Schnarch and Penner: Approaches to Sexual Fulfillment, Reaction Paper Example

In relationships between couples, even the healthiest marriages or partnerships may experience sexual problems at one time or another. Often, when external events are happening which are impacting the couple, their intimate relationship may also be affected. These problems, if unaddressed, can cause a relationship to deteriorate and ultimately may result in divorce or breakup. This is unfortunate, because many psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health providers can easily treat many of these sexual disorders, using approaches that involve a wide range of methods. This paper will focus on two distinct approaches to sexual fulfillment and therapy, the Penner approach and the Schnarch approach to sexuality.

The Penner approach to human sexuality, based on the work of a married couple who have written extensively about sex education and sexual enhancement, have formulated their approach based heavily on a religious framework. Their belief is that human sexuality is a gift from God which involves much more than simply physical responses to stimulation but rather is an integral part of the plan of divine creation. This gift has been directly bestowed upon people by the Almighty, and is meant to be cherished and welcomed. The Penner doctrine teaches how to achieve sexual pleasure within marriage, and encourages couples who are not satisfied with their sexual lives to make efforts to correct these problems rather than ignoring them at the expense of the relationship. The Penner approach views the purpose of sex as promoting unity between couples, as well as for procreation and pleasure, and places a great deal of emphasis on the mutuality of intimate relationships (Penner, 1990.)

The foundation of the mutuality that the Penners espouse is considered to be the central focus of the sexuality of each partner. It is based on religious doctrine that people are expected to give themselves to each other when they decide to marry, and that this is a mutual mandate. They base this on passages from the New Testament which address the sexual relationship of husbands and wives with a directive for mutuality. This is because husbands and wives are equal in God’s vision, so that they have the same rights and responsibilities. This approach also puts a focus on the importance of sexual partners maintaining healthy self-images in order to support the physical relationship between the couple, since when self-esteem is an issue, the sex life between partners is very likely to be affected negatively.

The Penner approach also advocates each partner become comfortable and familiar with his or her own body, including an understanding of the ways in which it functions. Such self-knowledge will optimize the quality of physical intimacy the person is able to experience with his or her partner (Penner, 1990.) Spending time with one’s partner or spouse is an essential component of setting the stage for physical intimacy, according to this method. Despite all of the demands of modern lives and family schedules, the Penners emphasize that it is crucial that parents plan to spend time alone apart from family time, and making that a priority sends a message to each partner that time together is desired and valued.

Conserving energy as a way to make sure that married couples are able to sustain sexual desire for each other is another aspect of the Penner approach to sexuality; the point is that if all of the energy one has is spent on other physical activities, personal and professional, there may not be enough left over to invest in sexual activity. There is a connection between genuinely being exhausted because of all the involvement in necessary activities during one’s day and having a diminished sex drive. In addition, couples need to manage all of the distractions of daily life in a way that allows them to concentrate on being together intimately when it is time to connect sexually. This must be accomplished by analyzing the stress and distractions in one’s environment.

An important part of the Penner approach is for people to take responsibility for their role when a couple is having sexual problems in their relationship. Rather than blaming problems on the other spouse, each partner must take responsibility for his or her body and the sexual issues that are associated with it (Penner, 1990.) Doing so allows a couple to unite as a single unit and create the sort of physical bond that they want and deserve. Ideally, a couple should be having fun during their sexual encounters, as the Penners promote the idea that sex was created by God in order for men and women to enjoy themselves within a marriage.

The Penner approach contains strong spiritual implications for couples, giving “permission” for married partners to enjoy a lively, raucous sex life based on God’s divine wishes for their happiness. The methods that they advocate posit that sexual fulfillment can and should be achieved if a couple internalizes the values of mutuality, positive self-images, and a desire to spend quality time together away from other people and the demands of modern living. Emotional fulfillment will be a natural byproduct of a gratifying, intimate sex life between partners, always against the backdrop of a healthy spirituality.

Unlike the Penner approach, the Schnarch approach to human sexuality is not based on a religious framework, and focuses more on personal growth than on mutuality. The emphasis is on helping a person reach his or her sexual potential by maximizing the ability to experience and give intimacy as well as passion; this will be accomplished during the process of working on sexual issues. Schnarch takes the approach that the spontaneous sexuality of a person provides a window into that person, his or her partner, and their relationship. There is no judgment or assumptions about whether or not the relationship that is being addressed is one that involves formal marriage. In addition, Schnarch promotes the idea that people’s sex lives improve as they grow older in contrast with the intimate activity of younger adults.

