The truth about why men cheat
Two hundred guys weigh in to give the real reasons behind infidelity
Why men cheat
Oct. 17: Melanie Mannarino of Redbook magazine and psychotherapist Robi Ludwig present a recent study that gives clues into why some men cheat.
By Nicole Yorio and Lindsey Palmer, Redbook
updated 8:44 a.m. CT, Fri., Oct. 17, 2008
What makes men cheat? Marriage counselor M. Gary Neuman dug through past research on male infidelity and found that most answers came from the wife’s point of view. Wouldn’t it make more sense to ask the guys? he thought. So for his new book, "The Truth About Cheating," Neuman surveyed 200 cheating and non-cheating husbands to get at the real reasons behind men’s infidelity — including what cheating men say could have prevented them from straying. Here, some of his findings:
48 percent of men rated emotional dissatisfaction as the primary reason they cheated.
So much for the myth that for men, cheating is all about sex: Only 8 percent of men said that sexual dissatisfaction was the main factor in their infidelity. “Our culture tells us that all men need to be happy is sex,” Neuman says. “But men are emotionally driven beings too. They want their wives to show them that they’re appreciated, and they want women to understand how hard they’re trying to get things right.”
The problem is that men are less likely than women to express these feelings, so you won’t always know when your guy is in need of a little affirmation. “Most men consider it unmanly to ask for a pat on the back, which is why their emotional needs are often overlooked,” Neuman says. “But you can create a marital culture of appreciation and thoughtfulness — and once you set the tone, he’s likely to match it.”
66 percent of cheating men report feeling guilt during the affair.
The implications are a little scary: It isn’t just uncaring jerks who cheat. In fact, 68 percent of cheaters never dreamed they’d be unfaithful, and almost all of them wished they hadn’t done it, Neuman says. Clearly, guilt isn’t enough to stop a man from cheating. “Men are good at compartmentalizing feelings,” Neuman explains. “They can hold on to their emotions and deal with them later.” So even if your husband swears he would never cheat, don’t assume it can’t happen. It’s important for both of you to take steps toward creating the marriage you want.
77 percent of cheating men have a good friend who cheated.
Hanging around friends who stray makes cheating seem normal and legitimizes it as a possibility. The message he’s subconsciously telling himself: My friend is a good guy who happens to be cheating on his wife. I guess even the best of us do it. You can’t simply ban your husband from hanging out with Mr. Wandering Eyes, Neuman says, but you can request that they spend their time together in an environment that offers less temptation, like at a sporting event or a restaurant for lunch rather than at a bar or club. Another strategy: Build your social circle around happily married couples that share your values — it’ll create an environment that supports marriage.
40 percent of cheating men met the other woman at work.
“Oftentimes the woman he cheats with at the office is someone who praises him, looks up to him, and compliments his efforts,” Neuman says. “That’s another reason why it’s so critical that he feel valued at home.” Luckily, there’s a clear warning sign that your husband is getting a little too cozy with a colleague: If he praises or mentions the name of a female coworker more than he would a male counterpart, your antennae should go up—and it’s time for the two of you to set boundaries about what is and isn’t okay at work, Neuman says. Is it acceptable for him to work late if it’s only him and her? Can they travel together to conferences? Have dinners out to discuss a project? Ask him what he’d feel comfortable with you doing with a male colleague.
Video
Why do men cheat?
Sept. 22: Related video: TODAY’s Amy Robach talks to M. Gary Neuman, author of “The Truth About Cheating,” about why some married men are unfaithful.
Today show
Only 12 percent of cheating men said their mistress was more physically attractive than their wife.
In other words, a man doesn’t stray because he thinks he’ll get better sex with a better-looking body. “In most cases, he’s cheating to fill an emotional void,” Neuman says. “He feels a connection with the other woman, and sex comes along for the ride.” If you’re worried about infidelity, focus on making your relationship more loving and connected, not on getting your body just right or mastering new sexual positions. (But know that sex does matter — it’s one of the key ways your guy expresses his love and feels close to you, so be sure to keep it a priority.)
Only 6 percent of cheating men had sex with a woman after meeting her that same day or night.
Actually, 73 percent of men got to know the other woman for more than a month before they cheated. This means that you may have time to see the warning signs before infidelity occurs — you might even see it coming before he does. Keep an eye out for these common signals: He spends more time away from home, stops asking for sex, picks fights more frequently, or avoids your calls. Your gut reaction may be to confront him, but most men will deny even thinking about cheating — especially if nothing physical has occurred yet.
Instead, Neuman suggests, take charge of what you can control — your own behavior — and take the lead in bringing your marriage to a better place. Don’t hesitate to show your appreciation for him, prioritize time together, and initiate sex more. Give him a reason to keep you at the front of his mind, Neuman says. And be open about how you feel about what’s going on between the two of you (again, without mentioning any third parties). Try, “I think we’ve started to lose something important in our marriage, and I don’t want it to disappear.” In the meantime, commit to keeping tabs on your relationship and doing what it takes to keep it working for you.
Labels: The truth about why men cheat
Death from Ritalin
The Truth Behind ADHD
ADHD and the Meaning of Evidence
By BARRY TURNER BA MPhil There are some people that are denying that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder exists.
BY BARRY TURNER BA MPhil
There are some people that are denying that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder exists. They are accused of being irresponsible, causing the condition to be under diagnosed, and even causing the sufferers of this disease to "unwittingly self medicate with illegal drugs or alcohol". If it were not for the fact that the explosion in ADHD diagnosis and treatment with stimulants such as Ritalin (Methylphenidate) represents the greatest medical catastrophe since Thalidomide, these statements would be laughable.
Do the makers of such statements really believe that the millions taking Ecstasy (MDMA), and other illegal substances that are closely related to Ritalin (methylphenidate), at thousands of night-clubs every weekend, are "self medicating" because they have not been "properly diagnosed". How can a "medical scientist" say that a "disease" is under diagnosed (based on what data?).
There is absolutely no reason why those opposed to the myth of ADHD as a disease, need to justify that position. The matter is clear. It is for those who maintain the position that ADHD is a disease to adduce evidence of it. That evidence must be in the form of data collected in experimental conditions that can be validated by objective repeat studies.
Evidence is made up of three elements. The autoptic evidence which relates to material or physical evidence such as chemical residues or fingerprints. Direct evidence, which is that proposed by a witness or an expert, and circumstantial evidence, the weakest form of all. What do the proponents of ADHD have in the way of evidence from these sources
Autoptic evidence is perceived by the senses and is commonly called 'real' evidence. In disease this evidence is always present. In carcinomas, biopsies will reveal evidence of cell mutation. In cardiovascular disease necrotic muscle tissue, arterial plaques or calcified arteries can be observed. In infectious diseases the pathogens causing the infections can be collected and identified. The evidence is there for all medical professionals to see. Not so with ADHD.
Direct evidence is that which an eyewitness or expert describes from their own first hand observations. What do the experts say? ADHD may be (may be) genetic: no one has extended this to its logical and necessary conclusion by identifying which chromosome has this defective gene and why the defect is there. Blue eyes, incidentally, are genetically determined. Does that make them a disease?
ADHD may (again), be due to biochemical imbalance: Not one piece of evidence exists to indicate this. Indeed, where biochemical imbalances are suggested, there is again a signal lack of empirical evidence to support the theory. (Empirical means that it can be repeated, tested, verified.)
ADHD may be (and again) hereditary: Just as in quoting spurious "genetics", this is meaningless at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Criminal behavior is also hereditary. Criminal fathers more often than not are followed by criminal sons (and daughters). The behavior is learned, and just as musical parents produce musical children and enthusiastic sports loving parents produce sporting offspring, this is no indicator of genetics or hereditary cause. It should be noted that Chinese children have a propensity to grow up speaking Chinese if they grow up in China. Those that have been adopted by western parents and taken to America, for instance, have not as yet spontaneously begun to speak Chinese because it is hereditary or genetic for them to do so. Language, like behavior, is learned.
What about the weakest form of evidence, circumstantial? Ah, well here at last the ADHD proponents have something! Children misbehave and run about wildly, they are defiant and get bored easily. Er… yes, they always have done. The circumstances of this "aberrent" behavior suggest to these ADHD observers that something is wrong - the child must be "ill". It perhaps should be put to them that the children are fine, it is they that are suffering from "Observational Inaccuracy and Distortion Disorder".
