"Good Girl Syndrome" within marriage

[prisonchaplain]

This is a spin off the Sexless Marriage thread.  A reference was made to the Good Girl Syndrome.  I take that to mean girls have been taught to be modest, chaste, and even sexually shy.  Good girls do not look for such things.  They may internalize the idea that marital intimacy is "dirty."

 

I get it...kinda.  However, at least consciously, that line of thinking should be easy to oppose.  After all, do we not also teach our daughters (and sons) that within marriage intimacy is commanded by God? 

 

1 Corinthians 7:   ² But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ³ The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. ⁵ Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (New International Version)

 

Once the lie is exposed, it should be relatively easy for a couple, within counseling, to begin working towards intimacy.  Yet, I sense from some posts here that such is not the case.  Why?

[Quin]

Is there anything you've done from childhood onward, that you still believe in, that you'd be willing to 180 on for a month... As an experiment?

Such as

- wearing underwear

- using silverware

- not picking your nose in public

- shaving your legs

- ?

I'm picking morally ambivalent habits, here.

But, even so, you will find it EXTREMELY WEIRD to go commando, eat without implements, talk to the mailman while picking your nose, or whatever action you choose. You'll also find yourself forgetting to do so. Changing something you don't even think about anymore, that's pure habit... Generally takes about 7 years.

But... Imagine if it IS a moral imperative you've practiced from childhood onward?

Somehting you associate with being a Good Man?

I'm not going to suggest you DO any of these.... But reflect on if you were asked now to

- kick puppies

- slap your wife across the face

- not allow your children to eat

- etc.

Could you do any of those things on a daily basis?

Weekly?

Monthly?

It doesn't matter hat after 20-30 years of doing X that we TELL ourselves X is no longer the right thing, Y is the right thing...

For some, X has become both habit and ingrained into their self worth.

Which generally means 7+ years to change the old way of thinking/believing ... If ever.

Q

[Lakumi]

Well sexuality is not a switch one can flick, some people who are taught that way can't bring themselves to think any differently even when married. It still seems bad to them.

I mean you can apply that idea to a lot of things, the human brain is a complex thing.

 

Growing up I was never taught about modesty or chastity or anything like that, and the idea of modesty and chastity are strange to me. I never grew up with that idea of thinking, and I can't just flick a switch and think that way.

[prisonchaplain]

Ironically, Lakumi may have given me my answer.  Quinn suggests that aversion to marital intimacy is engrained, and can take 7 years to overcome--or longer.  In my mind I think, "Well, I was chaste til marriage, but knew that once my bride said 'I do,' it would be a sacred act to be intimate with her.  Everything may not come together instantly, but we knew that this is what we were made for.

 

So, how does it get twisted up?  Why don't the young ladies know that intimacy with their future spouses is both blessing and sacred service?  Why would the end up thinking this great good is dirty?  It this a personal problem, or is some of the teaching (not official doctrine, maybe the delivery) going sideways?

 

Lakumi says that girls have been saying no for so long that it's hard to switch and say yes--and feel good about it!  Even if they feel pleasure, they can't help but feel guilt.  The switch has been left for too long.

 

I would guess that most LDS do not have this struggle.  However, enough do that it gets called a syndrom--even if informally.  So, again, what has gone wrong?

[Lakumi]

What, I can't get a few right once and awhile?!

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

PC, great question.

 

From my (admittedly limited) observation, I think where things go wrong is in the home.  I think it is the parents responsibility to help the children get a healthy attitude about sex.  But the parents are often very shy about discussing it.  Just the shyness can silently imply that it is something shameful. If all young people (especially girls) hear is  "don't, don't, don't" and rarely about what a wonderful, healthy part of marriage it is, that is bound to have an affect.

 

I know a couple that has a very healthy attitude about sex and they both credit their parents for that.  I find that encouraging, and try to model that for my children. 

 

My husband and I are blessed with a healthy attitude as well (at least before my memories of abuse surfaced...that complicates things).  We didn't learn it from our parents.  So perhaps there is something to be said for it being a personality thing.  

