay.

    Emily Nagoski: They're the two key authors on this batch of research that distinguishes between wanting and liking. We talked about what liking is and the ways that it's dependent on context. Wanting is moving toward, is the actual activation, the desire, approach piece of it, not just the liking of, like, "Woo!" Or "Gleh!" Right? The classic example, that I actually cut from the book, so this is a thing that you will not read in the book, just to differentiate between wanting and liking, in an experiment, they gave... I always imagine it as one of those beer hats where there's a bottle on one side and a bottle on the other side and straws going into your mouth, do you know what I mean?

    Neil Sattin: Uh-huh.

    Emily Nagoski: So they gave one of those to a rat, it's not really like that, but just imagine it's like that. And in one of the cans, there's sugar water, which is delicious to the rat, and in one of the cans with a straw going into the mouth, there's salt water with the salinity of ocean water. How does that taste?

    Neil Sattin: Salty.

    Emily Nagoski: Yeah, it's gross.

    [laughter]

    Emily Nagoski: It's just a really innately disgusting flavor, because it's a dangerous flavor, it will give you way too much sodium and make you sick. They teach the rat that certain bells are associated with the sugar water coming in. When they get the sugar bell, they get excited. "Yay, here comes the sugar." And when the salt bell comes on, they go, "Ah! - gaddigah - I don't want the salt." But then they give the rat a drug that reduces their salt level. Now, so this is an animal that has zero pleasurable experience with the salty water. It's gross, they don't like anything about it, but when you deplete their salt levels, they will go over to the salt bell and start pushing it and gnawing on it and trying... Be like, "Make this... " They want the salt desperately because you've depleted the... You have a sodium drive that makes you desperate for salts if you don't get it. If you don't have the right sodium levels, you can literally die. So their whole body is in this huge activated, "I want the salt." Though they have zero experience of liking the salt. Does that distinction make sense between wanting?

    Emily Nagoski: So pleasure, liking is the pleasure part, enjoying. And then there's eagerness, there's desire, there's moving toward and they're overlapping certainly, but they are not identical and it is really important that we distinguish it. And then the third component of this mechanism that we usually just call the pleasure center is associative learning, is basically what it is. When I do PowerPoint presentations, I represent it with a drooling bulldog because of Pavlov's dogs. He trained them to drool with a ring of the bell, all you do is you put food in front of the dog, it automatically starts drooling and you ring a bell. Food, bell, drool. Food, bell, drool. And eventually, you just ring the bell and that's all it takes to get the dog to start drooling. Does that mean that the dog wants to eat the bell?

    Neil Sattin: No, of course not.

    Emily Nagoski: Does it mean... Right, of course not. Of course not. Does it mean that the dog finds the bell delicious?

    Neil Sattin: No.

    Emily Nagoski: Of course, not, right? It just means that the bell has been made food-relevant. It's associated with food stimuli. So it's now a food-relevant stimulus. Our genital response, blood flow and all the rest of that, is the associative learning component where if you're presented with a sexually relevant stimulus, you will get genital response. This is your activating, this is a sexually relevant accelerator response. It turns out there is a not very relevant overlap, there's not much of an overlap, between what counts as sexually relevant stimulus and what is actually liked, particularly in heterosexual women, so that a person's body can respond to sexually relevant stimulus... In the research, it's almost always different kinds of porn, sometimes it's visual porn, sometimes it's like they're being read an audiobook of an erotic story, sometimes they're even watching bonobo chimpanzees copulating, right? And women's genitals will respond to this, not as much as to the human porn, but significantly above baseline. If their genitals are responding, does that mean they find the bonobo sex like they really want to have sex with the bonobos? Does that mean they like monkey sex?

    Neil Sattin: This is so important. This is like one of the things in your book that... Not about bonobos necessarily, but...

    [laughter]

    Neil Sattin: But this question of how does our genital response correlate to our actual desire, and this might be a great time to talk about non-concordance.

    Emily Nagoski: Right. And for a lot of people the answer is, it doesn't - particularly for women. There's about a 50% overlap between genital response, and perceived arousal, or subjective arousal in cisgender men. And about a 10% concordance overlap between genital response, and subjective arousal in heterosexual woman. One of the pieces of research that's come out since Come As You Are was published, is the distinction that this arousal non-concordance appears to be a factor really just in straight women. We have no idea why there's a difference sexual orientation, why there's a difference in gender. It doesn't matter why there's a gender difference. We do have this tendency, like is anybody who's sitting here and thinking right now, "Really, there's that much of an overlap for guys, what's the matter with men? There must be... I mean, that's so strange that they have so much concordance between their genital response and their subjective desire. What's going on with that?" No, everybody automatically thinks, "Really, women have 10% overlap. That's really - what's wrong with women?!"