What about the famous suggestion that these children have "different" or smaller brains? Well, the studies that came up with that theory look good until you spend five minutes reading them. After five minutes the reader will notice that the "research cohort" is in fact mixed, some children on medication, some not. Some of the "normal" children are several years older than those with the smaller brains. The statistics invite the well known scientific and legal observation, "correlates are not causes". This is the kind of science that concludes that oranges are different to avocados based on the fact that oranges are less green than avocados. How much more enlightened these "scientists" would become if they actually tasted the fruit! The language of the ADHD lobby is a wonderful indicator of how exact the science is that created it. "ADHD may be…" "ADHD is probably…" "Studies indicate…" "Scientists believe...". Not one piece of evidence exists to categorically place this condition in any classification of diseases.
The three kinds of evidence mentioned above are the categories of legal evidence. They are the material that decides the case for or against, guilty or not guilty. There is one that has been missed out.
Hearsay evidence is that which is reported second or third hand. It’s value to probandum (actual proof), is severely limited as it cannot be tested by the normal methods employed to examine the other kinds of tangible evidence. The person that relates it does not know the facts, only the facts as they were reported to them. Just like the Connors rating for ADHD.
Little Johnny is hyperactive", says the teacher.
Give him Ritalin", says the doctor.
Little Jimmy can't concentrate on his schoolwork", says the teacher.
Give him Adderall", says the doctor.
Little Sally misbehaves in class", says the teacher.
Give her Concerta", says the doctor.
How many doctors prescribe insulin to patients because their neighbor reports that they have seen them drinking lots of water and heard that their feet often tingle?
If in the future the proponents of ADHD find themselves indicted for inflicting this scourge onto the world, they will surely demand that their accusers bring strong evidence before they are convicted. Rest assured they would complain about rights abuses if they were convicted on circumstantial and hearsay evidence. What an irony that such poor evidence is sufficient to convince them they are right now -- so right in fact, that on hearsay and circumstantial evidence alone they will give addictive and dangerous medicine to children -- some of whom are barely out of infancy Those of us who oppose this outrageous abuse of medical science do not need to justify our position! We do not need to produce evidence that ADHD does NOT exist any more than we need to produce evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. The proponents need to answer these questions.
o What is the etiology of ADHD?
o Where is the hard evidence?
o objective, scientific and empirically validated)
o If it is actually a disease, why is no one looking for a CURE?
In the lack of coherent answers to these questions, ADHD is a belief system only, like believing in fairies or Santa Claus -- not a disease or any other kind of medical condition.
Copyright (c) Barry Turner BA MPhil
The author of this article is a Lecturer in Legal Studies in Forensic Science in the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, UK, Criminal Litigator and Mental Health Law Consultant.
Labels: Death from Ritalin
Case 3: ADHD Does Not Exist
Case Overview
In December 1999, Yolanda DuPerret received a phone call from the principal at her son's preschool. Three-year-old Nicolas was "acting up," and "disrupting class." The principal, Cindy Oberdier, wanted the DuPerrets to come in for a meeting because she suspected that Nicolas had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). "He really stuck out like a sore thumb," said Oberdier. "His approach was to bombard everyone with his presence." Nicolas's father, Cyrille DuPerret, is from France, where children are rarely diagnosed with mental disorders. It didn't occur to him that there was anything wrong with his son. "He's just a boy and he's very active and ... we didn't think much of it," said Cyrille. After discussing their son's situation with the school, the DuPerrets met with psychologist Ed Cable, an ADHD specialist. At first, Dr. Cable thought Nicolas might be attending the wrong school. But after he saw a videotape of Nicolas in the classroom, he said, "It was pretty apparent that he was below average in his ability to just stay in one place." In order to determine if Nicolas had ADHD, Dr. Cable proposed using a standard diagnostic tool--the Conners Rating Scale, a checklist of 28 behaviors like "restless in the squirmy sense," "overly sensitive to criticism," "childish and immature," and impulsive. The DuPerrets chose not to formally test Nicolas for ADHD. "The psychologist suggested he might be ADD or ADHD, which were new acronyms for us. And then he suggested also the use of medication. For us, it was like a cold shower," said Cyrille. "He's a handful," said Yolanda. "He is more intense. He is more active. ... I could never understand how that would translate into my son having something wrong with his brain." The DuPerrets chose not to medicate Nicolas. Instead, Cyrille and Yolanda are trying to spend more time with their son. They decided it would be best if they did not both work full-time, so for six months, Cyrille stayed home to take care of Nicolas and his baby brother.
Labels: ADHD Does Not Exist
Why do women cheat on men?
Answer
There are a variation of reasons why women cheat on men (and vice-versa.) Immaturity, the spark has gone out of their relationship, they are getting older and want to prove they can still attract other men, or they are unhappy with their life and can't seem to figure out what exactly is wrong. Some women want careers and children all at the same time. Both can be attained, but perhaps not exactly at the time you would prefer it to be so patience and good planning are foremost.
Women should sit down, really listen to their heart, ask themselves if they are being fair to their mate. Sometimes, "the grass on the other side of the fence is not greener." Decide what you could be giving up, for what you think you want. \
Women love romance in their lives, a partner that will listen to their hopes, dreams and accomplishments and sometimes they do not get that satisfaction. This is a time in a woman's life when she has to ask herself ... does he beat me? Is he a hard worker? Is he a good father? Does he think of special occasions such as my b/d, our anniversary? If you can say yes to at least two good qualities you are a lucky woman.
Women are quite lucky in this world. You can flirt and get the attention (which all women do enjoy) but that's it. That should be enough. To go further is not right without breaking it off with your partner. Women love to be admired, considered sexy, attractive and smart. All women go through this allure in their lives, but a smart woman always sits and questions herself well before taking action.
Answer
True, there are many reasons as to why a woman would cheat. But all I can say is this, from personal experience, DON'T DO IT. I'm lucky that my man has given me another chance. But it's the worst mistake I've ever made and I would give anything to go back and change what happened. So, unless you don't love the one you're with, you will definitely regret cheating. But even if you don't love the person you're with, you should still not cheat because cheating is just plain wrong no matter how many different ways you look at it.
Answer
Some people are addicted to falling in love. For the first few years, months, weeks of a new relationship there is more, for lack of a better word, passion. You can't think about anything else, you don't want to do anything but be with the person, you feel giddy and excited all the time. This is infatuation and it is very powerful. It fades with time, and in a healthy relationship it is replaced with something deeper, better and easier to live with. But a lot of people also miss that first stage and they might chest bc they are looking for that feeling again, or bc they met someone that makes them feel that way and they don't muster up some willpower to stop themselves. People cheat for lots of reasons, but I think most women cheat for the passion, not the sex.
Answer
There is no one answer for why anyone cheats but the simplest one is that because no one is perfect. I truly believe that anyone given the right situation will cheat because how can you resist. I've cheated and I believe its wrong but I still dont feel guilty because I believe that it was something that happened for a reason. I know that all of the times Ive cheated its not been because the other bloke is more attractive or any reason like that, its all been because of how they've made me feel. They've made me feel special and attractive, which probably means I have really low self-esteem even though I come accross as confident. Also all the blokes Ive been with while with someone else have also been in relationships shows that Im not actually interested in a relationship with them as I dont want to leave my boyfriend but I do think they are fulfilling something that hes not. I think that people cheat mainly for the attention and the excitment, and who doesnt like to be complimented and when your with your "bit on the side" thats all you get compliments and all the positive parts of a relationship, you dont have to deal with arguments, its simple and fun.
Labels: Why do women cheat on men?
Why Do Women Cheat On Partners?
By Kenneth Snodin
Men and women cheat on their partners for different reasons. Men tend to cheat because they want more physical stimulation, while women generally have more psychological and emotional motives for cheating.
Chief among these reasons is loneliness. Women often look to relationships with individuals other than their partners because emotional companionship is lacking in the primary relationship. It may appear to be a contradiction that women who have partners are lonely, but often, this partnership is less than emotionally fulfilling. Women may have affairs if they feel they do not receive the attention they deserve from their partners. If a man is too involved with his work or a hobby, he may have little energy left to pay attention to the woman in his life. Women often feel lonely even in the presence of their partners at times. A man may be physically present, but emotionally absent, and this can lead a woman to look for fulfillment outside the relationship.
Revenge is another reason that women cheat on their partners. Women of today are not willing to suffer in silence as their counterparts did in previous generations. If a woman feels wronged, if she has an indication that her partner is cheating on her, she will often have an outside affair to retaliate for the pain she is feeling. Women who find their partners have been cheating on them feel completely justified in having an affair for reasons of revenge. They view an affair as way to make their partners hurt in the same way that they do.