[Quin]

Oy. I should have said.... 7 years is what I've been taught in school as the normal timeframe to completely change a habit/way of thinking in an adult from a neurological / physiological psych perspective. There are a bunch of milestones (24hrs, 3 days, 30 days, 3/6/9/12 mo, 2 years... So it follows the addiction timetable, but unlike addiction, there's this exciting little cap at 7 years).

Granted, I'm sure 7 years would be an eternity in a marriage...

But I sure HOPE so...

'Cause I'm on Year 6 of the whole celibacy thing... And it would be really nice if it actually became EASY at some point.

So. Not. Fun.

At this point, though, I expect to be in a western gunfight with the LOC until I'm dead.

So I have a lot of sympathy for those both on the opposite side of my coin, and those who have no need to be celibate / chaste... But are.

I think it really is one of those self-defining things for a lot of oeople. On either side of the coin.

Q

[Backroads]

It's definitely a view that derives largely from the home.  In fact, I'm annoyed when people blame the Good Girl/Boy Syndrome on the Church. 

 

Most of my sexuality lessons did not come from church.  They came from my parents, school, personal reading, conversations with others, etc. 

 

My view is that parents, having the brunt of the responsibility in teaching this, really do need to consider more than the Church's spot-on-but-assuming-parents-teach-more-details statements on the Law of Chastity.

[Guest]

Well, that's not how I'm teaching my kids... I'm not teaching don't. I'm teaching Do. I'm teaching my kids how beautiful it is and how special. And how the person you chose to marry is so special that they get to be the person that shares this super awesome, special physical expression of love. And I also teach them that this special thing becomes cheapened and soiled if they just hand it out to anybody not worth marrying...

So, my emphasis is that it's a beautiful, amazing thing. But that it can get soiled when engaged at in the wrong circumstance.

[The Folk Prophet]

I disagree that it can be categorized as a fault of the home. To be clear, that is not to say that it is never the fault of the home. I think, in general, however, that trying to blame peoples neuroses on specific thing is a mistake. Unless that blame is that people are mortal and thereby emotionally and mentally weak, fallible and generally prone to problems.

[notquiteperfect]

Ironically, Lakumi may have given me my answer.  Quinn suggests that aversion to marital intimacy is engrained, and can take 7 years to overcome--or longer.  In my mind I think, "Well, I was chaste til marriage, but knew that once my bride said 'I do,' it would be a sacred act to be intimate with her.  Everything may not come together instantly, but we knew that this is what we were made for.

 

So, how does it get twisted up?  Why don't the young ladies know that intimacy with their future spouses is both blessing and sacred service?  Why would the end up thinking this great good is dirty?  It this a personal problem, or is some of the teaching (not official doctrine, maybe the delivery) going sideways?

 

Lakumi says that girls have been saying no for so long that it's hard to switch and say yes--and feel good about it!  Even if they feel pleasure, they can't help but feel guilt.  The switch has been left for too long.

 

I would guess that most LDS do not have this struggle.  However, enough do that it gets called a syndrom--even if informally.  So, again, what has gone wrong?

I think the issue is ratio.  For example, if a person hears 'don't/no no no' 10 times and 'good good good' only once (whether at church or home), there's definitely a message sent with that.  The 'good good good' gets lost in all the 'don'ts'.

[prisonchaplain]

Folk Prophet, you really do not believe there is some common practice/teaching/approach that steers many towards this aversion to marital intimacy.  If there was just the odd one-here/one-there person I might chalk it up to their own emotional weakness.  However, this is not a rare problem.  Again, there is a name for this syndrom.  Nobody is saying every case is due to parental negligence.  However, it does seem to one strong possible factor--the failure to discuss marital intimacy with children leads a few to suspect that it is dirty.  Why not?

[classylady]

I never had a talk about physical intimacy within my family.  In fact, because my father died when I was only six, I didn't even see a healthy or non healthy relationship between the parents.  And my mother never said one word about  the "birds and the bees".  It was definitely hush-hush.  Everything I learned was from talking with other people/friends, reading, and movies/television.  I even got very little information/instruction from church leaders.  But, I never had an aversion to intimacy.  It just seemed normal.

