It’s been a long time since I’ve looked at pop-song lyrics from a therapist’s perspective. Here’s an example from over a year ago. Today I’m looking at a song I love. It’s a great song, and I won’t believe you if you tell me you don’t like it! It’s Joni Mitchell’s “Both Sides Now.” The lyrics are copied below.

First, I want to talk about what I like about the words. I like the way she looks at love–and life–from at least two perspectives. (Of course that’s the whole point of the song.) This song offers a substantially better treatment of these topics than, say, this ridiculous song. It’s a poignant reflection on disillusionment, loss, and regret. Most people I know–both personally and professionally–would do well to reflect on the emotional wounds they’ve suffered, and if they’re in a mood to reflect, I can hardly think of a better companion for them than Joni Mitchell.

But I don’t want this song to be the last word on these matters. I would never want Joni to write a happy verse at the end that wraps it all up in a nice, reassuring bow. That would ruin the song and cheapen the difficult emotional process that is limned by the text. But my wish for anyone who’s facing this kind of sadness is that at some point they would reach a point of integration. They may never fully resolve–much less “get over”–what has happened to them. But I hope they can integrate it into their lives, and move forward with wisdom. When I reach the end of this song, I long for another verse that takes us all further in that direction.

But as I said, it’s a terrific song! Enjoy it, and may you continue moving forward in your own story of life and love.

Both Sides Now, by Joni Mitchell

Rows and flows of angel hair
Ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
I’ve looked at clouds that way

But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way

I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all

Moons and Junes and Ferris wheels
The dizzy dancing way you feel
As every fairy tale comes real
I’ve looked at love that way

But now it’s just another show
You leave ‘em laughing when you go
And if you care, don’t let them know
Don’t give yourself away

I’ve looked at love from both sides now
From give and take, and still somehow
It’s love’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know love at all

Tears and fears and feeling proud
To say I love you right out loud
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds
I’ve looked at life that way

But now old friends are acting strange
They shake their heads, they say I’ve changed
Well something’s lost, but something’s gained
In living every day

I’ve looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It’s life’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know life at all

Like This Article? Please Bookmark It!

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about resentment. If you’re human, you’ve felt it. You’ve resented your partner for assuming you’d be a certain way, or do a certain thing. You’ve resented your parents for favoring your sister. (And you know they did!) You’ve resented your colleague for getting promoted ahead of you. There are any number of thousands of reasons to feel resentful.

The problem is, resentment is just about the most worthless emotional state I can think of. (Shame is rarely useful, but even shame can sometimes be a motivator for good behavior and personal growth.) But resentment is a lot like getting your car stuck in a big pothole. What are you going to do now? Or it’s like the Jail square on the Monopoly board. There’s nothing to do there but wait for the Get Out of Jail card.

Here’s my solution to the resentment problem: if you feel resentful, tell yourself that as dark as your thoughts and feelings are, you’re really not being very serious. That’s right: you’re not being serious. You’re not taking your situation seriously enough to move past resentment and do something about it. Let’s go through one of the examples above to see what I mean:

If you resent your partner for making assumptions about you, that means you’re not taking yourself seriously. For example, let’s say your partner assumed you would follow his lead when it comes to sex. He has preferences–he likes his positions, he expects a certain frequency, a certain duration, a certain type of massage oil, you get the idea–and you resent him because he never asked you what you wanted, what you preferred.

And maybe he’s resentful too–resentful that you’re complaining about all of this. He’s resenting your resentment! If this is going on, it probably means that you yourself need to take more seriously your own vision of sex and relationships. It’s not your partner’s job to automatically tune in to your preferences. It’s your job to put them out there on your own behalf. If you’re resenting him, that means you’re still waiting around for him to do your own work. You’re waiting for him to become more interested in your view of things than you seem to be yourself! If you want a different sexual experience, resenting your partner won’t make it happen. You have to get in touch with what you want, then take your preference (and yourself) seriously enough to assert for it.

If you feel resentful, that probably makes sense. (I’ll even grant you that your partner is probably being insensitive!) But to get what you want, it helps to notice your resentment, see how it just keeps you stuck in Monopoly Jail, step out of it, and say, “Hey! So let’s have sex my way tonight. I love my way, I’m good at it, and I love you, so I like our chances for having a great time!”

Like This Article? Please Bookmark It!