Boredom may cause a woman to look for love outside her primary relationship. As time goes by, relationships may become routine and lose the excitement of their first days. Instead of trying to remedy the current relationship, women may try to inject excitement into their lives by having affairs. Affairs are exciting, both because they involve sex with a new person, and because they involve a considerable amount of 'sneaking around,' hiding things from friends and family, essentially living a second life. For some women, the excitement is so attractive that they are willing to lose their primary relationship in order to pursue an affair.
Low self-esteem can also be a reason for women to cheat. They may feel unattractive and unwanted in their current relationship, even if this is not the case. Partners may not make the same efforts at reassurance that were common in the early days of a relationship, and women's own feelings of inadequacy can make them look for affirmation from new people that they are still desirable. Having an affair with a new partner who finds her attractive and interesting may be compensation for the low self-esteem that characterizes a woman's everyday life. Women who have healthy opinions of themselves and are self-confident are usually happy in their relationships, while those with low self-esteem tend to look outside their relationships for affirmation and end up cheating on their partners.
Labels: Why Do Women Cheat On Partners?
Male Box: Why Do Women Cheat?
Vanessa Burton
Cheating is not exclusive to the male sex: women are guilty of straying, too. From dissatisfaction to boredom, find out why we cheat.
go to page 1 | 2
Ever wonder what guys talk about when we're not around? Here's your chance to have a sneak peek inside the other half's heads. Filly.ca and AskMen.com have teamed up to reveal what guys really think - uncensored. Ladies, welcome to the Male Box.
Cheating whilst in a relationship is probably the most hurtful thing one can do to their significant other. It ends up not only hurting the ego; it can make someone feel very insecure about themselves.
And although there are certain attributes in relationships that may give someone the need to find sexual affection and gratification elsewhere, cheating usually results from a dissatisfaction of sorts.
Personally, I think there are no excuses for cheating, but as my male counterparts always say, "it's in our genetic make-up to be polygamous." I guess nowadays, that goes for women too. Maybe even yours.
Levels of cheating
Now while some complain that cheating includes masturbating online and others think that simply becoming close to someone on a mental level is betrayal, for the sake of argument I'm going to stick to the good old definition: having sex with someone besides your significant other.
If you are in a great relationship and want to ensure that your woman, whether she's your wife or simply your girlfriend, doesn't stray into another man's arms, then make sure that you don't commit any of the following.
The element of surprise is a wondrous and marvelous thing... you don't have to dress up like Batman, but giving her a soft, wet kiss and spanking her on occasion may just spice things up a bit.
Before I delve into all the things that may lead your woman to find a boy toy, however, keep in mind that there are some women who are just rotten and cheat on men in a serial fashion because they can. And if your current woman has openly admitted that she cheated on all her boyfriends before you, perhaps they weren't the problem.
You stopped giving her attention
Problem:
If there's one thing I can surely admit, being a woman and all, it's that the female condition makes compliments mandatory, especially when change is involved. If she went from a long haired blonde to a short haired brunette and you didn't even notice, then perhaps Johnny from the block will be willing to comment on her hair in great detail.
Solution:
Your ability to pay attention to detail must be honed in a relationship and there's no better time than the present to do so. Even if there is no change in her appearance, telling her you think she's hot (even saying it like that) can make all the difference in her day and your romantic relationship.
And when it comes to sex, if you're always doing the same thing over and over again, chances are she will long for some intrigue and mystique in the bedroom. The element of surprise is a wondrous and marvelous thing... you don't have to dress up like Batman, but giving her a soft, wet kiss and spanking her on occasion may just spice things up a bit.
On to changes, temptation and the rotten ones... Next >>
Labels: Why Do Women Cheat?
The only place where you'll find out the REAL
reason women are cheating as much as men
"After researching women's sexuality for more than ten years, I can honestly say that most of our societal beliefs about females are grossly distorted and many are completely erroneous."
-Michelle Langley, author of Women's Infidelity
Women's relationships today follow
a very predictable pattern:
They push men for commitment
They get what they want
They lose interest in sex
They become attracted to someone else
They start cheating
They become angry and resentful
They begin telling their partners that they need time apart
They blame their partners for their behavior...and eventually, after making themselves and everyone around them miserable for an indefinite, but usually, long period of time, they end their relationships or marriages.
If you're a male, like most other males, you would probably never suspect that your partner is cheating, not only because of your wife’s or girlfriend’s seeming disinterest in sex; but also because you have the belief that your wife or girlfriend is a “good girl.” Unfortunately, males are frequently left/divorced by their wives and girlfriends without ever knowing about their wives' and girlfriends' infidelities.
If you’re a female, like most other females, prior to cheating on your partner you always proclaimed yourself to be "not the type" who would ever cheat. However, also like most other females, after they have cheated, you're shocked and appalled by your behavior; but at the same time you can't stop cheating.
Women's relationships and marriages will continue to follow this same pattern unless we develop an accurate understanding of females ─ particularly in regard to their sexuality. In fact, after researching women's sexuality for more than ten years, I can honestly say that most of our societal beliefs about females are grossly distorted and many are completely erroneous.
The media has finally begun to acknowledge, albeit to a small degree, the widespread problem of female infidelity. Recently, several books and articles have attempted to explain why women are now cheating as much as men. However, none were successful in their attempt. All of them left out very important pieces to this extremely complicated puzzle. I believe the majority were simply unable to find all of the information necessary to figure out the problem. Although, I'm certain that some were just afraid to disclose certain key pieces of information because the truth, quite frankly, is so contrary to our current beliefs. Unfortunately, without these missing pieces, it's impossible to understand, and to subsequently fix, the real problem occurring in relationships today.
My story:
Shortly after my 27th birthday, I began to feel very different. I had been happily married for 4 years and then, suddenly out of nowhere, I began feeling bored and unhappy. In an attempt to figure out what was causing my unhappiness, I looked for answers in books, tried to talk to my Mother and eventually went to see a psychologist. All of the information I received attributed the way I was feeling to my husband, and similar to the majority of women, I began to view my husband as the culprit too.
Currently, women are initiating 70 - 75% of all divorces
Later, through my own research, I discovered that what I was experiencing was quite normal. In fact, women are the most likely to divorce in their late twenties and thirties after an average of 4 years of marriage. During this time, it's quite common for women to experience a pre-midlife crisis, which is similar to the male midlife crisis, only with an important difference - a difference that can actually make women more likely to cheat than men.
The "stages" that women often experience during the course of their long-term relationships
Several years into my research I was able to identify distinctive patterns and behaviors in the women I interviewed. I categorized these into four separate “stages” that women often experience during the course of their long-term relationships. The stages begin with a loss of sexual desire.
Stage 1
Women at Stage 1 feel as though something is missing in their lives. They have all the things that they wanted—a home, a family, a great husband—but they feel they should be happier. Over time, many women in this stage begin to lose interest in sex. It is not uncommon for them to spend a great deal of energy trying to avoid physical contact with their husbands because they fear it might lead to a sexual encounter. They frequently complain of physical ailments to avoid having sex and often try to avoid going to bed at the same time as their husbands. They view sex as a job, not unlike doing the dishes or going to the grocery store. Some women in Stage 1 claim they feel violated when their husbands touch them. Their bodies freeze up and they feel tightness in their chest and/or a sick feeling in their stomach. The majority of women in Stage 1 feel as though there is something wrong with them, that they are in some way defective. They are also fearful that their disinterest in sex will cause their husbands to cheat, or worse yet, leave them.
Stage 2
Women at Stage 2 experience reawakened desire stimulated by an encounter outside the marital relationship. Whether these encounters with a "new" man involves sex or remain platonic, women will typically give a tremendous amount of emotional significance to these encounters.
Many women in this stage haven't felt any sexual desire for a long time. Many experience tremendous guilt and regret, regardless of whether their new relationships are sexual, merely emotional, or both. Most begin to experience what could be termed an identity crisis—even those who try to put the experience behind them. Constant reminders are everywhere. They feel guilt when the topic of infidelity arises, whether in the media, in conversations with family and friends, or at home with their husbands. Women in this stage can no longer express their prior disdain for infidelity without feeling like a hypocrite. They feel as though they have lost a part of themselves. Reflecting society’s belief that women are either “good” or “bad,” women will question their “good girl” status and feel that they might not be deserving of their husbands. Many will try to overcome feelings of guilt by becoming more attentive toward and appreciative of their husbands. However, over time many women will move from appreciation to justification. In order to justify their continued desire for other men, women will begin to attribute these desires to needs that are not being met in their marriage, or to their husband’s past behavior. Many women will become negative and sarcastic when speaking of their husbands and their marriages and it is not uncommon for an extramarital affair to follow.