    Emily Nagoski: That's the patriarchy, that's the androcentric model of sexual desire, arousal, and response that all of us got raised in, assuming that the way a man works is the way a woman is supposed to work. And the extent to which a woman differs from a man is the extent to which she is broken, and needs to be fixed. And that's just not true. When a person's genital response doesn't overlap with their perceived arousal, when their genitals are responding, and they're like, "Nope. Not doing it for me" - what that means is that they've been presented with a sexually relevant stimulus that they do not want or like, which we can only understand if we know that this pleasure center of the brain does have these three separate channels that interact, of sexual relevance, sexually pleasurable, and sexual desire. They're related to each other, but they don't necessarily overlap. And we live in a pretend... In a fucked up enough culture that we're presented with plenty of sexually relevant stimuli in contexts where we neither want nor like what is happening.

    Neil Sattin: Right. And I would think that another way of looking at the statistic for men, the 50% concordance, is that men have the potential to be victimized by their sexual... By their genital arousal, basically.

    Emily Nagoski: Yes. Yeah. This narrative shows up a lot in stories of sexual violence against people of every genital configuration. The typical model is a person with a vulva being sexually assaulted, and the perpetrator says, "Well, but you were wet. So obviously, you wanted it or liked it." I cannot tell you how many students have told me, "Oh my gosh, this explains that experience I had where I was like, "Eh, this isn't doing it for me," and my partner was like, "No, you're turned on. You're wet." As though a person's genital response tells us more about what they're experiencing than the person does. And the same thing happens when a person has a penis. If blood is flowing to their genitals, they've been taught that that's an indication of who they are. Like their whole identity is tied to that, and it certainly indicates that they must want or like what is happening. But no, it's a reflex. We would never tell someone, if they bit into a wormy old apple, "Well, your mouth watered when you bit into that wormy old apple, so you must have actually really wanted or liked it. We would never do that. When your doctor taps your patellar tendon and your knee kicks out, nobody is like, "But deep down though, you really wanted to kick your doctor." We don't make this assumption with any physiological reflex, except for genital response. And we do it no matter what a person's genitals are, and it perpetuates a lot of myths around sexual violence.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah. In fact, I loved your rewrite of Fifty Shades of Grey.

    [laughter]

    Neil Sattin: Which I can quote here. In the next edition, Emily thinks that Grey should say to Ana instead of... 'Cause he, right, he spanks her, and she gets wet, is what basically...

    Emily Nagoski: Yes. She consents to it. She doesn't want it. She doesn't like it. There is not a single word about pleasure. Her face hurts 'cause she's squirming so hard to get away. And then, Christian Grey, the spanker/hero/douche bag, puts his fingers in her vagina, finds that she is wet, and says to her, "Feel this, Anastasia. Your body is soaking just for me."

    Neil Sattin: Right. "See how much your body likes this."

    Emily Nagoski: "See how much your body likes this." Likes this. "See how much your body likes this, Anastasia."

    Neil Sattin: Yeah. So, you're...

    Emily Nagoski: And I wanted to say.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah?

    Emily Nagoski: I want the next person to say, "See how sexually relevant your body finds this. Which tells me very little about whether you want it or liked it."

    [chuckle]

    Emily Nagoski: Did you want it, like it? No? Double crap! Double crap is a thing they say a lot in Fifty Shades Grey.

    [laughter]

    Emily Nagoski: Let me say that I am a romance reader. I read it with an open mind. It wasn't for me. I value a lot of things the Fifty Shades did for opening up a conversation about erotica and sexuality for women, and it also sold many millions of copies and perpetuated this myth that genital response... 'Cause here's the really bad thing about the book, about this particular aspect of it, is that even though she, in an email, goes on to describe the feeling of being debased, degraded, and abused, still, because he said, "Your genitals responded. Feel how much you like this." She believes him instead of believing what her own internal experience was telling her. 'Cause isn't that what we all get taught, is to believe other people's opinions about our bodies, what they are and what they should be, more than we trust and believe what our bodies are trying to tell us?

