Genesis basis for Sexual Communication Differences

From a Biblical perspective sexuality is part of the basic human “fabric,” not only impacting humans physiologically as described in last month’s post, but also powerfully influencing the way men and women communicate (Arthur, Johnson, & Young, 2007, 833; Lindgren, Schoda & George, 2007, 190; Hussey & Katz, 2008, 204). Many emotional injuries can occur simply from the differences in “the way” men and women communicate, rather than what they were trying to say.

One explanation for these differences can be found in Genesis chapter 3, when the woman and the man were exiled from the garden, God described how their lives would change in distinctly sexual ways: God told the man work would be painful and hard, it would result in “thorns and thistles,” and then the man would die (verses 17-19). God told the woman “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (verse 16) (Allender, 2010). These differences are ultimately expressed in male / female communications.  Male communications generally attempt to answer the question “Am I able to accomplish the task/expectation?” while female attempts generally answer “Is there a relationship or connection where I am safe from want and pain?”  Scripture later answers this question for both as: without God – ‘no,’ with God – ‘Yes’ (John 15).  Scientific research suggests a similar consistency in differences of how males and females communicate, suggesting female communication is generally verbal and centers on patterns of affiliation and similarity – a "pattern focus" on how events or people are related; while male communication is generally behavioral and centers on accomplishment and achievement – “task focus” (Lindgren, Schoda & George, 2007, 191; Hoffman, 2007, 82; Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006, 164).”

So What

These differences can occur as both strengths and weaknesses in a relationship. For example: if a couple were to be assigned to plan a trip to California – generally speaking a male task-focus would include achievement goals: how to get there, arrival time, mode of transportation, cost, etc. A female affiliation-focus would include survival goals of shelter, food, water, and what clothes to pack for survival upon arrival.  By acknowledging and incorporating differences into a plan the couple can complete the journey and survive the trip; by ignoring the differences the couple can fight about the differences and go no-where. Couples can be helped to see unity in their differences by understanding the underlying design. Spouses can learn to see advantages in how Women in general (not only the wife) communicate “many” examples in an attempt to identify a single pattern – just as Men in general (not just this husband) listen to each example as a task to be fixed. If a husband is not aware there is a pattern to be found he can work so hard to “fix” the issues, he misses the point entirely. It is also Very easy for a wife to confuse a lack of skill with an evil intention. In my experience, one of the biggest breakthroughs some couples make during treatment is moving from “they meant to hurt me” to “they had no idea how to communicate in ways that invite me to feel valued.”

Path to Freedom

In a chorus, different members sing different parts with a common commitment to a common end result – male and female differences may have been designed to blend into a similar expression of complex beauty. By understanding how men and women are designed differently, couples can learn to see ways to communicate to each other in ways that dance like melody and rhythm in a single, complex, and beautiful song of intimacy – my job is to help them find their path to their song.

If you want more information on this topic, or want help in applying it to your relationship, you can reach us at:
www.SpiritCounselingTx.com

References:

Allender, Dan B., and Tremper III Longman. Intimae Allies: Rediscovering God's Design for Marriage and Becoming Soul Mates for Life . Carol Stream, Il: Tyhndale House Publishers, Inc., 1995.

Allender, Dan, interview by Dennis Rainey and Bob Lepine. “Sexual Problems in Marriage.” FamilyLife Today. FamilyLife. Little Rock. 2010 йил 16-August.

Arthur, Heather, Gail Johnson, and Adena Young. “Gender Differences and Color: Content and Emotion of Written Descriptions.” Social Behavior and Personality (Society for Personality Research, Inc.) 35, no. 6 (2007): 827-834.

Hoffman, Marie. “From Libido to Love: Relational Psychoanalysis and the Redemption of Sexuality.” Journal of Psychology and Theology (Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University) 35, no. 1 (2007): 74-82.

Hussey, Karen A., and Albert N. Katz. “Perception of the Use of Metaphore by an Interlocutor in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol (Taylor & Francis Group, LCC) 24 (2009): 203-236.

