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.