    Neil Sattin: Yeah and that theme runs throughout your book, of learning how to shed the messages that you've been given and the ideas about how things should be, and learning to more deeply trust what comes out of you, what you know about yourself, and what does give you pleasure and what doesn't, and to bring that to the conversation.

    Emily Nagoski: And I'm remembering the question you asked about how do we tell what's socially constructed and what's what you actually want and like. And sort of almost everything is socially constructed. Nobody is born with any innate sexually relevant stimuli other than just plain old genital sensations. Like nobody is born being turned on by cars, or high-heeled shoes, or smoking cigarettes, or power play. That's all learned from culture. That doesn't mean that it's not real for you and it's what you really do want, it just means that that is what you learned, it's what your culture taught you. And some of those things are just sexually relevant. Like your brain has been taught that those are sexually relevant stimuli. And some of them are things that, in the right context, really do give you gigantic pleasure, and you really do desire them in the right context, in one that facilitates pleasure. Somehow my go-to example of this has been if you fantasize about being cornered by five strangers who just want you sexually and so they take you.

    Emily Nagoski: If you're alone, safe in your bed, masturbating to that fantasy, in reality, the context is you are 100% safe and in control of that. Whereas if, in reality, five strangers cornered you and wanted to have you sexually, that would be physically unsafe, your stress response would kick in, you would only want to get away, it wouldn't actually be sexy. And the difference is the context. You can, if you wanna create that fantasy for yourself, you can ask five friends to participate in the role play, and communicate really clearly about what everybody's limits are. But that's, again, a really different context from five actual strangers.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah, so it's important to revisit for a moment... When you were describing context at the beginning, you were talking about all the factors that shape context. It's not just like, "Oh, well, the context is the bedroom's messy and the kids are knocking at the door, so I'm gonna send the kids to Grandma's and clean the bedroom." There's more than just the physical context, there's all of that...

    Emily Nagoski: Yeah. The stuff in the here and now tends to be the easy stuff to fix, the easy stuff to address. I heard someone joking at a romance writers' conference, "Characters in romance novels have sex when they're being chased and shot at by the Mafia, and I can't have sex if there's still a dish in the sink."

    [chuckle]

    Emily Nagoski: That's the easy stuff. The difficult stuff is when what you're bringing to bed and bringing to the context is years of shame, or years of judgement and blame, or relationship conflict, or a trauma history, or body shame, or gendered roles and ideas about how sex is supposed to work and if it's not working that way then it's working wrong. Those are longer term projects. And most of them can be undone through simple, daily mindfulness practices. It does take time. In the same way that it took time to get you to this place, it takes time to shift you out of that place and into a different, more neutral, self-accepting, partner-accepting place. But noticing the gunk, as I call it, the gunk that gets in the pipes, and making a decision to consider the possibility that you could live without the gunk and maybe clean it out is the way to clear up the channel, so that when you get to bed, the context is not one that's bringing with it all of this historical shit.

    Neil Sattin: Yes.

    Emily Nagoski: I've been swearing a lot.

    Neil Sattin: You have!

    Emily Nagoski: I don't know if that's okay. Sorry.

    Neil Sattin: This is an explicit show. It's totally fine.

    Emily Nagoski: Oh good.

    Neil Sattin: I'm wondering if, before we go, since you just brought up mindfulness, if you could offer just a simple approach to how you've seen mindfulness work. What's something that someone can do that, over time, will effect that great kind of change?

    Emily Nagoski: The simplest version is simply... So when you're in the process of a sexual experience, you will notice that maybe body-critical thoughts, or sexuality-critical thoughts, or partner-critical thoughts will enter your mind. You just notice them and are like, "Oh, hey! There's that critical thought. I'm gonna have that critical thought literally any other time that I want. For the moment, I'm gonna put it in the back, and I'm gonna return my attention to the pleasurable sensations happening in my body." And another critical thought will float through your mind, and you'll be like, "Oh, hey look! There's another critical thought. I'm just temporarily, I'm gonna put that in the back, and I'm gonna return my attention to the pleasurable sensations happening in my body." And with practice, over and over, we become really skilled at noticing those emotions before they dig deep, and even reducing the frequency and intensity with which they float into our minds. It makes a tremendous... There's a huge body of research. Another person for you to interview, Lori Brotto, does all this research on the impact of mindfulness on women's sexual well-being, especially women who are in recovery from gynecological cancers, and breast cancers, and other diseases, the impact it has on their relationships and their sexuality, and how to use mindfulness and sex education as a way to maximize sexual well-being in the recovery process.

