Books in 2012: I’ll Quit Tomorrow

Through reading glasses* under a porch light in the backyard**, I spent a lot of last night reading I’ll Quit Tomorrow: A Practical Guide to Alcoholism Treatment. I finished the book late this morning. Assigned reading for my substance abuse counseling class, the book is designed for substance abuse counselors, originally published in 1980 and written by Vernon E. Johnson, “founder and president emeritus of the Johnson Institute in Minneapolis,” a treatment facility for alcoholics and their families.

I didn’t expect to enjoy the book, because I judged it by its cover (no offense to its designer, should by way of internet miracle, he or she stumble upon this post). But now, I am really glad that my professor assigned it. What the future holds regarding the population of people with whom I’ll work as a therapist has yet to be revealed, but should I wind up working with alcoholics or their families, some of what I got out of this book — the third book I’ve read in 2012 — will help me do it. And some of the excerpts I’ll share below might resonate with anybody who has or hasn’t been affected by alcoholism.

“The obvious question at this point is, ‘Why don’t these people see what is happening to them and quit drinking?’ … However, as one might expect, it is the wrong question. … If you drop ‘and quit drinking’ from this inquiry, then you get to the real question: ‘Why don’t they see what is happening to them?’ The answer is, they can’t. … Their defense systems continue to grow, so that they can survive in the face of their problems. The greater the pain, the higher and more rigid the defenses become; and this whole process is unconscious. Alcoholics do not know what is happening inside of themselves. Finally, they actually become victims of their own defense mechanisms. … Not only are they unaware of their highly developed defense systems, they are also unaware of the powerful feelings … buried behind them, sealed off from conscious knowledge, but explosively active. Because of this, judgment is progressively impaired–and impaired judgment, by definition, does not know it is impaired.” -pages 27-28

“Now another powerful system of defense, equally unconscious, swings into action, namely, projection. Projection [in the realm of alcoholism, anyway] is the process of unloading self-hatred onto others. Again, the alcoholic does not know what is actually happening. The more hateful alcoholics unconsciously see themselves to be, the more they will come to see themselves as surrounded by hateful people. ‘They are always trying to run my life,’ or ‘They are messing things up and making it harder for me!’ … In any case, this load of self-hatred must be dumped in order for alcoholics to survive.” -page 31

Regarding what the wife of an alcoholic husband might say:

“… she reaches the point at which she actually says, ‘I couldn’t care less what happens to him.’ Whereas, of course, all sane persons do care when the very structure of their established lives is being seriously threatened. If it were true that she did not care, it would be a mark of illness, not health. What she must learn is how not to be careless, but how to care and still cope.” -page 95

And this is true regardless of whether you are or know an alcoholic:

“To put it exactly, the goal is to help the patient learn to discern accurately what his own behavior does to the other person emotionally. It is essential to know one’s own feelings at a given moment, but in a life in relationship it is necessary to sense with equal accuracy the feelings of the other person. More particularly, it is important to recognize how one’s own behavior influences someone else’s emotional response. … It is obvious, of course, that without personal insight empathy is impossible. One must be in touch with one’s own feelings in order to have any real appreciation or understanding of another’s.” -pages 96-97

*It’s true. I have reading glasses.

**Also true. We can do that in February in Florida. πŸ™‚

Contraception.

One word describes a recent set of posts about contraception on a blog I frequent called Bad Catholic, written by a guy named Marc Barnes:

Brilliant.
Barnes, who I think might be a genius, is a college kid at Franciscan University of Steubenville and a clearly Catholic Christian whose humor (even if often sarcastic and occasionally irreverent in inexplicably appropriate ways) gets me every time. His recent two posts about contraception explain why the Catholic Church is opposed to it and expose the reality that until relatively recently, so was every Protestant church. Both posts are so very worth the read. 