Lindgren, Kristen P., Yuichi Schoda, and William H. George. “Sexual or Friendly? Associations about Women, Men and Self.” Psychology of Women Quarterly (American Psychological Association) 31 (2007): 190-201.

Yost, Megan R., and Eileen L. Zurbriggen. “Gender Differences in the Enactment of Sociosexuality: An Examination of Implicit Social Motives, Sexual Fantasies, Coercive Sexual Attitudas and Aggressiove Sexual Behavior.” Journal of Sex Research (Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality) 43, no. 2 (May 2006): 163-173.
.
.

Copyright © 2015 Spirit Christian Counseling Centers, Inc. All rights reserved.
Aside from small quotations, the material on this site may not be republished elsewhere without expressed permission.

Biological (Brain) Basis for Sexual Communication Differences

When I tell clients that men and women communicate differently, they invariably nod their heads in agreement. Where I start to get surprised reactions from them is when I begin telling them how those differences go beyond social expectations into the very structures of the male and female brain.  Granted, effective communication between humans takes hard work, but sexual differences in how events are perceived and processed adds a complexity that most couples are simply not aware of.

One of the reasons this "complexity" remains hidden in couples is that the husband and wife often use the same word to communicate two very different images. Because they are using the same word they think they are “on the same page,” while not even talking about the same event. Research observations suggest this happens more often than one might think. To be effective in helping couples, a therapist needs insight into how similar experiences described by each spouse can be “lived” and expressed very differently.  While the next post will touch on differences in expression and language, today’s post is about how men and women sense and process (think) their world in gender specific ways.
 

One idea that can interfere with effectiveness in couple’s counseling suggests that apart from basic sexual physiology, sexual differences are only a matter of societal norms. While this view was popular in the early 1980s, research over the last 30 years has not supported it.  Some of the most important biological gender differences between men and women exist in the brain (Johnson, 2006, 292; Lanvers, 2004, 289; and Taylor and Nikolova, 2004, 1).  
 

Take right and left hemispheric “functioning” of the brain as an example; men are normally left-brain dominant and women are normally bilateral (Smalley and Cunningham, 2008, 55; Cozolino, 2006, 270; and Johnson, 2006, 288). Functionally this means if a face contains emotion the Amygdala structure of the brain is activated in the right hemisphere (feminine dominant); if the face is unfamiliar the Amygdala is activated in the left hemisphere (masculine dominant).  This structural difference may represent one reason why females are generally more likely to respond to facial features that represent emotional expression (relational assessment), while males are more likely to respond to features that represent situational or environmental features - threat assessment (Smalley and Cunningham, 2008, 55; Johnson, 2006, 288; Cozolino, 2006, 70).  
 

Men and women also seem to “sense” their environment differently. Across nationality and culture, women consistently show increased perception across all levels of sensitivity in color discrimination, finger sensation, taste and olfactory measures, while male stimulation remains primarily visual (Arthur, Johnson and Young, 2007, 828; Johnson, 2006, 285; Lopez-Sosa and Tevar, 2005, 149; Popovic, 2005, 38; and Smalley and Cunningham, 2008, 54).   

Is it any wonder that image based pornography is almost exclusively a male vulnerability; while women are normally more vulnerable to literary or narrative based pornography?  This is not to say that women are immune to images of attractive men or that men are immune to a fantasy narrative. What these observations do suggest is that each spouse will likely look at the other incredulously and say something like “I don’t get why they’re attracted to that” because their own neural structures are not as sensitive to what “triggers” the other.
 

So What

Human sexuality goes far beyond external and internal sexual organs. Brain structures and sensory processing are different as a result of basic XX and XY chromosome configuration; and these differences influence perception and processing of one’s environment, events, and others. This means it is highly likely that males and females actually experience life in uniquely masculine or feminine ways (Arthur, Johnson and Young, 2007, 828; Lopez-Sosa and Tevar, 2005, 147; and Wiwanitkit, 2006, 171).  If this is true, one might ask how we can ever hope to understand each other.
 