    Neil Sattin: Amazing. Amazing. And I loved how you brought that in your book as well, not only in how you just described, but also in talking about how important it is to see the ways that you do judge yourself and you're critical of yourself, and how all of those responses are turning your stress inward. You're creating more stress for yourself, which is putting the brakes on for yourself and gets you in that negative feedback loop. Versus...

    Emily Nagoski: And it takes...

    Neil Sattin: Being able to heal it through your mindfulness. Yeah? Go ahead.

    Emily Nagoski: It requires the decision to prioritize turning off the brakes. You have to decide that it matters to you and to your relationship that you access your own sexual well-being. The couples who... What we learn in John Gottman's research is that the couples who sustain strong sexual connections over multiple decades are not couples who, hot and heavy, can't wait to stuff their tongue down each other's throat all the time. They are the couples who, one, have a strong foundation of friendship for their relationship, and two, prioritize sex. So they decide that it matters for their relationship that they set aside this half hour when they stop dealing with the kids, and work, and family, and friends, and Game of Thrones, and all of the other things that they could be paying attention to. They stop all that and they just pay attention to each other in this, frankly, pretty silly, fun way that humans do, because it matters for their relationship that they have that time to play, and touch, and connect. It's not the case for every couple that connecting in this way matters for their relationship, but the couples who sustain strong sexual connections, it's what they do. They make the decision that it matters that they cultivate sexual pleasure and curiosity.

    Neil Sattin: Well, you're blessing us with a great way to end our conversation, while at the same time reminding me of all the things that we could have talked about. I just wanna say...

    Emily Nagoski: We could talk about responsive desire, oh... [chuckle]

    Neil Sattin: Yeah, oh my goodness. Well...

    Emily Nagoski: Read chapter seven. That's all. Just read chapter seven. They know enough for that to make sense now.

    Neil Sattin: Do you have time to give a quick blip on that before we go?

    Emily Nagoski: Okay, really quick. Yes.

    Neil Sattin: Thank goodness.

    Emily Nagoski: The standard party line about desire is that it's spontaneous. It just sort of comes out of the... You're walking down the street. You're eating lunch and... Erika Moen, who is the cartoonist who illustrated Come as You Are, she draws this as a lightning bolt to the genitals. Just kaboom! You just want the sexes. And so you go to your partner with, "I have a kaboom. Can I have the sex? Uh?" And your partner's like...

    [vocalization]

    Emily Nagoski: So, that is, absolutely, one healthy, normal way to experience sexual desire, is to have it just be... Feel spontaneous and kinda out of the blue. And there is another, totally healthy, normal way to experience sexual desire, it's called responsive desire. See, spontaneous desire emerges in anticipation of pleasure. Responsive desire emerges in response to pleasure, bearing in mind that pleasure is sensitive to context and not simple. The way this works, there's really sort of two narratives of how it works. One is the sort of cuddle, snuggle narrative, where you're just sitting on the couch watching Netflix and your partner comes over and starts touching you, and your body's like, "Ah, that feels really nice."

    Emily Nagoski: And your partner starts doing other, more interesting things, and you turn and maybe start kissing on your partner, and your brain receives all this stimulation, it's like, "Ah, that feels really nice." And you turn and do maybe some more things, and there's a hand that goes up a shirt, and your brain's like, "That's... You know what, how about the sexy times?" Right? It's kaboom that emerges in response to pleasure. The cuddle, snuggle model. And then there's the Liz Lemon, "Let's do this," model, Where you dump the toys in the toybox, it's 3:00 on Saturday afternoon, you'd said that you would. "You, me, and the red underwear, here we go. Let's just get in the bed and go."

    [laughter]

    Emily Nagoski: And you put your body in the bed, and you put your skin against your partner's skin, and you remember that you like this. You like this person. You enjoy these sensations. And you allow your body to remember that this is fun and good. That's responsive desire. And all three of those are 100% normal...

    Neil Sattin: Normal.