Stage 3
Women at Stage 3 are involved in affairs, ending affairs, or contemplating divorce. Women who are having affairs experience feelings unlike anything they have experienced before. They feel “alive” again and many believe they have found their soul mates. These women are experiencing feelings associated with a chemically altered state, or what is typically referred to as being in love.
These women are also typically in tremendous pain, the pain of choosing between their husbands and their new love interests. They typically believe that what they are doing is wrong and unfair to their husbands, but yet are unable to end their affairs. Many often try several times. Prior to meeting with their lovers, they will vow that it will be the last time, but they are unable to stick with their decisions.
Unable to end their extramarital relationships, women at Stage 3 conclude that their lovers are soul mates because they are unaware that they have become addicted to the high caused by chemicals released during the initial stages of a relationship. Many live in a state of limbo for years. “Should I stay married or should I get a divorce?” this is the question continuously on the minds of women at Stage 3 - it is also common for women at this stage to attempt to initiate a separation. In most cases, husbands of women at Stage 3, will launch futile attempts to make their wives happy by being more attentive, spending more time at home and helping out around the house. Regardless of women’s past and present complaints, the last thing women at Stage 3 want, is to spend more time with their husbands.
The reason many women will give for their desire to separate is a “search for self.” They convince their husbands that they might be able to save their marriage if they can just have time to themselves. They tell their husbands that time apart is the only hope of improving their current situation. Women at this stage want to free themselves of the restrictions of marriage and spend more time with their lovers. Most think that eventually their confusion will disappear. They think they will eventually know with certainty whether they want to stay married or get divorced and be with their lovers. Separation allows women at this stage, to enjoy the high they experience with their lovers without giving up the security of their marriages. Husbands of Stage 3 women are often unaware that their wives are having affairs. Their lack of suspicion is typically due to their wife’s disinterest in sex and in their belief that their wife is a “good girl.”
Women at Stage 3 may also be experiencing the ending of an extramarital affair, and the ending may not have been their decision. They may have been involved with single men who either lost interest because the relationship could not progress or who became attracted to another women who was single. Women whose affairs are ending often experience extreme grief. They may become deeply depressed and express tremendous anger toward their husbands. They are typically unaware that they are experiencing chemical withdrawal due to sudden changes in their brain chemistry. As a result, many will feel that they have missed their chance at happiness due to their indecisiveness.
Believing they have become more aware of what they want and need from a mate, women at this stage will often place the utmost importance on finding a "new" relationship that will give them the feeling they experienced in their affairs. A new relationship with a new partner will also represent a clean slate, a chance for these women to regain their “good girl” status. Some women will search for new partners during their separations. Others will return to their marriages, but not emotionally and still continue to search. Some women will resume sporadic sexual relations with their husbands in an effort to safeguard their marriage until they make a decision. Although they are often not sexually attracted to their husbands, desire is temporarily rekindled when they suspect their husbands are unfaithful, are contemplating infidelity, or when their husbands show signs of moving on.
Stage 4
The women in stage four included those who chose to stay married and continue their affairs and those who chose to divorce. Some of the women who continued their affairs stated that marital sex was improved by maintaining the extramarital relationship. Some thought the lover was a soul mate, but for one reason or another did not leave their husband and did not feel torn between the two. Others realized that their feelings were intensified by not sharing day-to-day living arrangements with their lover. Almost all of the women in this latter category were having affairs with married men. They believed their affairs could continue indefinitely without disrupting either partner’s primary relationship.
The women who chose divorce and were in the beginning stages of a new relationship typically expressed relief at having finally made a decision and reported feeling normal again. Many of the divorced women who had remarried and were several years into their new marriages seemed somewhat reluctant to talk about the specifics of their past experiences. However, they did mention feelings of guilt and regret for having hurt their children and ex-spouses only to find themselves experiencing similar feelings in the new relationship.
Labels: Women Cheating
Does ADHD Even Exist?
The Ritalin Sham
by John Breeding, Ph.D.
Alice, the mother of a seven-year-old son, Nathan, recently visited my office for a counseling session. Nathan had reportedly been different and difficult from the beginning: exhibiting early seizure-like activity, a most challenging temperament, great sensitivity to various types of stimulation, intense frustration, aggressive tantrums, and other apparent developmental difficulties. Alice had taken him to doctors from a young age, obtaining a variety of mostly nonspecific diagnoses of developmental problems. Alice felt unappreciated as a parent, hurt and angry that the Montessori school her son had attended at ages four and five had ultimately rejected him. She felt judged by other parents, whom she felt blamed her for her son's challenging behavior. And she felt unsupported by both camps of opinion regarding "medication": the pro-Ritalin forces challenged her reluctance to use the drug for her son, and the antidrug group vehemently urged her to resist drug use.
Alice's personal stance on the Ritalin issue was clear. While she basically agreed that these "medications" are not good for children, she also felt that, in her family's case, it had been helpful. Nathan had been diagnosed at age five with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and had taken Ritalin for a year. Alice thought the drug greatly helped her son, slowing him down enough so that he could listen and process information. She and her boyfriend both felt drugs made the boy much easier to be with; further, their own reduced stress eased them so much that they were now able to consider other alternatives for Nathan, such as nutritional supplementation.
Proponents of psychiatric drugs attest that they "work," meaning they alter mood, thought, and action. They also "work," of course, in that they assuage the medical community's expectation that drugs be used to "treat" these children. I believe that fully informed adults should have every right to voluntarily use any drugs they wish, as long as they don't endanger others in doing so. Children, however, are not able to give fully informed consent to drug use - especially those under six years of age, a group in whom we are witnessing a dramatic increase in psychiatric drug prescription.1 It is, therefore, our responsibility as adults to ensure every possible opportunity for optimal development for our children, to protect and defend our children from powerful toxic drugs, particularly those prescribed for psychiatric purposes.
Like Alice, a large percentage of adults who take psychiatric drugs or give them to their children would prefer to avoid them - and yet they capitulate and use them because the drugs provide relief: from tension, fear, and desperation, as well as from the external strains of judgment and coercion. Lawrence Diller, author of the best-selling book Running on Ritalin, argues that: "The 700 percent rise in Ritalin use is our canary in the mineshaft for the middle class, warning us that we aren't meeting the needs of all our children, not just those with ADD. It's time we rethought our priorities and expectations unless we want a nation of kids running on Ritalin."2 Dr. Diller decries the trend (as I do in my book The Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses), contending that this increased reliance on drugs reflects a society in distress. Rather than try to force our children to shrink into situations that do not meet their needs, he states, we need to take responsibility for our society.
Diller himself is, however, torn by the same conflict many parents have concerning Ritalin. On the one hand, he says: "As a citizen I must speak out about the social conditions that create the living imbalance. Otherwise I am complicitous with forces and values that I believe are bad for children." On the other hand, though, he concludes: "As a physician, after assessing the child, his family and school situation, I keep prescribing Ritalin. My job is to ease suffering and Ritalin will help round- and octagonal-peg kids fit into rather rigid square educational holes." 3
This seemingly contradictory stance is the same one Alice and millions of other parents face. It's not as if all parents readily accept the prescription of Ritalin. Alice, in fact, incurred the wrath of her son's neurologist because she refused to give her son Adderall, a combination of three different amphetamine-like stimulants often used as an alternative to Ritalin. Increasingly over the past ten years or so, millions of parents are nagged by their children's physicians: "If your child had diabetes," the doctors taunt, for example, "you'd give him insulin, wouldn't you?"
"What could I say to that?" Alice asked me. Her question was not so much a call for information as it was a need to express her hopelessness. It was encouraging to me that she was angry, for anger is a great antidote to hopelessness. She was mad about the treatment she had received from prior medical and mental health professionals, as well as the lack of support from two opposing drug camps. Before I would hazard a possible response for that neurologist, Alice and I talked about the feelings of relief, guilt, and anger the Ritalin issue had caused for her family. Finally, I gave her what would have been my response: the diagnosis of ADHD is, itself, fraudulent.