[Jane_Doe]

Like classylady, I too never really saw my parents be physically intimate.  Nor did we ever talk about the birds-and-the-bees (and the very idea of such a talk filled me with mortified embarrassment).  My teachers at church also didn't talk about their married relations, for obvious reasons.  So I never got a idea of what "good" sexuality was like. 

 

Instead, I saw/heard disgusting/stupid things about sexuality from teenagers in public high school.  Seckuar teachers were mute on the subject and I didn't talk to my folks.  Church teachers said "Don't do that" and I said "DUH!!".  I watched so many of my friends get terribly burned by sexual mistakes, and I graduated high school with zero desire to ever go 'there'. 

 

I knew that someday my husband and I would have sex... but that day was so distant.  How was I to know what "married healthy sexuality" looked like?  What did it feel like?  How do you find it?  I had no idea, and I wasn't sure I wanted to know— every passing year I saw misused sexuality hurt my friends get hurt more.  I was afraid.

 

That's one way how "good girl syndrome" can come about.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Just a thought (inspired by Jane Doe's post)--

 

If we don't teach our children healthy feelings about sexuality in the home, who will?

 

The schools?  Bah hah hah

 

Friends?  Ha, even less likely

 

Media?  you're killing me here

 

Church?  Not really the appropriate place.  I like Anatess' approach, and that could be used at church, but still this is mostly a discussion for the home.

 

Home/family--perfect.  You can have private discussions, or family discussion.  You can talk to each child at the level they are ready for . . .  

[Bini]

I don't think one explanation can cover everyone's situation - really - when has it ever? There are always unique circumstances that go against the norm, some of which, might be so neatly dusted underneath the rug that it's not commonly considered a valid reason.

 

There's countless factors to throw into this mixing bowl. Culture is one. Even though most of us live in mainstream western society, it's interesting that there are still places around the world where sex (let alone public affection) is considered taboo, even among married couples. National Geographics does a great job of highlighting these areas (certain parts of Africa and Turkey, for example) where men and women eating together is considered rude and crude behaviour. A couple of these women were asked about intimacy with their spouse, especially, considering that they did not share beds! While they agreed that sex is a wifely duty, it was not an act of affection nor did it contain any amount of closeness with their husbands, it was just another household duty along with the cooking and cleaning. This is perhaps an extreme scenario given but it's still one to contemplate. I think a woman coming from a culture where women take "the backseat" to men, and sex is solely a duty and not an act of affection, it could be perceived differently if she were to marry outside of her culture. Makes sense why she might avoid intimacy if it's not initiated by her husband, for example, or why she might respond "un moved" during intimacy. That was the way she was programmed, after all.

 

But reeling it in where it's more applicable to us and our culture, specifically within LDS members, I think trauma plays a big part in how one gives and receives affection. I think this trumps the generation card (those from the 60's era and earlier) where sex was kept private and no one knew your marital intimacy problems because the topic was locked behind bedroom doors. It just wasn't polite conversation, so folks didn't gossip about it, or talk candidly about it. BUT  despite this, I don't believe in American culture that it was ever made out to be that sex was dirty. So, going back to trauma, I think a child that has experienced unhealthy domestic relations (sexual abuse, incest, etc.) is likely to carry that pattern over into his/her adult life - or - completely avoid it like a hermit.

 

My last thought is some kind of imbalance, possibly chemical, where someone just isn't responsive to affection or gives much of it. This isn't because they hate touch, but because they're indifferent about it, and don't feel the urge to engage in it. Depression could do this, hormones could do this. I think the public overlooks this sometimes and marriages that could be resolved are instead abandoned because of chemical imbalances that prevent someone from expressing their needs and wants well.

[MrShorty]

A few comments, if I may:

 

1) Good Girl Syndrome -- though the term seems to have been coined by and LDS therapist (Laura Brotherson), I see it discussed in many non-LDS contexts, so I don't think it is a uniquely LDS problem. Christian bloggers (such as J at hot holy and humorous, Shiela Gregwoire at tolovehonorandvacuum, and many others) often discuss these principles. I even frequently see these discussions in secular sources. (Think of discussions around mild expressions of the Madonna/Whore complex -- where we can talk about the difficulties in seeing a righteous person as sexual and a sexual person as righteous). I sometimes think that it might just be a normal part of "growing up" sexually -- is learning how to reconcile our sexual/erotic selves with the rest of what we think is good. Some have an easier time of it, and others will struggle with it more.

 

In some ways I think Dr. Schnarch expresses it so well when he talks about marriage (and sex in marriage) as a "people growing machine." Marriage relationships (and the sexual relationship within marriage) can force us to grow in ways that no other relationship can.

 

2) On 1 Cor 7 -- I see this verse used a lot more in Christian circles than in LDS circles. I'm not sure why, but it seems that the LDS people I have interacted with have essentially neglected these verses -- especially in trying to use them to imply any kind of obligation on sex. As I followed the "sex as need/sex as obligation" discussion that I started a month ago, one of the things I observed is that we (LDS and, I think,many non-LDS as well) are rather uncomfortable making sex out as any kind of obligation.

 

 

 

After all, do we not also teach our daughters (and sons) that within marriage intimacy is commanded by God? 

I recognize that this was probably asked as a rhetorical question, but, in some ways, I think this is at the heart of my own struggle to understand sex in marriage and Good Girl/Good Boy syndrome. Do we really teach that sex in marriage is a commandment? Or is it a necessary evil? Or is it a "perk"? Whatever the couple decides? Or is it something else?

 

3) I think Quinn and Lakumi hit on an important part of the difficulty -- It is not as simple as flipping a switch. The constant "abstinence" teaching we emphasize can make that switch rather rusty. I'm also not sure that we do a good job overall in giving our youth the tools, skills, and attitudes that will simplify the flipping of that switch. I also don't think it will ever be completely painless, because the first time you do anything (especially something as vulnerable as sex) is going to have some anxiety around it.

 

4) I don't know whether to "blame" the church, or the parents, or the broader culture in general. Sexuality seems to be such a complex part of ourselves, with so many influences that go into it, that I don't know. It does seem that those with the healthiest views of sexuality tend to have good influence and instruction from parents. But I don't think the church has zero influence -- the church can have a significant influence on a person's attitude towards sexuality, and can have a significant influence on the parents' attitudes towards sexuality (especially in multigenerational families). I think it is hard to separate out the Church's influence alone. And then, of course, we have the broader culture's influence -- both in terms of what it directly teaches and the ways that the broader culture influences the messages the Church and parents choose to emphasize.

 

Another aspect of this is how much should the Church be involved in sex education. I see some calling for the Church to take on more responsibility for sex education and sex therapy type instruction, and I see others calling for less involvement of the Church in the marriage bed. I see some encouraging couples to appeal more to secular sources (using appropriate discernment) for help and education, and I see some who believe that secular sources should be shunned in favor of more religious sources.

 

I don't really have any answers. I sometimes wonder if we need to take the time to really articulate and understand the root principles underlying the law of chastity, then we will be in a better position to discuss some of these issues.

[The Folk Prophet]

Folk Prophet, you really do not believe there is some common practice/teaching/approach that steers many towards this aversion to marital intimacy.  If there was just the odd one-here/one-there person I might chalk it up to their own emotional weakness.  However, this is not a rare problem.  Again, there is a name for this syndrom.  Nobody is saying every case is due to parental negligence.  However, it does seem to one strong possible factor--the failure to discuss marital intimacy with children leads a few to suspect that it is dirty.  Why not?

 

I am not saying that there are no commonalities to psychological issues. I am saying that those commonalities are not necessarily to blame.

 

Take, for example, killing. We are taught not to kill. Then we go to war and we have to kill. Some people have serious psychological responses to having had to kill. Should we therefore blame the "do not kill" teaching for those responses?

