Sexual Attitude Reassessment · Reflective Exercise

What You Would Have Written

Six clients, and one decision each, recorded before any evidence is presented. Asking which myths you hold after showing you the evidence produces an answer the evidence wrote.

What this exercise does

You will choose a first clinical move with six clients and receive no feedback on any of them. The evidence arrives afterwards, alongside your own choices, which is the only order in which this question can be asked honestly.

Two of the six are built so that the error runs toward acceptance rather than toward pathology. Nothing here asks you to revise what you value.

Estimated time to complete this exercise: 30 minutes

1Commit
2The evidence
3Your answers
4Defend
5Her side
6Close

Before you begin

How this one works

You will be shown six clients and asked what you would do first with each. You will not be told whether you were right, and no evidence will be presented until after all six are recorded.
That order is the whole design. Asking which myths you hold after showing you the evidence produces an answer contaminated by the evidence. Nobody can accurately report what they believed twenty minutes ago.
Nothing is graded and nothing you type leaves your browser. There is no submission, reloading discards it, and you can copy your own responses at the end.
Choose what you would actually do on a Tuesday afternoon with a full caseload, not what you would do if a supervisor were watching. An answer given for the screen teaches you nothing.

Six clients, six myths, and a record of your own clinical instinct taken before you had any reason to curate it.

References

  1. Basson, R. (2000). The female sexual response: A different model. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 26(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262300278641
  2. Basson, R. (2001). Using a different model for female sexual response to address women’s problematic low sexual desire. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 27(5), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/713846827
  3. Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 124–141.
  4. Grubbs, J. B., Perry, S. L., Wilt, J. A., & Reid, R. C. (2019). Pornography problems due to moral incongruence: An integrative model with a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(2), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1248-x
  5. Kleinplatz, P. J., & Ménard, A. D. (2020). Magnificent sex: Lessons from extraordinary lovers. Routledge.
  6. Kraus, S. W., Krueger, R. B., Briken, P., First, M. B., Stein, D. J., Kaplan, M. S., Voon, V., Abdo, C. H. N., Grant, J. E., Atalla, E., & Reed, G. M. (2018). Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder in the ICD-11. World Psychiatry, 17(1), 109–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20499
  7. Ley, D., Prause, N., & Finn, P. (2014). The emperor has no clothes: A review of the ‘pornography addiction’ model. Current Sexual Health Reports, 6(2), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-014-0016-8
  8. Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Harvard University Press.
  9. Richters, J., de Visser, R. O., Rissel, C. E., Grulich, A. E., & Smith, A. M. A. (2008). Demographic and psychosocial features of participants in bondage and discipline, “sadomasochism” or dominance and submission (BDSM): Data from a national survey. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5(7), 1660–1668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x
  10. Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982.