ADHD: Nothing but a Sham
A condition such as diabetes carries detectable physical evidence of disease - abnormal blood sugar levels, evidence of pancreatic malfunction - justifying medical treatment. Families confronted with the "wouldn't you give insulin" argument could begin by asking the neurologist to provide medical evidence that a disease requiring treatment exists. Between 1993 and 1997, neurologist Fred Baughman corresponded repeatedly with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis, manufacturers of Ritalin), and top ADHD researchers around the country - including the National Institute of Mental Health - asking them to show him any article(s) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature constituting proof of a physical or chemical abnormality in ADHD and thereby qualifying it as a disease or a medical syndrome. Through sheer determination and persistence, Dr. Baughman eventually got these entities to admit that no objective validation of the diagnosis of ADHD exists.4
Prescribing Ritalin for something that is not a "disease" does not, in my estimation, constitute a legitimate practice of medicine. If ADHD is not a disease, treating it medically constitutes a fraud. Yet many physicians are true believers in medically treating "mental illness," despite the consistent lack of scientific evidence of "mental illness" as a "disease."5 Herein lies the conflict for parents like Alice.
The Significance of Oppression Theory
Victims of oppression are not only blamed for their condition, and usually thought to be deserving of their inferior position, they are eventually conditioned to accept it as their reality. As the great American writer James Baldwin stated: "It's not the world that was my oppressor, because what the world does to you, if the world does it to you long enough and effectively enough, you begin to do it to yourself."6 In what may be the ultimate power play, a victim is, over time, conditioned to internalize, accept, and ultimately, forget about the very fact that they are oppressed.
There are two specific forms of oppression that are pertinent to the discussion of psychiatric drug use for children. The first is adultism - the systematic mistreatment of young people by adults simply because they are young. Like other forms of oppression, adultism is self-perpetuating: when we are treated poorly as children, we internalize the idea and feelings that life is unfair; that rank and power should be used for personal advantage; and that we are somehow unworthy of respect, incapable of clear thinking, and unable to become our own authority.
The second form of oppression is what I call psychiatric oppression: the systematic mistreatment of people labeled as "mentally ill" - including children diagnosed with fictitious illnesses such as ADHD. Institutionalized in our society, psychiatry is also guided by a worldview that embraces biopsychiatry.7 Juxtaposed with adultism, psychiatric diagnosis and treatment enforce the message that an "ADHD child" is inadequate, defective, unworthy of complete respect, and in need of drugs to control and cope with the effects of his or her "illness."
Lies My Doctor Told Me
What exactly does it mean to "help round- and octagonal-peg kids fit into rather rigid square educational holes?" I believe there are at least six fallacies that underlie the rampant prescription of drugs like Ritalin to our children.
1. "Social adjustment is good."
While the ability to adjust socially may be important, it is not always a "good" thing. In its most extreme form, social adjustment leads to conformity and compliance, which has resulted in dire social phenomena, including slavery and genocide. This seems a particularly aberrant notion in a society like ours, which is so deeply grounded in the quest for individualism, free speech and association, and the "pursuit of happiness."
2. "Children must learn to conform."
When a child fails to adjust to school, we should at the very least think about our abilities to consider the child's needs. It is certainly important for children to learn how to get along in various situations, and how to avoid drawing sanction upon themselves. Nevertheless, young children must be enabled to express their unique gifts within their communities. It is a mistake to force our children to fit molds imposed upon them according to the needs and conventions of the adult order.
3. "Failed social adjustment causes suffering."
In our competitive culture, we tend to view mistakes as negatives to be avoided. It is hard to accept the notion that mistakes can be good, and actually, in fact, are the way we learn. We are obsessed with the notions of success and failure. We judge a child's actions as success or failure according to our expectations and demands, not through the eyes of a developing child. Eventually, the child internalizes both the standard and the evaluation: "I failed to live up to the expectations, therefore I am a failure." I would argue that it is not failure that causes suffering, but rather it is oppression - in the form of adultism - which imposes arbitrary standards, and an adult shame-based worldview. This is what causes children to feel and think of themselves as failures, and therein lies their suffering.
4. "A physician's job is to ease suffering."
Certainly it is - through the practice of medicine that incorporates compassion - not labeling, coercion, or guilt.
5. "Ritalin helps children conform."
Not always. Sometimes it makes them "psychotic," sometimes it makes them aggressive. Other times Ritalin makes children anxious or nauseous. It can make some children feel suicidal. And for some children, Ritalin has been a deadly prescription. 8 When it "works" well, the child is observed to produce better in the classroom. This, the research shows us, is the only positive short-term outcome. There are no positive long-term effects in any aspect of child functioning - social, behavioral, or academic - associated with the use of Ritalin.9
6. "Therefore, giving your child Ritalin lets me ease her suffering."
In an 1854 speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Abraham Lincoln said, "I would consent to any great evil, to avoid an even greater one."10 Many parents feel the compulsion to punish or discipline their child in hopes that even greater misfortune might not befall them. Given the reality of today's oppressive society, and its lack of resolve to truly meet the needs of our children, the argument goes, Ritalin may seem a better choice than continued pressure, disapproval, and sanction.
This "ease the suffering" argument reveals one of the most consistent justifications for the use of psychiatric drugs for children: on one level or another, Ritalin absolves each person of his or her responsibility. The child is not responsible, he's "sick." Parents, doctors, the community, the medical and educational institutions - the society at large - are relieved of their duty to meet the real needs of that child. We prescribe drugs; the child conforms; the educational and medical institutions don't have to change; and our standards of "normalcy" are passed on to the next generation of drug-assisted children learning to fit into the mandated square hole. We have endless justifications that allow us to conform to oppression with a seemingly clear conscience, while an estimated 5,000,000 children are on methylphenidate, and another 3,000,000 on other toxic drugs - given to them by adults who care for them. Some may call this "medicine," but a growing group of parents and others are beginning to see it as institutionalized child abuse.
Labels: Does ADHD Even Exist?
Intimate relationship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)
"Paramour" redirects here. For the band, see Paramore.
a couple sharing time together
An intimate relationship is a particularly close interpersonal relationship. It is a relationship in which the participants know or trust one another very well or are confidants of one another, or a relationship in which there is physical or emotional intimacy.
Intimate relationships play a central role in our overall human experience (Miller, Perlman & Brehm, 2007). Humans have a universal need to belong which is satisfied when intimate relationships are formed (Perlman, 2007). Intimate relationships consist of the people that we are attracted to, whom we like and love, romantic and sexual relationships, and those who we marry and provide emotional and personal support (Miller et al., 2007). Intimate relationships provide people with a social network of people that provide strong emotional attachments and fulfill our universal needs of belongingness and the need to be cared for (Miller et al., 2007).
The systematic study of intimate relationships is a relatively new area of research within the field of social psychology that has emerged within the last few decades (Miller et al. 2007). Although the systematic study of intimate relationships is fairly recent, social thought and analysis of intimate relationships dates back to early Greek philosophers (Miller et al. 2007). Early scholarly studies were also interested in intimate relationships but were limited to dyads or small groups of people in the public and narrowly examined behaviours such as competing and cooperation, negotiation and bargaining and compliance and resistance (Miller et al., 2007).
Physical intimacy is characterized by romantic or passionate love and attachment, or sexual activity.
Contents [hide]
1 Physical and emotional intimacy
2 History of Intimate Relationships
3 The intimate partners
4 See also
5 External Links
6 References
[edit]Physical and emotional intimacy
Main articles: Love and Intimacy
Love is an important factor in physical and emotional intimate relationships. Though the term is notoriously difficult to define, any thoughtful inquiry into the subject will show it to be qualitatively, not only quantitatively, different than liking, and the difference is not merely in the presence or absence of sexual attraction. According to one analysis,[citation needed] love in relationships is divided into two types: passionate and companionate. Passionate love is intense longing, and is often accompanied by physiological arousal (shortness of breath, rapid heart rate). Companionate love is affection and a feeling of intimacy and is not necessarily accompanied by physiological arousal.
People who are in an intimate relationship with one another are often called a couple, especially if the members of that couple have ascribed some degree of permanency to their relationship. Such couples often provide the emotional security that is necessary for them to accomplish other tasks, particularly forms of labor/work.
[edit]History of Intimate Relationships
Ancient Philosophers-Aristotle
Interestingly, it took scientists a long time before they began to study and to recognize intimate relationships as a validated topic of research, when it has been noted that philosophers had been interested in the nature of friendships and intimacy (Miller et al., 2007). Ancient philosophers mused over ideas of marital satisfaction, faithfulness, beauty and jealously although their concepts and understandings were often inaccurate or misleading (Miller et al., 2007).