 

There are only a few principles, I think, that allow for such opposition. Most principles are always good or always bad. Thou shalt not kill and justifiable killing is one complex issue that many of us, hopefully, will never have to face. Abstinence from sex prior to marriage and the embracing of sex after marriage is another issue, that most of us will probably face. It is bound to cause issues for some because it is a complex reality. To imply that anyone that has issues with that complex reality must be because they were taught improperly in the home is invalid, imo.

[The Folk Prophet]

Do we really teach that sex in marriage is a commandment? Or is it a necessary evil? Or is it a "perk"? Whatever the couple decides? Or is it something else?

 

I vote "perk".

 

Actually, what we really teach is fairly straightforward. Tons of info on it. For example, here.

[Lakumi]

Like classylady, I too never really saw my parents be physically intimate.  Nor did we ever talk about the birds-and-the-bees (and the very idea of such a talk filled me with mortified embarrassment).  My teachers at church also didn't talk about their married relations, for obvious reasons.  So I never got a idea of what "good" sexuality was like. 

 

Instead, I saw/heard disgusting/stupid things about sexuality from teenagers in public high school.  Seckuar teachers were mute on the subject and I didn't talk to my folks.  Church teachers said "Don't do that" and I said "DUH!!".  I watched so many of my friends get terribly burned by sexual mistakes, and I graduated high school with zero desire to ever go 'there'. 

 

I knew that someday my husband and I would have sex... but that day was so distant.  How was I to know what "married healthy sexuality" looked like?  What did it feel like?  How do you find it?  I had no idea, and I wasn't sure I wanted to know— every passing year I saw misused sexuality hurt my friends get hurt more.  I was afraid.

 

That's one way how "good girl syndrome" can come about.

 

On that note, I'd like to share my upbringing on the subject.

I always had the attitude that "I'm smarter then my friends, so I will succeed where they fail" and I am and I did (in a way). I got the talk, some funny mantras about condoms my dad knew, abstenence was a silly thing Christians did (and marriage was a silly thing people did when they wanted to show off to everyone how much money they had and then begin to hate eachother soon afterwards).

Marriage didn't seem to have a point to me, since I wasn't in a religious household. There was 0 church in my life as a kid (I did go to first communion and the like, really cause my grandparents wanted that, and all my aunts and uncles were going to give me money-and I simply saw it as a job so I could get pokemon cards).

Otherwise I never went.

Pornography wasn't a bad thing, it was just a thing boys do. My parents didn't care about nudity or the like in movies (they hated vulgarity though).

I never suffered because of sex, I am still on great terms with the girls I've done it with.

So as you can tell an upbriging like that, and you tell someone the law of chastity, it sounds alien. That was something not too touched upon with the Missionaries, more the Plan of Salvation, I wanted to know more about the kingdoms.

[Windseeker]

I think I suffered a little from "good boy" syndrome if there is such a thing.

 

The message I often received (or at least how I translated it) was that boys want sex and girls don't. So when I got married I had some difficulty with my feelings towards my wife when she expressed desire for me.

 

It felt un-natural and awkward to be wanted sexually and I found myself looking down on my spouse a bit. I've since repented, and I do think those attitudes require repentance and forgiveness as one gains understanding. 

 

I think it's important to teach children that is sex is not only sacred, but is natural and a gift. That both men and women find fulfillment thru it's proper function and its an important part of a healthy marriage.

[andypg]

I can't talk about the LDS experience since I was raised Catholic (I'm the son of a Catholic School teacher, so I had the very Catholic upbringing experience). My parents had a very open approach when it came to discussing sexuality. That didn't mean they brought it up at inappropriate times, but that if we wanted to discuss it, they would and would not hide the beautiful thing sexual intimacy can be. In public they were very affectionate, showing a healthy loving relationship. I was taught," Not yet, but when you do, after marriage, it will be a beautiful sacred thing."

Now, I've been trying to move away from citing Catholic sources, but I think this is important. One of St. John Paul the Great ' s greatest accomplishments was "Theology of the Body", looking at human sexuality through a Christian lens. There are editions meant for teens, which I was taught in high school.