From part 1:

“The natural end of sex is both unity and procreation. Love and life. Shocking, but true. If this is denied, and it is claimed that sex is solely about making babies, then you’re a jerk in the vein of Henry VII, and a Puritan besides. If, on the other hand, it is claimed that sex is solely about pleasure, one must contend with the shocking fact of what β€” precisely β€” leaves a man and enters a woman.

To argue otherwise is to look at a farmer casting seeds upon fertile ground and claim that he is casting the seed for the pure joy of seed-casting. This is not to say there is no joy, even a wild joy, to be found in planting a field. It is simply to note that it would be an insane man who would plant his field by the logic that throwing seeds is fun, and then become shocked and annoyed when his field bore grain in due season. Every part of the action of sex speaks to the creation of new life.”

From part 2:

“Not one, single Protestant denomination before the 1930?s held that the use of artificial contraception was anything but sinful. May I ask, what on earth has changed, besides the fact that we now live in a culture that really, really wants birth control?”

Before you click off my site and on to Barnes’s posts, you should know that because the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception does not mean the church expects couples to have sex so willy-nilly that they wind up like the Duggars. The church does teach that if a couple is sexually active, it should a) be married and b) be open to children (Click here and refer to the third question the priest asks an about-to-be-married couple right before the vows at a Catholic wedding.). But the church is not opposed to family planning. It is not opposed to your own deciding when you will and won’t have kids. It is opposed to your own deciding when you will and won’t be fertile (as well as to rendering a womb unsafe for and/or discarding fertilized eggs [which are a.k.a. super tiny babies]). Sex, according to the Church, is for babies and for bonding, until God says otherwise.

So much more I’d like to say about sex and contraception. In due time. But in the meantime, if you’re wondering how a couple can decide when to and not to have kids without deciding when to and not to be fertile, click on the third and fourth links below for a couple old posts about natural family planning. But first, go read Bad Catholic:

Click here to read Why Contraception Is a Bad Idea #1 β€” Natural Law in full on Bad Catholic.

Click here to read Why Contraception is a Bad Idea #2 β€” Scripture Prohibits It in full on Bad Catholic.

For more about natural family planning, click here and here.

Social Media: The Beginning and the End.

Happy anniversary to me!

Today, I celebrated my second anniversary as a person who isn’t on Facebook. It was magical — dancing, flowers, chocolate covered smartphones. You name it.

All right, actually — I woke up, went to work, had a bagel. But when I thought of it, I read THIS, the first Facebook story of mine to be published. I wrote it in 2005, a) before I was good at writing and b) because I — adorably — thought this new “server” called “thefacebook” (Yes, kids, it was called that.) was fascinating. Little did I know “fascinated” would morph over time into “passionately against” and play a giant role in my life and career. Anyway, once again — seven years later — my apologies to Bobby Lewis (That’ll only make sense, friends, after you read what I wrote for the Oracle.).

But back to my day — I quietly reflected on what I really can’t believe: it has been two years.

Two years since, when I tried to quit, Facebook said this:

I wonder if they DO miss me.

Sneaky, sneaky — but, “Sorry, Facebook,” I said. “Olivia, Manny, Olivia, Kim and Laurel will have to suck it up.” I pressed on toward deactivation.

Obvs, “I spend too much time using Facebook.” So I selected it. Which I figured would finish the process. Only, I was wrong.

“I know me better than you do, FB. It’ll never work.” -Me.

Needless to say, I had to know what other ploys to coerce a person into not quitting helpful hints Facebook planned to offer. So, I tried a couple other selections:

and

Silly Facebook.

Unconvinced, I continued toward deactivation. One step remained:

What you can’t see under the security check is something like
“I’ve been trash talking social media for years. It’s time to
practice what I preach.”

I just had to type “opposition uncled,” and it would be finished. I would have no Facebook account.

And so…

Please don’t email adawg85@hotmail.com. I don’t remember the password.

I did it.

I really did it.

And I really don’t miss Facebook.