By Dr. Rita Argiros
“It is not necessary to intervene in normal, healthy, safe behavior. It is necessary, however, to intervene in any behaviors that are so excessive or compulsive that the behavior places the adolescent at risk for harm, or interferes with their healthy and normal functioning and development.“ Jeff Brain, MA, CTS, CEP
What I am about to say, is directed mainly toward alumni but since it is a public post, I’ve tried to fill in enough details so others can follow.
Discussions about sex are difficult. I am asking supporters and critics to be kind and suspend judgment about one another. It has been my experience that those of you who think FFS was totally wrong in all its teachings about sex have a tendency to judge supporters as brainwashed collaborators. On the other side, those who have decided that sexual abstinence is right for you, often think people who disagree are somehow “in denial.” For the rest of this post, please, “Live and Let Live. The truth is probably somewhere between us.
It is undeniably true that FFS has taken a conservative position regarding sex, especially in years past. In part this was due to the unique personalities of the founders, my parents, Tony and Betty Argiros. They were extremely charismatic and had strong opinions. Opinions that were mainstream in 1950, establishment in the 1960s, conservative in the 1970s, extremely right wing in the 1980 and finally hopelessly out of date and so far from the mainstream that their unmoderated use in a therapeutic setting is totally inappropriate.
Nevertheless, they need to be reviewed. I have had hundreds of hours of discussion with my father about his beliefs. Dad wasn’t the most nuanced speaker. He often used hyperbole and he borrowed shamelessly from whatever tradition would support his position. Nevertheless, he clearly had his own views regarding sex and masturbation. These views weren’t the church’s view, and they weren’t AA’s view although Catholics and AA’ers were fellow travelers. Each recognized Tony as their own.
My father believed three things. First, that masturbation was natural—like eating and sleeping. He saw no reason not to talk about it. Second, that it was a distraction from God, from loving his wife and from work. Third, at various times in his life it was as big as problem for him as alcohol abuse was for my mother. Dad believed in sharing his experience, strength and hope. And, while he loved a good debate, his children often felt like they weren’t really OK if they disagreed with him. We have been told that some former residents felt the same way.
He also believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong because people got hurt. Dad rarely if ever used the word sin outside of references to the “Seven deadly sins.” I cannot recall him every making the judgment that a person was a sinner. The conditions of modern life, where young men and women put off getting married until their late 20s or even later, mystified him. Nothing was more important than family to him. And he encouraged young people to marry early. He was homophobic at least in his pronouncements but he had openly gay friends who somehow managed to overlook what he said. He also expected both men and women to follow very stereotypical gender patterns in dress and behavior.
By the mid 1970s’ my mother was in recovery in AA. They were starting a new life. My mother made the most profound change. Dad had always been an earthy and warm Mediterranean. Mom was an Irish-English Episcopalian. During this time she started to let go of her reserve and very private stance. She embraced the idea that all problems could be solved if everyone just talked about them and worked the steps. Our home grew into The Family and then into the Family Foundation School where masturbation was discussed openly at meals and in groups. It was embarrassing for their children, including me, and for others at the school. But it didn’t embarrass everyone. A substantial number of students and staff thrived in that environment. The same environment that was shaming and abusive to some, was helpful, or at least, reassuring to others.
The second generation assumed control over the day to day operations of the school sometime in 2000. Little by little our experiences have been fed into the culture, producing change., we hope it’s for the better. But being a relatively old therapeutic school with a history, we find that sometimes peoples’ image of us does not keep pace with change. And, there tends to be a lag between changes at the top and changes in the day to day operations. Much of the way the school works is embedded in student culture, not in any rule book or procedure manual. And what the students’ pass on from one class to the next, often changes more slowly still.
Recently our current views and practices regarding masturbation were brought into question by someone who I really respect, Tom Croke. There was a blog post that didn’t mention our school by name but we can identify that the issues raised could be referring to us. I thought the post was a great opportunity for a little in-house evaluation and I made sure that the key people at the school read and discussed it. Some of us also had discussions with students. They were asked to reflect on what they thought FFS stood for regarding sex and masturbation, what was practiced in their particular house. What they believed and what they said to the students they worked with.