Over 2300 years ago, relationships were being contemplated by Aristotle, he wrote: “One person is a friend to another if he is friendly to the other and the other is friendly to him in return” (Aristotle, 330 B.C., trans. 1991, pp 72-73). Aristotle believed that by nature humans are social beings (Perlman, 2007). Aristotle also suggested that there were three different types of relationships. In are attracted to relationships that provide utility because of the assistance and sense of belonging that they provide (Miller et al., 2007). In relationships based on pleasure, people are attracted to the feelings of pleasantness and that they are engaging (Miller et al., 2007). However, relationships based on utility and pleasure were said to be short lived if the benefits provided by one of the partners was not reciprocated (Miller et al., 2007) Relationships based on virtue we are attracted to others’ virtuous character (Miller et al., 2007). Aristotle also suggested that relationships based on virtue would be the longest lasting and that virtue based relationships were the only type of relationship that each partner was liked for themselves (Miller et al., 2007). Although Aristotle put forth much consideration about relationships, as like many other ancient philosophers, did not use systematic methods and therefore could not conclude that his thoughts and ideas were correct (Miller et al., 2007). The philosophical analysis used by Aristotle dominated the analysis of intimate relationships until the late 1880’s (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006).
1880's to Early 1900's
Modern psychology and sociology began to emerge in the late 1800’s. During this time theorists often included relationships into their current areas of research and began to develop new foundations which had implications in regards to the analysis of intimate relationships (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). Freud wrote about how parent-child relationships and its effect on personality development (Perlman, 2007). Freud’s analysis proposed that people’s childhood experiences are transferred or passed on into adult relationships by means of feelings and expectations (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). Freud also founded the idea that individuals usually seek out martial partners who are similar to that of their opposite-sex parent (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006).
In 1891, James wrote that a person’s self concept is defined by the relationships we endure with others (Perlman, 2007). In 1897, Durkheim’s interest in social organization led to the examination of social isolation and alienation (Perlman, 2007). This was an influential discovery of intimate relationships in that Durkheim argued that being socially isolated was a key antecedent of suicide (Perlman, 2007). This focus on the darker side of relationships and the negative consequences associated to social isolation were what Durkheim labeled as anomie (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). Simmel wrote about dyads or partnerships with two people and examined their unique properties in the 1950’s (Miller et al., 2007). Simmel suggested that dyads require consent and engagement of both partners to maintain the relationship but noted that the relationship can be ended by the initiation of only one partner (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). Although the theorists mentioned above sought support for their theories their primary contributions to the study of intimate relationships was conceptual and not empirically grounded (Miller et al., 2007).
The Rise of Empiricism
A major revolution occurred in social analysis in 1898- the use of empirical investigations (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). A study conducted by Monroe (1898), examined the traits and habits of children in selecting a friend. Some of the attributes included in the study were kindness, cheerfulness and honesty (Miller et al., 2007). Monroe (1898) asked 2336 children aged 7 to 16 to identify “what kind of chum do you like best?” The results of the study indicate that children preferred a friend that was their own age, of the same sex, same in size physically, a friend with light features (hair and eyes), friends that did not engage in conflict, someone that was kind to animals and humans and finally that they were honest. The two characteristics that children reported as least important included wealth and religion (Monroe, 1898).
The study by Monroe (1898) was the first to mark the significant shift in the study of intimate relationships from analysis that was primarily philosophical to those with empirical validity (Miller et al., 2007). This study is said to have finally marked the beginning of relationship science (Miller et al., 2007). However, in the years following Monroe’s influential study, very few similar studies were done. There were limited studies done on children’s friendships, courtship and marriages and families in the 1930’s but few relationship studies were conducted before or during World War II (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). Intimate relationships did not become a broad focus of research again until the 1960’s and 1970’s when there was a vast amount of relationship studies being published (Miller et al., 2007).
1960’s and 1970’s
An important shift was taking place in the field of social psychology that influenced the research of intimate relationships. The shift was that up until the late 1950’s the majority of studies were non-experimental (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). By the end of the 1960’s more than half of the articles published involved some sort of experimental manipulation (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). The 60’s was also a time when there was a shift in methodology within the psychological discipline itself. Participants consisted mostly of college students, experimental methods and research was being conducted in laboratories and the experimental method was the dominant methodology in social psychology (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). Experimental manipulation within the research of intimate relationships demonstrated that relationships could be studies scientifically (Miller et al., 2007). This shift brought relationships science to the attention of scholars in other disciplines and has resulted in the study of intimate relationships being an international multidiscipline (Miller et al., 2007).
1980’s to 2000’s
In the early 1980’s the first conference of the International Network of Personal Relationships (INPR) was held. Approximately 300 researchers from all parts of the world attended the conference (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). In March 1984, the first journal of Social and Personal Relationships was published (Vangelisti & Perlman, 2006). In the early 1990’s the INPR split off into two groups however, in April 2004 the two organizations rejoined and became the International Association for Relationship Research (IARR) (Miller et al., 2007).
Today
Today the study of intimate relationships (relationship science) uses participants from diverse samples and examines a wide variety of topics that include family relations, friendships and romantic relationships usually over a long period of time (Miller et al., 2007). The current study of intimate relationships includes the both the positive aspects of relationships as well as the darker side of relationship (unpleasant).
Current research being conducted by John Gottman and his colleagues involves inviting married couples into a pleasant setting, in which they revisit the disagreement that caused their last argument. Although the participants are aware that they are being videotaped, they soon become so absorbed in the interaction and forget they are being recorded (Miller et al., 2007). With the second-by-second analysis of the observable reactions as well as emotional reactions, Gottman is able to accurately predict with 93 percent accuracy the future fate of the couples relationship (Miller et al., 2007).
Another current area of research within the intimate relationships is being conducted by Terri Orbuch and Joseph Veroff (2002). They are monitoring newlywed couples using self-reports over a long period of time (longitudinal). Participants are required to provide extensive reports about the nature and the status of their relationships (Miller et al., 2007). Although many of the marriages have ended since the beginning of the study, this type of relationship study allows researchers to track marriages from start to finish by conducting follow-up interviews with the participants in order to determine what factors are associated with marriages that last and those that do not (Miller et al., 2007). Although the field of relationship science is still relatively young, research is being conducted by researchers from many different disciplines that continues to broaden the scope of intimate relationships (Miller et al., 2007).
[edit]The intimate partners
Terms for partners in intimate relationships include:
Boyfriend/girlfriend
Confidant or confidante
Family member
Friend
Life partner/partner
Spouse
Mistress
Significant other
Companion
Close relationships
Types of relationships
Boyfriend · Casual · Cohabitation · Concubinage · Courtesan · Domestic partnership · Family · Friendship · Girlfriend · Husband · Kinship · Marriage · Mistress (lover) · Monogamy · Non-monogamy · Pederasty · Polyamory · Polyfidelity · Polygamy · Romantic friendship · Same-sex relationship · Significant other · Soulmate · Widowhood · Wife
Major relationship events
Courtship · Bonding · Divorce · Relationship breakup · Romance · Separation · Wedding
Feelings and emotions
Affinity · Attachment · Compersion · Infatuation · Intimacy · Jealousy · Limerence · Love · Passion · Platonic love · Polyamory · Psychology of monogamy
Human practices
Bride price (Dower · Dowry) · Hypergamy · Relationship abuse · Sexuality · Teen dating violence
v • d • e
[edit]See also
Free union
Intimacy
Love
Lover
Marriage
Romantic love
Sexual partner
Sexual relationship
Significant other
Dating
Polyamory
Monogamy
polygamy
[edit]External Links
Labels: Intimate relationship
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Controversy about ADHD)
Ritalin 10mg Pill (Ciba/Novartis)
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders despite being a well validated clinical diagnosis.[1][2] ADHD and its treatment have been considered controversial at least since the 1970s.[3][4][5] The controversy involves clinicians, teachers, policymakers, parents, and the media with opinions regarding ADHD ranging from those who do not believe it exists to those who believe that there is genetic and physiological basis for the condition.[4]
Researchers from McMaster University identified five features of ADHD that contribute to its controversial nature:
It is a clinical diagnosis for which there are no laboratory or radiological confirmatory tests or specific physical features.
Diagnostic criteria have changed frequently.
There is no curative treatment, so long-term therapies are required.
Therapy often includes stimulant drugs that are thought to have abuse potential.