So. I admit it. I like and admire a celebrity lots of people love to hate. She’s smart, hard-working, creative, and best of all, I’ve never had to work for her (I believe some of the horror stories). That’s right, I like Martha Stewart. My house doesn’t look anything like hers (though it’s a warm and fairly organized home), and I’ll bet I’d be much nicer to my employees, if I ever had any. But I like her. Or at least I respect her.

Today I laughed when I saw she’s having a contest called “Doer of the Week.” She’s been profiling women in business and inviting her readers to vote on which woman is the best “Doer,” as in “person who does something.”

It made me wonder if, since I’m a therapist, I should have contests for Relater of the Week and Feeler of the Week. I buy into the Enneagram idea that there are three kinds of people in the world–or to say it more accurately, three preferences that people can choose from: doing, feeling, and relating. Doers are, to put it simply, all you Martha Stewarts out there. You find deepest satisfaction when you’re engaging successfully in tasks and activities.

Feelers often get a bad rap in our culture. Feelers are at their best when they’re tuning in to the emotional currents of a social situation, or contemplating the mystery of human suffering, or connecting with a friend or partner with empathy and understanding.

Relaters are (I’m sure you’ve guessed by now) people who feel most alive when they’re interacting with others, making social connections, joining others to solve a problem or celebrate a victory. If there’s a relater on your work team, she’ll tell you, “It’s the relationships, stupid.”

I’m a firm believer that all three preferences are equally valuable, and all three are necessary. So if you don’t like Martha Stewart because she only pays attention to Doers, be encouraged: Feelers and Relaters matter too!

(Oh, and if you and your partner have different preferences, that might be a big clue about the troubles you’re having!)

Like This Article? Please Bookmark It!

No fear, this post isn’t about politics! I’m revisiting the question of when and how long to have counseling sessions. The traditional model is one hour, once a week. I’ve learned both in my own work experience and from other therapists that this is not the best model.

It’s not intense enough.

First, let’s look at the first session. When you come in for the first time, you and I need to get to know each other (at least as much as we can in that short hour), work out what your counseling will look like, be sure you’ve filled out the registration forms, and then tackle what you came in to discuss. That’s a tall order. And it’s why I offer a 90-minute first session for the same $100 fee.

But it doesn’t get much easier in later sessions if we limit ourselves to one hour per week. After seven days, you may have forgotten what we discussed, or lost your excitement about it, or let it all blend into itself so that you’re confused, unsure what you were supposed to do to get yourself ready for session 2. Fortunately, I keep good notes and have a good memory, and you are always free to call or email me if you want to check in before the next session, but even so, it isn’t hard for the intensity of our work to lose strength when we stick to the one-hour-per-week model. It’s certainly possible–and it happens often enough in my practice–but it’s not always easy.

So here’s my offer. If you’re a client of mine–brand-new or not, it doesn’t matter–I’m offering you a 2.5-hour session for the price of two sessions ($200), a savings of $50. Ideally we would do the whole thing in one 2.5-hour block (with a short stretch break in the middle). But I will offer you this discount if you schedule two appointments (one for an hour, the other for an hour and a half) in the same week. Either way, we get your intensity up, and we have more time to really dig in and get you moving on your issues.

Please note that this offer is extended alongside my usual practice of offering one free 90-minute session, which means that you could do 2.5 hours on week one, then 2.5 hours on week two, and the whole thing only costs $400 (a savings of $100). It’s like having five sessions in two weeks rather than five. That’s a lot of intensity! I offer this because I do believe that compressing your work with me is helpful for you. You’ll move faster, and you’ll dig deeper.

And if it sounds exhausting, that’s because it can be exhausting! But remember the stretch breaks, and think about it. You could make a lot of progress in a short time, and for less cost. I hope to see you soon!

Like This Article? Please Bookmark It!

I think I’m on a roll. This is my second political post in a row. I made it through all of 2008–a huge political year!–without talking politics on this blog, but this summer there are too many crucial issues being debated for me to stay silent. The first was the White House being inconsistent and unhelpful regarding DOMA and DADT. And the second is Referendum 71.