That is my own experience, I wasn't raised LDS nor currently have children (let alone married) so I can't speak as to how LDS children are raised. I just wanted to share the approach I grew up with which I think is a very good and Christian approach.

[MrShorty]

I am not saying that there are no commonalities to psychological issues. I am saying that those commonalities are not necessarily to blame.

 

Take, for example, killing. We are taught not to kill. Then we go to war and we have to kill. Some people have serious psychological responses to having had to kill. Should we therefore blame the "do not kill" teaching for those responses?

 

There are only a few principles, I think, that allow for such opposition. Most principles are always good or always bad. Thou shalt not kill and justifiable killing is one complex issue that many of us, hopefully, will never have to face. Abstinence from sex prior to marriage and the embracing of sex after marriage is another issue, that most of us will probably face. It is bound to cause issues for some because it is a complex reality. To imply that anyone that has issues with that complex reality must be because they were taught improperly in the home is invalid, imo.

 

IMO, the sex and sexuality the "whiplash" is so much more than the opposition in certain evil -- necessary evil situations. Yes we need to make exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill" for soldiers in war, but war is still an ugly business that we would never want to become "comfortable" with.

 

The shift in terms of sex looks to me like this: If we believe our usual interpretation of Alma 39, sex before/outside of marriage is the third most serious sin of all (behind denying the Holy Ghost and murder). If we believe what Elder Bednar said in Apr. 2013 GC, sex inside of marriage is "one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential." In some ways, it maybe isn't surprising that there is such a thing as Good Girl syndrome, that is a fairly dramatic shift in thinking.

[The Folk Prophet]

IMO, the sex and sexuality the "whiplash" is so much more than the opposition in certain evil -- necessary evil situations. Yes we need to make exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill" for soldiers in war, but war is still an ugly business that we would never want to become "comfortable" with.

 

The shift in terms of sex looks to me like this: If we believe our usual interpretation of Alma 39, sex before/outside of marriage is the third most serious sin of all (behind denying the Holy Ghost and murder). If we believe what Elder Bednar said in Apr. 2013 GC, sex inside of marriage is "one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential." In some ways, it maybe isn't surprising that there is such a thing as Good Girl syndrome, that is a fairly dramatic shift in thinking.

 

I totally agree with you. The murder/war example was not meant to be a perfect one, only an idea of how what is right and wrong can change situationally. But you are right, it is not the same.

 

I also agree that it is not surprising the good girl (and good boy) syndrome exists. In fact, I think it is a natural thing. It would be difficult to not have some level of complication to the shift in action and thinking, going from a "No, no, no, no!!" mindset to a "Bring it on!" mindset. Good boys have a strong testosterone drive to get them past this, which I believe makes good boy syndrome a lesser thing, but it still exists. In my mind, once married, I often struggled with feeling like I was doing something "bad" at first (and by at first I mean sometimes feeling so even a decade in). My drive was strong enough, that in conjunction with my intellectual beliefs about physical relations in marriage, I was able to take a pretty solid, "I don't care" approach to any bad feelings. (In point of fact, that strong drive, in my case, actually turned the bad feelings into fuel for the drive -- the "dirty" side of it and all...if that makes sense. That, of course, led to more guilty feelings...all part of the theoretical good boy syndrome that stemmed from my upbringing and moral/religious values.)

 

But I believe that this is the way it is generally meant to be. Dealing with it psychologically is part of the experience of marriage. It is part of the learning, sharing, and growing that we are meant to do in life. And as with all things, each deals with it differently and with different rates of success. And some do not deal with it well. But that is simply because, as I have suggested, some people have issues. That's just mortality.

 

I am not suggesting, by the way, that we should not bother trying to teach our children to have healthy attitudes about sex in marriage. Wisdom is wisdom and it should always be sought for it teaching and practice.

[Lakumi]

I don't want to feel shame and guilt in marriage, it's supposed to be happy isn't it? Ontop of all the other bad things marriage seems to have, sounds like the worst thing I could do with my life