The rates of diagnosis and of treatment substantially differ across countries.[6]
Lack of clarity on exactly what qualifies as ADHD and changes in diagnostic criteria have caused confusion.[7] Ethical and legal issues with regard to treatment have been key areas of concern, particularly the use of psychostimulant medication and the promotion of stimulants to treat ADHD by groups and individuals who receive money from drug companies.[2]
Medical professionals and news sources have stated that the diagnosis and treatment of the disorder deserve greater scrutiny.[8]
Alternative theories to explain the symptoms of ADHD have been proposed.[9] These views include the Hunter vs. farmer theory, Neurodiversity, and the Social construct theory of ADHD.
Some individuals and groups reject the existence of ADHD entirely. They include Thomas Szasz and groups such as CCHR.[10] Most medical authorities and the US courts however support the legitimacy of the ADHD diagnosis. (See the Ritalin class action lawsuits.)
Contents [hide]
1 Status as a disorder
1.1 Concerns about methods of diagnosis
1.2 Different views of ADHD outside North America
1.3 Anti-psychiatry movement
1.4 Scientology
1.5 Personality trait
2 Questions concerning the cause
2.1 ADHD as a biological illness
2.2 Hunter vs. farmer theory of ADHD
2.3 Neurodiversity
2.4 Social construct theory of ADHD
3 Concerns about medication
3.1 Concerns about side effects and long term effectiveness
3.2 Non specific nature
3.3 Coercion
3.4 Stimulant misuse
4 Advertising
5 Financial conflicts of interest
6 Concerns about the impact of labeling
7 ADHD in politics and the media
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
[edit]Status as a disorder
[edit]Concerns about methods of diagnosis
ADHD and stimulant use are controversial in part because most children are diagnosed and treated based on decisions made by their parents and clinicians with teachers being the primary source of diagnostic information. Most children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have normal behavior in the physician's office.[11]
The number of people diagnosed with ADHD in the U.S. and UK has grown dramatically over a short period of time. Critics of the diagnosis, such as Dan P. Hallahan and James M. Kauffman in their book Exceptional Learners: Introduction to Special Education, have argued that this increase is due to the ADHD diagnostic criteria being sufficiently general or vague to allow virtually anybody with persistent unwanted behaviors to be classified as having ADHD of one type or another, and that the symptoms are not supported by sufficient empirical data.[12] ADHD is one of the most misdiagnosed illnesses among children. ADHD and many others illness display identical symptoms, for example; diabetes, hypo-glycemia and bipolar disorder.
Tools that are designed to analyze a person's behavior, such as the Brown scale or the Conners scale, for example, attempt to assist parents and providers in making a diagnosis by evaluating an individual on typical behaviors such as "Hums or makes other odd noises", "Daydreams" and "Acts 'smart'"; the scales rating the pervasiveness of these behaviors range from "never" to "very often". Connors states that, based on the scale, a valid diagnosis can be achieved; critics, however, counter Connors' proposition by pointing out the breadth with which these behaviors may be interpreted. This becomes especially relevant when family and cultural norms are taken into consideration; this premise leads to the assumption that a diagnosis based on such a scale may actually be more subjective than objective. (See cultural subjectivism.)
Some of the criticism does not reject the concept of ADHD as a valid disorder, but alleges that children with problematic behaviour are often diagnosed with ADHD when the behaviour may result from other causes. They state that some children diagnosed with ADHD, or labeled ADHD by parents or teachers, are normal but do not behave in the way that responsible adults want them to behave. There is concern about teachers being used to assist in diagnosing students with ADHD.[13] Social critics[who?] make a connection between the extra funding some schools receive for children with ADHD and the increase in the diagnosis.[14]
ADHD is a subjective diagnosis with no definitive test. This leads to situations where one doctor would say a child needs psychotropic medication while another doctor could say the child is perfectly normal.[15] Concern exists that "elevated but still developmentally normal levels of motor activity, impulsiveness, or inattention" traits of childhood could be inappropriately interpreted as ADHD.[16][17]
[edit]Different views of ADHD outside North America
The view that ADHD is a problem requiring medical intervention has been far less prevalent outside of the United States and Canada. In Great Britain and France roughly one percent of children are diagnosed with hyperkinetic syndrome, the equivalent of ADHD in the International Classification of Diseases, the diagnostic system used by most medical professionals outside North America.
The British Psychological Society said in a 1997 report that physicians and psychiatrists should not follow the American example of applying medical labels to such a wide variety of attention-related disorders: "The idea that children who don’t attend or who don’t sit still in school have a mental disorder is not entertained by most British clinicians."[18][19]
[edit]Anti-psychiatry movement
Members of the Anti-Psychiatry movement such as Fred Baughman and Peter Breggin[20][21][22][23] have extensively used the popular media to criticize ADHD and medications used for ADHD. Fred Baughman has also published articles about ADHD in peer reviewed journals.[24] They have testified at Congressional hearings on the use of Ritalin and supported legal challenges such as the Ritalin class action lawsuits. There is an antipsychiatry movement that often refers to their writings, but in contrast to Scientologists, they are not "anti-psychiatry," but critics of some of its practices.
[edit]Scientology
According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, "the uproar over Ritalin was triggered almost single-handedly by the Scientology movement."[25] The Citizens Commission on Human Rights, an anti-psychiatry group formed by Scientologists in 1969, conducted a major campaign against Ritalin in the 1980s and lobbied Congress for an investigation of Ritalin.[25] Scientology publications identified the "real target of the campaign" as "the psychiatric profession itself" and said that the campaign "brought wide acceptance of the fact that (the commission) [sic] and the Scientologists are the ones effectively doing something about [...] psychiatric drugging".[25] Scientology states "the controversy over the many deaths and irreversible damage caused by psychiatric drugs prescribed for children labeled with... ADHD continues to grow".[26] The church states that mental disorders are a fraud,[27] "mental and behavioral problems are largely incorrect diagnoses that cover symptoms and don't handle the real problems, which may be physical or spiritual".[28] Specifically Scientology attributes all psychological disorders to the accumulation of psychic trauma retained from millions of years of human evolution and the interference of alien and human ghosts called thetans. [29]
[edit]Personality trait
Some believe that many of the traits of those diagnosed with ADHD are personality traits and not indicative of a disorder. Due to these traits being less desirable in modern society and increasing difficulty functioning in a society that does not label these conventions as the norm, they have been labeled as a disorder.[30]
[edit]Questions concerning the cause
[edit]ADHD as a biological illness
One of the most controversial issues regarding ADHD is whether it is wholly or even predominantly a biological illness leading to a chemical or structural defect in the brain. The current predominance of opinion in medicine is that this is the case.[citation needed] There are many articles citing physical differences in the brain of those with ADHD however most of these have not stood up. Xavier Castellanos MD, the former head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), is firmly convinced that ADHD is a biological illness, but he also noted, regarding our understanding ADHD and the brain "We don't yet know what's going on in ADHD. Frontline.[31] He did find differences in the brain. But, critics of Dr. Castellanos’ own research have pointed out that the differences he was claiming do exist could have been the result of medication taken. Even if differences in the brain can be found, an important issue is that the physical brain can be changed by patterns of behavior. Thus learning braille causes enlargement of the part of the motor cortex that controls finger movements.[32] After they have passed their licensing exam, London taxi drivers have been found to have a significantly enlarged hippocampus compared to non-taxi drivers.[33][34] Monks who meditate show measurable differences in their prefrontal lobes. [35][36]
So diminished concerted effort when confronted with tasks found not to be of interest could have brain changing effects. In “Rethinking ADHD: International Perspectives” an alternative paradigm for ADHD argues that, while biological factors may obviously play a large role in difficulties sitting still and/or concentrating on schoolwork in some children, the vast majority of children manifesting this behavior do not have a biological deficit.[37] For a variety of reasons they have failed to integrate into their psychology the ability to work at chores that are expected of them. Their restlessness and daydreaming is similar to the behavior of other, normal children when they are not engaged, and are bored and trapped by circumstances. Very frequently, children with ADHD have no difficulty concentrating on activities that they find to be interesting. When they are taught by a charismatic entertaining teacher, they similarly can concentrate.[38]
There are radically differing opinions about whether there is a genetic basis. While there is research claiming a highly probable link between genetics and ADHD,[39] Nevertheless some question this connection. Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, of Harvard states "no claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation. Although many theories exist, there is no definitive biological, neurological, or genetic etiology for "mental illness." [40] His critics argue that ADHD is a heterogeneous disorder[41] caused by a complex interaction of genetic and environmental factors and thus cannot be modeled accurately using the single gene theory. Authors of a review of ADHD etiology have noted, "Although several genome-wide searches have identified chromosomal regions that are predicted to contain genes that contribute to ADHD susceptibility, to date no single gene with a major contribution to ADHD has been identified."[42]