Results
On the positive side, adults do not discuss masturbation with students in public. Individual students whose behavior is significantly different from the norm receive individual counseling. This may include and invitation to experiment with a period of abstinence from masturbation. By the way, this isn’t only a male issue—although it is more common in males. Some of the behaviors we deal with are excessive masturbation keeping other students awake at night, or waking them up in the middle of the night; students missing a lot of class time in the bathroom, masturbating or exposing the genitals in public settings like the classroom, leaving ejaculate in other students’ bed or clothing, and small groups engaging in erotic asphyxiation. Not all of these behaviors are obsessive. Some are experimental but dangerous. Others use sex for power. Each is dealt with differently. Sometimes these are presenting problems. Sometimes we uncover them after the student has been at the school for a time. (In those cases we usually find out that the behavior predates enrollment.) With all of these types of behavior, we would hope that students would feel uncomfortable, and yes, even guilty. These uncomfortable feelings, in the right time and place, motivate change. Finally, some students who were using drugs, or anger, or self-injury before FFS, may find that they turn to masturbation as a substitute. (Others use food). Normal? Yes. Predictable? Yes. Shameful? Not at all. Dysfunctional? Sometimes.
In the past, these issues were discussed openly among the whole family in mixed sex groups. That does not happen now unless the student spontaneously raises the issue and then the counselor or family leader will step in if the discussion gets out of hand. There is an important caveat. In some cases, the student’s behavior has ruptured or damaged relationships. Then we do have the necessary and frank discussion of the issue with the relevant parties. Nobody is shamed. We are careful to manage these groups with the utmost sensitivity. That is where we are today. Moving from where we were to where we are meant transforming a functioning therapeutic culture without destroying it. That takes time. It is also a process of discovery. Many of the changes that have been made have come about because of feedback from former students.
On the negative side—I found places in the school culture where peer culture is still has coercive elements. In the past, people who had particular problems that are sometimes associated with sex problems were often judged to have sex problems even though they denied it. For example, if a boy was really sleepy and tired day after day, the assumption would be made that he was losing sleep masturbating when he might be depressed or over-medicated. That does not happen now—it hasn’t for a while. It was wrong. It placed students in a very frustrating position. It eroded trust and caused many other negative emotions. However, more subtle forms of absolutism are still present. In many of the dorms boys are still getting together at night and making commitments to be pure (to refrain from masturbation). Students do not feel really free to decline although no external consequences would befall them. What my student informants tell me is that the ritual is sterile. A few students are serious. Others lie. Among those who lie, fewer today feel guilty. Most feel justified. Most of us do are pretty open in our position that masturbation isn’t always a problem. Consequently, students have the cultural space to express mainstream views.
In addition, some students still make purity pledges when they go out on overnight visits. That’s Ok if the individual student is voluntarily practicing a period of restraint. But according to student reports sometimes old practices will re-appear. Kids make commitments before they go out on a home visit to avoid old friends, not to smoke, not to do drugs and, at the very end, they throw in “to be pure.”
Since hypocrisy is at least as damaging as guilt and shame we are helping the students to amend their traditional practices. The kids can still have their dorm circles (it’s an established part of our culture) but we will help them transform them into a general pledge to support each other in their particular commitments—to tell the truth, to stick to a food plan, to abstain from self injury, not to purge, etc.
I found that many people in the school think there is a rule that we don’t masturbate. Neither my sister, my brother or myself, or any of our spouses or anyone in the counseling department believe this is a rule. So called rules just have a way of springing to life—or in this case repeatedly resurrecting themselves like count Dracula. We have been teaching a much more nuanced message about sex for several years now but it’s clear more needs to be done. Black and white thinking is a characteristic of many of our students. They think in rules.
Because so many of our students have difficulty being flexible, they may not get the message about sex or alcohol or drugs or relationships or consumption or anger any of the other things in life that can bring pleasure, but can make trouble when our lives get out of balance. For some of our kids need help with impulse control and taking responsibility. They might actually benefit from a little more guilt about their behavior. For other students, there is too little joy and spontaneity in life. Our perfectionists, our hyper-responsible and our fear driven kids need to hear the other side of the coin. To be human is to make mistakes. To be human is to have a body that feels—pleasure, grief, anger, joy. In the course of their stay at the school, kids can vacillate from one extreme to the other. We watch out for this and do our best to steer kids back to a healthy middle.
It’s a process.
We say no drugs, no alcohol, no smoking at the school. But our kids take that to extremes sometimes. They get the idea that we believe that all alcohol and drug use is wrong and that any student who ever got high and then got into trouble is an addict. That’s not our position. Abstinence from drugs and/or alcohol can be a smart choice for people with tendencies toward chemical dependency—at least consider it. That is our message. For those who are addicts, the school’s teaching is clear. Sobriety is the answer. We are teach our kids that substance abuse is sometimes a way of self-medicating or of escaping painful feelings. Even for non-addicts, part of recovery is getting off the illicit chemicals and dealing with your emotions. However, it might not mean that a lifelong commitment to sobriety is necessary.