I’ve found out that it’s hard to get information about Referendum 71 and how it came into being. This webpage gives you a lot of different takes on the complicated story. But the basics are these:

1) the Washington State Legislature passed–and Governor Chris Gregoire signed–a measure expanding the rights of registered domestic partners in the state of Washington;

2) registered domestic partners are not only same-sex couples, but also heterosexual persons who live as domestic partners, are not romantically involved, and do not want to marry because they would lose government-funded health benefits if their marital status changed;

3) a group of citizens tried to collect enough signatures to put this law–written and signed, as noted above, by the people’s duly-elected representatives–up to a public vote; and finally,

4) a yes vote will preserve the original law, and by extension the rights of domestic partners across the state. (And by “rights” I mean decidedly non-radical things like the right to visit your partner in the hospital, or the right to decide who gets your stuff when you die.)

Oh, and I should mention that there are legal actions being taken that call into question the validity of many of the signatures that got Ref-71 onto the ballot in the first place.

I have at least two problems with Ref-71, and I suppose at this point in the post you know what they are! The first is the basic question of justice and fairness. My partner and I are registered as domestic partners, and while certain people might like you to think that this means we’re dangerous radicals, all it really means is that we enjoy all of the rights of married heterosexual couples, with the exception of saying that we are “married.” As citizens of this state, and of this nation, we simply enjoy the right to choose our kin, the right to manage any health crisis we might suffer, the right to decide what happens after one of us dies.

And now, because of fear, misunderstanding and ignorance, those rights are in jeopardy.

But that’s not all. My second concern has to do with the fact that a certain number of citizens are trying to second-guess a law written, passed, and signed by the elected representatives who were sent to Olympia by all of us. It’s not the second-guessing itself that I object to: please understand, I think that dissent is a crucial part of a healthy democracy. It’s that they’re trying to do an end run around the system. They know they don’t have the votes in the Legislature, and they know Gov. Gregoire doesn’t share their views. Unseating all the public servants who oppose them would take a long time, and be very hard to do. So they’re trying to bring down this law using the undemocratic method of a referendum.

It’s clever, really. A referendum seems to be democratic. What could be more democratic than having every citizen participate in a state-wide show of hands? But it’s not. For more on why it’s undemocratic, go here. But I’ll say briefly (because this post is pretty long already, and maybe starting to sound like a rant!) that we don’t live in a pure democracy. We live in a democratic republic. And only in a democratic republic do all the voices have a forum in which to be heard. Minority rights aren’t protected in a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, whoever motivates 51% of the crowd wins. That’s why our forbears took such trouble to construct a form of government that functions more fairly, and with more stability.

So I encourage you to vote “yes” on Referendum 71. The next rights to be questioned and denied could be your own.

(And thanks for listening to my rant!)

Like This Article? Please Bookmark It!

For some reason I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to news articles over the past few months about the Obama Administration and its positions on the “Defense of Marriage”* Act (DOMA) and the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Maybe it’s just that I had a busy summer. But I’m now starting to take an interest. And I’m not surprised to tell you that my favorite take on the issues was written by Hendrik Hertzberg. He summarizes the facts, offers a good analysis of how the Administration got itself into this mess, and states well the consequences of further inaction.

I tend to be a moderate, politically speaking (firmly left-of-center, and I was quite sorry to see Ted Kennedy leave the scene, but a moderate nonetheless). And I understand that Obama is tackling a lot of problems right now. Just today I said to someone that Obama didn’t just take over managing the store, he took it over while the building was on fire, a hurricane was hitting the town, and someone was holding up the cash register. Still, I don’t understand why–at a bare minimum–the White House and the Department of Justice can’t be more consistent, and more progressive, on the issue of GLBT civil rights. I understand some of the moderate-to-conservative arguments about the issue–that we can’t legislate our way through issues like this. (Though I disagree.) And I understand the political realities Obama faces. I would even understand if he and his staff are being a little superstitious: President Clinton tackled both gay rights and health care in his first year, and that didn’t go well. No, not at all.

But it’s time. It’s time for this new president to honor the promises he made to the GLBT community. I have little doubt that sometime this fall a health-care reform bill will become law. And as a health-care provider, I look forward to that. But the civil rights of GLBT Americans must also be asserted, and protected.

* I just couldn’t resist putting “Defense of Marriage” in quotation marks, since in my view DOMA does nothing to defend marriage, no matter how you define the word.

UPDATE: View the comments section for an interesting back-and-forth on the word “moderate.”

Like This Article? Please Bookmark It!