    Emily Nagoski: Healthy ways. Right? That's... Many people feel that if you have to set appointments, if you don't already crave it when you get in bed, then there's something wrong. Nope. That's how it works sometimes. Most people will experience all of these different kinds of desire in their life. Some people never experience spontaneous desire. Some people have no experience of responsive desire. What matters is that you just notice that there are differences, and there are changes, and they are all 100% normal. And you can maximize responsive desire. The main way to maximize responsive desire is not to judge or shame it, but simply allow it. You allow desire to emerge from pleasure. My three-word... It rhymes and everything, so you can remember it and tell your friends, is, "Pleasure is the measure." Pleasure is the measure of sexual well-being. It's not how much you crave it, it's not how often you do it, or where you do it, or what you do, or how many people, or even how many orgasms you have. It's whether or not you like the sex you are having.

    Neil Sattin: Mm-hmm.

    Emily Nagoski: There's this sex therapist in New Jersey named Christine Hyde, who uses this party metaphor, she says to her clients, "If you're invited to a party by your best friend, of course you say yes 'cause it's your best friend and it's a party. But then as the date approaches, you start thinking, 'Ugh! There's gonna be all this traffic. We gotta find childcare. Do I really wanna put on pants on a Friday?'"

    [chuckle]

    Emily Nagoski: But like, you go because you said you would and it's your best friend and it's a party and what happens? Most of the time you have a good time at the party. If you are having fun at the party, you are doing it right. Pleasure is the measure of sexual well-being.

    Neil Sattin: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And just as a quick addendum because I love how you suggest this in your book and it's something we've talked about on the show before, sometimes in that context taking sex off the table or making it okay to... That this isn't leading to sex, this is just about exploring pleasure that can, I think... That's one of those things that takes the brakes off. Yeah.

    Emily Nagoski: It reduces the performance demand. Yes. Absolutely.

    Neil Sattin: Yeah. So...

    Emily Nagoski: I have actually started recommending that couples, when they... If they set an appointment, they set a date of like Saturday at 3:00, you and me, we're gonna do something, they set very firm limits on what they're allowed to do. Sometimes, it means not actually touching each other. Sometimes distance is... And this is the reason why I find both Esther Perel's model and John Gottman's model to be helpful, because people vary a lot in what works for them. Some people crave the closeness in order to facilitate desire and some people really long to have distance to have a bridge to cross to move toward their partner. People just have different strategies in the same way our brakes and gas are different. So figuring out what to do in that chunk of time that you set aside for you and your partner to do something or other that feels good, is gonna be different for you versus from everybody else that you know.

    Neil Sattin: Mm-hmm. Yeah. So take the time to get to know yourself and what you might actually want in that circumstance.

    Emily Nagoski: Yeah. Right.

    Neil Sattin: Oh, so many things, and yet we have run out of time. Emily Nagoski, it is so great to chat with you. I think your book, Come As You Are, is really required reading for people to just come to understand themselves as sexual beings in a totally new, actually based on science and not based on fable, way. And especially if you're a woman, especially if you're in a relationship with a woman, and even if you're a man and not in a relationship with a woman, there's just so much in here that I think will help you...

    Neil Sattin: And non-binary people too.

    Neil Sattin: Yes. And anyone, wherever you are on the spectrum, this will help you come to understand yourself and how that all works within you. I'm so appreciative of your contribution through writing the book. And if people wanna find out more about you, where can they find you on the interwebs?

    Emily Nagoski: The main place to go is my website, which is just emilynagoski.com.

    Neil Sattin: Great. And we will have a link to that, along with a detailed show guide, if you visit neilsattin.com/normal, though I'm tempted to make it Pleasure is the Measure, but neilsattin.com/normal, or you can text the word Passion to the number 33444 and follow the instructions. Emily Nagoski, thanks so much. Hope to have you back again sometime!

    Emily Nagoski: Thank you so much!

    Resources:

    Check out Emily Nagoski's website

    Read Emily’s book Come As You Are: The Surprising New Science that will Transform Your Sex Life

    www.neilsattin.com/normal Visit to download the transcript, or text “PASSION” to 33444 and follow the instructions to download the transcript to this episode with Emily Nagoski

    Amazing intro/outro music graciously provided courtesy of:

    The Railsplitters - Check them Out

     

    Logo

    © 2024 Podcastworld. All rights reserved

    Stay up to date

    For any inquiries, please email us at hello@podcastworld.io