So what about sex? For the most part, our position parallels what we teach about drugs and food. There is a rule against sex at FFS. Romantic relationships have no place here. We treat each other like family members. There is no dating while you are at the school. Our students’ issues are serious and relationships are a distraction. They need to be put on hold. From time to time, people do develop feelings for each other—anyway. We help the students avoid deepening the relationship while they are at the school. Both peers and adults support our non-dating culture. Students who have gone through one or more of these infatuations while at the school will tell the suffering lovers that the relationship may not be good for them. Coming from another student this message is often accepted. For the romantic and tender hearted , adults step in with hope. Who knows how things will work out? If the relationship is based on something substantial, they will have a chance to be together when they leave. Many of our students manage quite well that way. They make true friends.
The FFS approach sounds like an unrealistic message in today’s world of instant gratification. But we think that learning to wait is important. To that end, we recommend students consider making a commitment not to enter into a sexual relationship with someone for a period of time after they leave. The fact that many students do not make that commitment before they graduate is a big change from a few years ago when almost everyone did and then promptly broke it.
FFS also teaches that loving relationships are wonderful. In the past we always talked about marriage as being the best thing since sliced bread. I am sure that many of our staff still talk ”marriage” instead of the more inclusive , “relationship.” But I think enough of the staff talk about the value of a committed relationship to give kids permission to be themselves—gay or straight, committed to marriage or not. Don’t get me wrong, there are champions of marriage and traditional values at our school. They have pulpits or lecterns and prominent voices but their views are not monolithic. Kids have the freedom to choose.
There is a strong message at the school against casual sex. The clergy at the school reinforce the message with religious imagery but even here there is diversity. The Catholic priest comes closest to the message that my parents taught but he is not a rigid dogmatist. Our protestant and Jewish clergy are well within the liberal tradition—They have all emailed me to tell me in no uncertain terms that masturbation is not a sin and that we have left the 18th and 19th century obsession with Onanism in the past. For those of us who use science or the 12-steps to frame our message, there is no discussion of sin at all. I have had many good discussions with students about the merits and drawbacks of casual sex.
It is in the context of preparing for good relationships that we teach students about the objectification of women and that the pornography industry harms women. One of the most controversial topics that comes up is masturbation in the context of relationships. I teach that the use of pornography and masturbation within the context of a relationship may become an obstacle to intimacy. Graduating seniors need to know that like money, sex is often a source of conflict in a relationship. They shouldn’t be afraid to talk about how they feel. We read about the current culture and its emphasis on efficiency (the fast food model) and about how the modern sex industry encourages efficient, masturbatory, sex which is much more profitable than sex between partners. We unabashedly sell graduating seniors on the joy of committed sex between loving partners but we warn them it takes work and, sometimes sacrifice.
It has also been our position that cyber-sex addiction is a real problem that affects a small but significant fraction of our students. I imagine we are no different from other therapeutic boarding schools. We have been dealing with students with excessive computer use, with and without pornography, for many years before the subject received attention in the literature. Again, these students, like all our students are dealt with individually with counselors and with their sponsor. They may choose to talk about their issues in peer groups but they are not forced to do so. We have a few special groups related to sex and paralleling our special groups for adoptees, for students with other types of trauma, for anger, etc. Students are never forced to attend these groups.
We have always used the SA (Sexaholics Anonymous) literature, not the SLAA (Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous) literature at our school. Several people who I respect, who have long periods of recovery, are very comfortable with the SA position. Which is that if you have a sex addiction, sobriety means no sex outside of marriage. No doubt about it. That is an extreme and extremely clear bottom line. It is one that some people are attracted to. The SLAA program, on the other hand, allows each person to develop his or her own definition of sobriety. Recently I have been teaching the book American Anonymous by Beniot Denizet-Lewis in my living skills class. SLAA is mentioned several times in that book and through that experience, SLAA concepts and literature are being introduced into FFS culture. Again, this expands choices.
I know what it is we are trying to teach. But I also know that no matter how careful we are, some students will hear another message. So much of the growth and change at FFS in the past several years has been because of dialog with critics, supporters, and critical supporters. Keep it coming.