While many marriage and sexuality therapists emphasize the interaction between the couple, this therapy focuses more on an individual’s differentiation instead of the interpersonal skills that are typically stressed in this type of work. Communication skills, empathic listening, compromise and negotiation are not the central focus, but rather Schnarch helps people to tolerate their anxiety so that their ability to hear and say difficult things is strengthened, as well as one’s ability to soothe oneself emotionally (Schnarch, 2009.) The goal is to help people change their relationships by working on their own personal growth. The process is extremely intense because of that focus, and frequently occurs at a much more rapid pace than that of other therapies. Unlike the Penner approach, this method does not pursue a goal of helping a couple become more emotionally connected, but rather, the opposite: the objective is to help people to be emotionally less “fused.”

Schnarch’s theoretical model is based on the client’s capacity to develop and strengthen the ability to hold onto himself or herself at the same time that the person is successfully forming and sustaining relationships with other people. Differentiation, as it is regarded, involves a positive view of human nature that includes resilience, personal growth, and sexual development that continues throughout one’s life. This differs from other theoretical models in that it does not assume that there is a pathological basis for various common problems like sexual dysfunction, sexual disinterest, emotional aloofness, and conflicts that remain in stalemate (Schnarch, 2009.)

Unlike the Penner model, Schnarch uses language in his discussions of human sexuality that would most likely be completely off- limits to the Penners, because he promotes “no-holds-barred” eroticism to which he refers as “fucking” in various parts of his writing. It is impossible to imagine that the Penners, given their religious and spiritual backgrounds, would feel comfortable engaging in such relatively raunchy wording in their instructions and suggestions to couples.

The Penner model of the sexuality suggests that the role of pornography would not be a helpful aspect in the sex life of a couple. The religious basis of the theory would likely view the use of pornography as part of a sexual addiction that creates avoidance in maintaining a truly intimate relationship, that which would be blessed by God. Because of the religious nature of the Penner framework, if a partner becomes interested in pornography, that husband or wife would most likely feel extremely guilty and conflicted about this hidden activity. This would undoubtedly create obstacles for the couple’s sexual and intimate life because when they would be involved in having sex or other physical affection, the partner who is involved with pornography would be reminded of it; this would likely be considered sexually damaging behavior. It is easy to surmise that the Penner model would look very poorly on the role of pornography in any marriage.

The Schnarch perspective of pornography likely would present somewhat differently, because of its focus on the growth of the individual. For example, perhaps an interest in pornography might contribute to the self-actualization that is the goal of this model if the pornography introduced variety or creativity into the person’s sexual toolkit. The Schnarch framework would likely be either neutral or more forgiving in its regard of the use of pornography. On one hand, if a spouse becomes interested in pornography, it could have little or no effect on the relationship at all; on the other hand, it could provide a tremendous obstacle to intimacy if the desire to be involved with pornography overshadows the motivation to form a real attachment to another person.

The messages about sexuality that derive from each of these two theorists are extremely different from one another. The religious foundation that is at the basis of the Penner model consistently promotes the values inherent in Judeo-Christian morality. The focus on mutuality concentrates the energy and motivation for having a good sex life on to making sure that each person in a relationship is receiving pleasure—as long as it is in the context of a marital relationship. The giving of each other emotionally and sexually in a relationship is a command from God; most of the suggestions in the Penner theory revolve around self improvement that is motivated by having a good relationship. By contrast, the Schnarch theoretical model brings in message of self-actualization being a priority rather than the interpersonal nature of being in a sexual relationship. This perspective places the greatest importance on individual, self-growth, and differentiation rather than interpersonal skills. Rather, the fully developed individual is then capable of engaging in more healthy relationships, loving and sexual. None of the discussion about relationships in this model are contingent upon being married, giving the distinct sense that the Schnarch perspective is more opened and nonjudgmental; it gives the message that he believes that relationships are valid, regardless of their formal legal or religious status.

References:

Penner, C., Penner,J. & Collins,C. (1990). Counseling for Sexual Disorders. New York: Word Publishing Group.

Schnarch, D. (2009). Intimacy and Desire: Awaken the Passion in your Relationship. New York: Beaufort Books.