Sanders’ Concept of “Genitalization of the Heart”, Essay Example

Gary Sanders uses the concept of “the need for human affiliation” (Sanders, 2000) to refer to every human beings innate requirement for companionship, social interaction, and a sense of commonality and community with other people.  This affiliation can be as simple as the personal connection one makes with another individual in line at a grocery store or as complex as the relationship between parent and child.  He applies this concept to people with a same-gender orientation by suggesting that homosexual relationships stem from the individual’s need to connect with other people.  In working with such clients, he suggests that the therapist must allow the client to acknowledge their affiliative love rather than to try and view any relationships this individual might have in terms of sexual activity.  Sanders states that both same-gender and opposite-gender relationships are driven by a similar need for human affiliation.  Thus, it’s counter-intuitive to try and counsel clients to alter their sexual orientation from same-gender to opposite-gender because sexual activity is not a driving concern in the seeking out of human affiliation.

Sanders’ concept of “genitalization of the heart” (Sanders, 2000) refers to the manner in which gay men tend to try and use sex as a means of achieving a fulfilling and intimate connection with another person. Although this concept can be applied to both gay and straight groups, he has found that it dominates the social relationships of gay men especially because they lack the traditional social outlets and community acceptance for developing intimate relationships.  Addressing the “genitalization of the heart” (Sanders, 2000) requires a therapist to encourage his/her clients to reflect on what they are actually seeking by engaging in such behavior.    Sanders suggests that clients can be inspired through the recounting of people who have overcome such behaviors and gone on to find meaningful intimate relationships that are not reliant on sexual activity.  He also states that it can be helpful for couples to clearly discuss their expectations for the relationship and their non-sexual desires.

The “tyranny of sameness” (Sanders, 1993) refers to the cultural belief that individuality is less important than ensuring that all people exhibit the same behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes. This can negatively affect both gay and straight relationships because it requires couples to set aside their own needs in favor of those adhered to by society as a whole.  It also deters couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, from celebrating the manner in which difference can enrich their relationship.  The “tyranny of sameness” (Sanders, 1993) can be especially damaging for gay couples, however, because this quest for sameness often requires them to veil their own intimate relationships in secrecy so as not to be seen as going against the cultural grain.

The “tyranny of secrecy” (Sanders, 1993) referred to by Sanders describes the manner in which gay couples are oppressed by mainstream culture’s abhorrence of difference. This often requires people in same-sex relationships, whether they are sexual or not, to hide their affections, which forces them to devalue both themselves and their intimate relationships.  This is connected to the “patriarchal trivialization of affection” (Sanders, 2000) in that same-sex relationships are often not given the same weight or sociocultural acceptance as opposite-sex relationships.  The inability to receive public acknowledgement of an intimate relationship can be very damaging to those with same-gender orientation as is prevents them from achieving the same level of social acceptance as people in opposite-gender relationships.  Sanders addressed the “tyranny of secrecy” (Sanders, 1993) in his clinical practice by helping his clients to become aware of the manner in which they were victimized by this tyranny, and how it came to dictate their everyday actions and how they viewed themselves in relation to society as a whole.  By acknowledging that this tyranny existed, Sanders’ clients were able to begin to work toward lessening the hold that it had on their lives.

Maturana’s definition of violence, as referenced by Sanders (1989), involves the imposition of one person’s will over another’s, regardless of how this action is carried out. It strikes me that this definition can cover almost any imagined scenario, but Sanders purposefully chose a broad definition because he believes it allows therapists to to reevaluate the different ways that damage can be done to an individual.  This definition can guide therapists who are working with sexual conflicts or sexual orientation issues by assisting them in categorizing whether their client’s behavior is socially responsible or socially irresponsible, irregardless of whether physical violence is present.  This can also be helpful in determining the effect of a client’s sexual activity in terms of motivation and intention.

References

Sanders, G. (2000). Men together: Working with gay couples in contemporary times. Couples on the Fault Line. Retrieved from http://www.familytherapy.org/downloads.html

Sanders, G. (1993). The love that dares to speak its name: From secrecy to openness–gay and lesbian affiliations. Secrets in Families and family Therapy. Retrieved from    http://www.familytherapy.org/downloads.html

Sanders, G. (1989). A cybernetic-systemic approach to problems in sexual functioning. Intimate Environments. Retrieved from http://www.familytherapy.org/downloads.html

Sanders, G. (n.d.) Five sexy words. Retrieved from http://www.familytherapy.org/downloads.html

Sanders, G. (n.d.) Twelve successful premises of a healing and therapeutic childcare orientation   from the phoenix adolescent sexual offenders program. Retrieved from http://www.familytherapy.org/downloads.html