Path to Freedom

If each spouse has spent their life with a male or female brain and senses, the only entity in the Christian marriage equipped to teach the other spouse how to communicate into an experience they have never had is God. A therapist must be skilled to help couples learn to translate what they hear and what they say in ways that help the other person understand and be understood; and, most importantly, have compassion for each other’s experiences – even when they don’t understand them (Parks and Robertson, 2004, 234; and Reeder, 2005, 117).

For more information on this topic, or for help in translating to/from male or female, please contact us at:
www.SpiritCounselingTx.com

References:

Arthur, Heather, Gail Johnson, and Adena Young. "Gender Differences and Color: Content and Emotion of Written Descriptions." Social Behavior and Personality (Society for Personality Research, Inc.) 35, no. 6 (2007): 827-834.

Cozolino, Louis. The Neuroscience of Human Relationships. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006.

Johnson, Gregg. "The Biological Basis for Gender-Specific Behavior." In Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton, Il: Crossway Books, 2006.

Lanvers, U. "Gender in Discourse Behaviour In Parent-Child Dyads: A Liturature Review." Child: Care, Health & Development (Blackwell Publising, Ltd.), April 2004: 481-493.

Lopez-Sosa, Carmen, and Rafael Roldan Tevar. "The Human Sexual System in the Context of the Health Sciences." Sexuality and Disability 23, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 146-149.

Parks, Janet B., and Mary Ann Robertson. "Attitudes Toward Women Mediate The Gender Effect on Attitudes Toward Sexist Language." Psychology of Women Quarterly (American Psychological Association) 28 (2004): 233-239.

Popovic, Miodrag. "Intimacy and its Relevance in Human Functioning." Sexual and Relationship Therapy (Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group) 20, no. 1 (February 2005): 31-46.

Reeder, Heidi M. "Exploring Male-Female Communication: Three Lessons on Gender." Journal of School Health (Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.) 75, no. 3 (March 2005): 115-117

Smalley, Gary, and Ted Cunningham. The Language of Sex: Experiencing the Beauty of Sexual Intimacy. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2008

Taylor, Gregory, and Ofelia Nikolova. "Influence of Gender and Academic Ability in a Computer-Based Spanish Reading Task." Roeper Review (Routlege: Taylor & Francis Group) 27, no. 1 (2004).

Wiwanitkit, Viroj. "Interaction Between Alpha-Fetoprotein Gene and Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone and Effects on Brain Sexual Differentiation: Molecular Function and Biological Process." Sex Disaability (Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.) 24 (August 2006): 169-173.
.
.

Copyright © 2015 Spirit Christian Counseling Centers, Inc. All rights reserved.
Aside from small quotations, the material on this site may not be republished elsewhere without expressed permission.

The Christian Three-Spouse-Marriage

This set of posts explores the history, biology, psychology, and theology of human relatedness that identifies male and female differences in search of the scriptural balance that honors the man, the woman, and God.

Human sexuality begins at conception and is present at the very core of what it is to be human; individuals are first human, and second male and female (Gen 1:27; Allender and Temper, 1995). Research has confirmed human perceptions are made through masculine or feminine senses, processed by a masculine or feminine brain, in a masculine or feminine body (Cozolino, 2006, 51-52; Arthur, Johnson, & Young, 2007, 828; Wiwanitkit, 2006, 171; Lopez-Sosa & Tevar, 2005, 147). Theologically, the book of Genesis describes man and woman being created, equally responsible for unique tasks, and equally answerable to God as suggested by the fact that when both were cursed, each was cursed separately and differently as man and woman (Gen 1:27, 3:16-19).

So What

Historically, the topic of sexual diversity between men and women has been difficult to discuss objectively because it has been so highly politicized.  Some believe these views on sexuality are fiercely defended because they maintain “gender-based power structures” (Scott, 2008, 13; Kleinplatz, et al., 2009, 2; Levant, et al., 2007, 84; Mulholland, 2007, 28). From a power-struggle perspective each side would search for evidence supporting claims that one sex is better or worse suited (weaker or stronger) to exert control or dominance over the other (Hopcroft, 2009, 1846; Piper & Grudem, 2006, 33).

As a result of wrestling for power in the relationship confusion, speculation, myth, and ultimately unhealthy-expectations grow between spouses. The outcomes of these struggles can result in more than arguments and misunderstandings, they can also correlate with sexual abuse, assault, and chronic dissatisfaction in male-female relationships (Kleinplatz, 2009, 2; Popovic, 2005, 32). Unhealthy expectations and communication assumptions lie at the foundation of many difficulties that couples struggle to overcome when relating to each other.

Path to Freedom

Christ offers an alternative solution: both spouses in equal yet uniquely complete intimacy with Him; from this perspective the marriage begins to look like a mysterious dance that honors all three (Eph 5:32-33; Yarhouse, 2005, 34). Learning the first step to this dance begins in learning that men and women generally use the same words to communicate very different thoughts; the second step is then to learn how to translate what the word was intended to mean rather than what the word means to the listener. The next few posts will explore more of the differences in the ways men and women think, feel, approach, and respond to situations and each other; how those differences impact our ability to relate and communicate with each other, and what God’s intended “dance” might look like.

If you want more information on this topic, or want help in applying it to your relationship, you can reach us at:
www.SpiritCounselingTx.com

References:

Allender, Dan B., and Tremper III Longman. Intimae Allies: Rediscovering God's Design for Marriage and Becoming Soul Mates for Life . Carol Stream, Il: Tyhndale House Publishers, Inc., 1995.

Cozolino, Louis. The Neuroscience of Human Relationships. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006.

Heather Arthur, Gail Johnson and Adena Young, "Gender Differences and Color: Content and Emotion of Written Descriptions," Social Behavior and Personality (Society for Personality Research, Inc.) 35, no. 6 (2007).

Hopcroft, Rosemary L. "Gender Inequality in Interaction - An Evolutionary Account." Social Forces (University of North Carolina Press) 87, no. 4 (June 2009): 1845-72.

Kleinplatz, Peggy J., et al. "The components of optimal sexuality: A portrait of "great sex"." The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 18, no. (1-2) (2009).

Levant, Ronald F., K. Bryant Smalley, Maryse Aupont, A. Tanner House, Katherine Richmond, and Delilah Noronha. "Initial Validation of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R)." Journal of Men's Studies (Men's Studies Press, LLC) 15, no. 1 (Winter 2007): 83-100.

Lopez-Sosa, Carmen, and Rafael Roldan Tevar. "The Human Sexual System in the Context of the Health Sciences." Sexuality and Disability 23, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 146-149.

Mulholland, Jon. "The Racialisation and Ethnicisation of Sexuality and Sexual Problems in Sex Therapeutic Discourse." Sexual and Relationship Therapy (Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group) 22, no. 1 (February 2007): 27-44.

Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem. "An Overview of Central Concerns." In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response To Evangelical Feminism, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, 60-94. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2006.

Scott, Dan. Naked And Not Ashamed: How God Redeems our Sexualiuty. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008

Wiwanitkit, Viroj. "Interaction Between Alpha-Fetoprotein Gene and Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone and Effects on Brain Sexual Differentiation: Molecular Function and Biological Process." Sex Disaability (Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.) 24 (August 2006): 169-173.

Yarhouse, Mark A. "Constructive Relationships Between Religeon and the Scientific Study of Sexuality." Journal of Psychology and Christianity (Christian Association for Psychological Studies) 24, no. 1 (2005): 29-35.
.
.

Copyright © 2015 Spirit Christian Counseling Centers, Inc. All rights reserved.
Aside from small quotations, the material on this site may not be republished elsewhere without expressed permission.