[edit]Hunter vs. farmer theory of ADHD
Main article: Hunter vs. farmer theory
The hunter vs. farmer theory is a hypothesis proposed by author Thom Hartmann about the origins of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He believes that these conditions may be a result of adaptive behavior of the species, his theory states that those with ADHD retained some of the older hunter characteristics.[43]
[edit]Neurodiversity
Main article: Neurodiversity
Proponents of this theory assert that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference. They usually support treatment or therapy, but may or may not agree with the use of medication. Social critics argue that while biological factors may obviously play a large role in difficulties sitting still and/or concentrating on schoolwork in some children, for a variety of reasons they have failed to integrate into the social expectations that others have of them. [44]
[edit]Social construct theory of ADHD
Main article: Social construct theory of ADHD
Social critics question whether ADHD is wholly or even predominantly a biological illness. A minority of these critics maintain that ADHD was "invented and not discovered". They believe that no disorder exists and that the behaviour observed is not abnormal and can be better explained by environmental causes or just the personality of the "patient."[45]
[edit]Concerns about medication
Main article: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments
The National Institute of Mental Health states that, "stimulant drugs, when used with medical supervision, are usually considered quite safe".[46]
[edit]Concerns about side effects and long term effectiveness
Some parents and professionals have raised questions about the side effects of drugs and their long term use.[47] Studies have shown that stimulants offer no benefits over behavioral management for periods over 3 years.[48] On February 9, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to recommend a "black-box" warning describing the cardiovascular risks of stimulant drugs used to treat ADHD.[49]
[edit]Non specific nature
Stimulants are often seen as cognitive enhancers or smart drugs. Their effects are non-specific with similar results seen in children and adults with and without ADHD. One finds improved concentration and behavior in all.[50][51][52][53] Due to their non-specific activity, stimulants have been used by writers to increase productivity,[54] as well as by the United States Air Force to improve concentration in combat.[55] A small number of scientists recommend wide spread use by the population to increase brain power.[56]
[edit]Coercion
It is often not a child's decision to take medication. Ethical concerns regarding forced treatment or coercion of a minor arise. Some suspect that children are using stimulants as a cognitive enhancer at the request of their achievement oriented parents.[56]
[edit]Stimulant misuse
Stimulants are controlled psychotropic substances. They are classified as Schedule II substances (Schedule II: Potential for abuse; potential for psychological or physical addiction; currently accepted medical use).[57]
Stimulant medications are commonly resold by patients as recreational drugs, and methylphenidate (Ritalin) is used as a study aid by some students without ADHD.[58]
Non-medical prescription stimulant use is high. A 2003 study found that non prescription use within the last year by college students in the US was 4.1%.[59] A 2008 meta analysis found even higher rates of non prescribed stimulant use. It found 5% to 9% of grade school and high school children and 5% to 35% of college students used a nonprescribed stimulant in the last year.[60]
[edit]Advertising
In 2008 five pharmaceutical companies received warning from the FDA regarding false advertising and inappropriate professional slide decks related to ADHD medication.[61] In Sept. of 2008 the FDA sent a notice to Novartis Pharmaceuticals regarding its advertising of Focalin XR in which they overstate its efficacy.[62] Similar warning were sent to Shire plc with respect to Adderall XR.[63]
[edit]Financial conflicts of interest
Russell Barkley, a well known ADHD researcher, admits to taking money from drug companies for speaking and consultancy fees. There are concerns that this may bias his publications.[64]
In 2008, it was revealed that Joseph Biederman of Harvard, who has played a significant role as a frequently cited ADHD expert, failed to report to Harvard that he had received 1.6 million dollars from drug companies between 2000 and 2007.[65] E. Fuller Torrey, executive director of the Stanley Medical Research Institute which finances psychiatric studies, said “In the area of child psychiatry in particular, we know much less than we should, and we desperately need research that is not influenced by industry money.”[65]
CHADD an ADHD advocacy group based in Landover, MD received a total of $1,169,000 in 2007 from pharmaceutical companies. These donations made up 26 percent of their budget.[66] This is viewed by some as a glaring conflict of interest.[67]
[edit]Concerns about the impact of labeling
Parents could be concerned that telling children they have a brain disorder could possibly harm their self-esteem. Barkley believes labeling is a double-edged sword; there are many pitfalls to labeling but by using a precise label, services can be accessed. He also believes that labeling can help the individual understand and make an informed decision how best to deal with the disorder using evidence based knowledge.[68] Furthermore studies also show that the education of the siblings and parents has at least a short term impact on the outcome of treatment. [69] Barkley states this about ADHD rights: "..because of various legislation that has been passed to protect them. There are special education laws with the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example, mentioning ADHD as an eligible condition. If you change the label, and again refer to it as just some variation in normal temperament, these people will lose access to these services, and will lose these hard-won protections that keep them from being discriminated against. . . ."[68] Psychiatrist Harvey Parker, who founded CHAAD, states, "we should be celebrating the fact that school districts across the country are beginning to understand and recognize kids with ADHD, and are finding ways of treating them. We should celebrate the fact that the general public doesn't look at ADHD kids as "bad" kids, as brats, but as kids who have a problem that they can overcome".[70]
Social critics believe that this knowledge can effectively become a self-fulfilling prophecy mainly through self-doubt. Thomas Armstrong states that the ADHD label is a "tragic decoy" which severely erodes the potential to see the best in a child [71]. Armstrong is a proponent of the idea that there are many types of "smarts" and has adopted the term neurodiversity (first used by autistic rights activists) as an alternative, less damaging, label [72]. Thom Hartmann has said that the brain disorder label is "a pretty wretched label for any child to have to bear."[73]
There is concern about the effects of an ADHD diagnosis on the mental state and self-esteem of patients.[74][75] There is disagreement over the cause of ADHD and there are questions about research methodologies [76], and skepticism toward its classification as a mental disorder.[74]
[edit]ADHD in politics and the media
The media have reported on many issues related to ADHD and has also reported on controversial opinions of individuals.
In 2001 PBS's Frontline ran a TV show entitled "Medicating kids".[77] The program included a selection of interviews with representatives of various points of view. In one segment, entitled backlash, retired neurologist Fred Baughman and Peter Breggin, founder of the 'International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology', who PBS described as "outspoken critics who insist [ADHD] is a fraud perpetrated by the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries on families anxious to understand their children's behavior,"[78] were interviewed on the legitimacy of the disorder. Russell Barkley and Xavier Castellanos, then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), defended the viability of the disorder, although Castellanos stated that little is scientifically understood.[79] Lawrence Diller was interviewed on the business of ADHD along with a representative from Shire Plc. The validity of the work of many of the ADHD "experts" (e.g. Dr. Biederman) Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption has been called in to question by Marcia Angell,[80] former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
Celebrities have jumped into the controversy . Scientologist Tom Cruise's interview with Matt Lauer was widely watched by the public. In this interview he spoke about postpartum depression and also referred to Ritalin and Adderall ( a mix of amphetamines) as being "street drugs" rather than as ADHD medication. This has some basis in fact, as the sale of stimulants on campuses is not uncommon and used by non ADHD students to tackle drudgery (not simply homework but cleaning their room)[[81] In England Baroness Susan Greenfield, a leading neuroscientist,[82] wanted a wide-ranging inquiry in the House of Lords into the dramatic increase in the diagnosis of ADHD in the UK and possible causes.[83] This followed a 2007 BBC Panorama programme which highlighted US research (The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD by the University of Buffalo showing treatment results of 600) suggesting drugs are no better than therapy for ADHD in the long-term. In the UK medication use is increasing dramatically.[citation needed] Other notable individuals have made controversial statements about ADHD. Terence Kealey, a clinical biochemist, has stated his belief that ADHD medication is used to control unruly boys behaviour.[84] Newspaper columnists such as Benedict Carey have also written controversial articles on ADHD.[85][86]
Hearings were held in the US Congress. A series of lawsuits culminating with the failed Ritalin class action lawsuits were in the courts. Antipsychiatry critics such as Peter Breggin and Fred Baughman received a lot of press coverage including PBS's Frontline which ran a TV program entitled "Medicating kids".[87] This timing also coincided with a dramatic increase in the use of stimulant medication which since has leveled off. Opinions regarding ADHD range from those who do not believe it exists to those who believe that there is genetic and physiological basis for the condition.[88]
Labels: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies
