New Page 1

Feeling lonely is a constant affliction for many people.  Lonely people carry their loneliness with them like a shroud.
It covers and darkens each experience as a storm cloud blocks the sun.  It's torment is a painful reminder of the 
Biblical admonition "It is not good that man should be alone."  Yet, it is more than merely being alone. The mere
condition of being alone cannot produce the sense of isolation and emptiness known as loneliness.

Loneliness doesn't just arise when one is bereft of social attachments.  It doesn't require the absence of people.  
Loneliness occurs in crowded rooms and even in families.  It isn't just the lack of social attachments.  It prohibits 
social attachments. The lonely person, though desperate for closeness, is prone to reject efforts to connect.  Feeling 
alienated, estranged, and acutely longing for companionship the lonely heart wonders why anyone would want to be 
with him.

Loneliness is more than feeling alone, it is feeling alienated.   It is more than feeling isolated - it is feeling unwanted. 
It is more than feeling estranged - it is feeling undesirable.  It is a destructive affliction and it kills more than the human
spirit.

For example; you know it can cause heartaches, but did you know it could also cause heart attacks?  Loneliness 
shortens the life it makes miserable.  The explanation is stress, but stress alone isn't the culprit.

Stress affects people differently.  What is a disabling level of stress to one person is an enabling level to another.  
Why does stress rapidly evolve into distress with one person, but not another?  Part of the answer is individual 
vulnerability.  Some people are more vulnerable to stress than others and one of the reasons is loneliness.

There is ample evidence that vulnerability to stress is intensified by the lack of close, bonded relationships.  Social 
research confirms that we derive something from attachments that in effect, serves to immunize us from stress.  Our 
innate need for nearness results in a quest for relationship.  From that pursuit come attachments, social bonds, 
friendship, and love.  But it's getting harder.

Historically, marriage and family have been a prime source for meeting nearness needs.  In this age of anxiety, when 
tranquilizers are the most frequently prescribed medicine, it is not surprising that marriages and families are less secure
than ever before.  Sadly, the institution of marriage and family does not offer the stability and support it once did, and
we are paying the price.

Actuarial statistics reveal that married people live longer than single people.  We simply don't do as well alone as 
we do when we have intimacy.  As the divorce rate escalates, so does vulnerability to stress.

Increasingly, health specialists are adopting the attitude that disrupted social bonds affect the body's immune 
system increasing susceptibility to disease.  Feeling alone and unwanted hurts the heart, emotionally and physically.  
Consider some of the evidence.

Studies show the mortality rate of widowers is forty to sixty percent higher during the first six months of bereavement.
If remarriage occurs, mortality rates return to normal.

The health risk vulnerability of people lacking committed social bonds is further dramatized by a study examining 
death rates for smokers and non-smokers.  Not surprisingly, smokers have higher death rates than non-smokers.  
Still, the most revealing statistic is that in both smoking and non-smoking populations, single, widowed, and divorced
men had the highest mortality rates.  Divorced men who smoked had the highest rates of all.  Being alone is bad
enough, feeling unwanted is worse.

Social scientists have discovered several microcosmic population groups with high percentages of centenarians.  
Studies to discover the secret of their long lives have yielded mixed and confusing results.

The first group, found in the Georgian province of the old Soviet Union, led physically active lives.  Old folks were
climbing up and down mountains, carrying heavy loads, and pushing overloaded wheelbarrows.  Researchers 
concluded that cardiovascular fitness explained their longevity.  Books and articles were published and a fitness 
craze (for which Adidas is eternally grateful) commenced.

However, the reason for the longevity wasn't that unequivocal.  The researchers found their conclusions weakened 
by the discovery of a similarly venerable group in India that were extremely sedentary.  Day after day they sat around
barely moving. After the initial disappointment, the researchers renewed their examination of life-style and 
discovered another "reason" for the villagers’ longevity.  They had a high-fiber diet.  More books and articles, and  
high-fiber diets became accepted as the secret of longevity.  Fiber was in vogue and all-bran became fashionable.

However, the confusion returned when another batch of centenarians was located in Peru.  The dilemma deepened 
- no books and articles this time.  These aged ones not only weren't active, their primary diet was homemade beer!

My research on these populations reveals only one thing common to all.  In every instance the communities valued 
and respected their elders.  There was no mandatory retirement age, nor were their convalescent homes.  There was 
no segregation by age at all.  The older members of each group were involved in community activities, including 
meaningful work.  They were valued for their experience and knowledge, and felt needed, wanted, and loved.

Since the loss of established relationships increases stress vulnerability establishing loving, committed relationships is
the best safeguard. Yet, it's not as simple as surrounding yourself with people.  Over-coming loneliness requires a 
systematic approach beginning with the reduction of self-alienation.

 1.  Make your first priority the establishment of a loving relationship with yourself.

The irony of relationships is that you can never have a successful relationship with another until you can have one
with yourself.  Benefiting from the therapeutic balm of being accepted and loved isn't possible unless you feel
acceptable and lovable.

Feeling lonely is not the same as being alone.  Feeling lonely occurs when you are alone with someone who doesn't
accept you.  You!  Being alone is not the problem.  Self-rejection is the problem. The rejection that damages emotional
health is not social rejection.  It is self-rejection.  Rejection by others isn't able to harm until it is accepted.  Try saying
this when you suffer social rejection.

An additional problem is that people with low self-esteem perceive social rebuff when none exists.  Feeling 
undesirable they assume no one else desires them.  Feeling unacceptable they perceive a lack of acceptance.  
Believing themselves unworthy of love and affection they turn inward and feel isolated and abandoned.  Greater 
self-acceptance and self-esteem precludes the perception of isolation.

Healthy self-esteem is the antidote.  Individuals with high self-esteem enter social settings expecting to be 
accepted and included.  It doesn't surprise them when people are friendly, they believe they're worth getting to 
know.  They aren't amazed at being desired since they feel desirable.  Low self-esteem results in the opposite 
expectations. When rejection is expected even loving behavior can be interpreted as evidence of unworthiness.

 More often than not self-perceptions determine social rejection, not the callousness of others.  Self-acceptance 
must precede the acceptance of others.

More important than finding the "right" person, is being the right person.  Waiting for the right person to come along
ignores the reality that the right person is anyone with whom you can establish a bond.  Reach out and strengthen
bonds with your friends, children, family, and community.  When it's not possible to be with loved ones write short
notes of love and support, or make "thinking of you" telephone calls.

It's not enough to start a relationship, it must be nurtured and protected.  Burning bridges is not smart.  Chances are
you will pass that way again.  Work out problems, resolve differences, and don't permit grudges to rob you of
bondedness.  The effort of resolving differences serves two functions.  It preserves a valuable resource for emotional
nourishment, and it builds character and develops human potential benefiting you twice over.

 If loneliness is the problem, increased self-esteem is the answer.  The acceptance of love from another demands 
the acceptance that one is lovable.

Excerpted from From Uptight To All Right by Jerome Murray, Ph.D., Manor House publishing.  $12.95.

I am seeing someone who is in the process of a divorce. Even though his wife has been very nasty and cruel to 
him and I, he is still civil with her and even has "just because" phone conversations with her. I know that they are 
still emotionally bonded or enmeshed, but how do you explain that to a person. I want to break away from him 
because of this unhealthy bond that still exists between them but how do I make him understand what he is doing. I 
am not looking to change him, but I would like to give him an explanation that he will understand.

The hardest advice to hear is the advice you already know. I have a rule of thumb for readiness to re-commit 
after a separation or divorce. It takes three years. One year to deal with the emotion-al issues of divorce, one year to 
get your head on straight so you're ready for someone else, and one year to bond with another person and be sure 
this relationship is for you. A marriage involves more than a legal bond. There are emotional bonds, financial bonds, 
family bonds, bonds with children; just to name a few. "Divorcing" means dissolving all these bonds and finding a 
healthy way to deal with the issues they represent. It takes time.

This one is not for you. Run, don't walk, to the nearest exit. Your "need" to have him understand is as fallacious 
as his "need" to humor her. It's an excuse to keep contact in hope something will happen. Ironically, the best chance 
(if there is one) for this relationship to succeed is for you to walk away. He will have time to sort out his feelings and 
make a rational decision - if he is going to at all. Meanwhile, if you stay, there is no chance - unless you're willing to 
be a just a source of comfort to him - because you will only be used. Not because he's bad, but because he's not good 
for anyone right now; not even himself. Don't you deserve more?

 I have been dating a guy for almost two years. We have a lot of problems. The main problem is that he 
masturbates. I don't mind it once in a while but he does it all the time. He would rather do that than to be with me. 
What do I do?

Run, don't walk, to the nearest exit. I don't have the space to detail why this behavior is counterproductive to a 
relationship. Anyway, it's obvious. Such narcissistic self-obsession is indicative of retarded psychosexual 
development making this person ill-suited to bond with anyone. It's perverse, and even mildly sadistic. Don't get me 
wrong. It's not the masturbation. Nothing wrong with that, but why aren't you included? Sexual behavior that by its 
nature precludes the involvement of a partner, when a willing partner is available, is unhealthy. If, occasionally, 
your partner wants to masturbate while you watch, or participate, then fine. The key is your statement, "He would 
rather do it than be with me." Then let him do it alone. Move on.

I can't get my teenage son to obey me at all.  Our relationship is the "pits."  He wants me to quit "raggin' on him 
all the time, and I told him that if he would do what I told him we would have a better relationship.  Do you have 
any techniques I could use?  I'm going crazy!

Yours is a common lament and one I hear a lot.  Most parents feel if their children would do as they were told 
they would get along better...but the opposite is true, if you got along better they would do as they were told.  
Discipline follows relationship, not vice versa.  Concentrate on building a relationship with your son that he would 
not want to lose and you'll find him more responsive to your discipline.

I work for a guy who is a real pain in the neck.  He treats me like dirt and won't listen to any of my suggestions.  
He thinks he's the only one with any brains and his staff is just there to carry out his wishes.  I'll never get ahead 
working for this rotten supervisor, how can I get him to treat me better?

I sympathize, but you're asking the wrong question.  The right question is, "How can I be more successful even 
though my supervisor is rotten?  Being a better supervisor is his responsibility - yours is being the best employee 
you can be.  Keep your focus where your power is, your behavior.

Don't let your success be limited because someone else made a poor choice.  Life would be a lot simpler if 
everyone cooperated with our plans, but unfortunately they usually have their own ideas about how to do things.  
However, this can't prevent our success unless we tell ourselves it will.  By concentrating on what you have control 
of you might just get a change in others, but at least there'll be a change in you.

In surveys of public trust toward various professions politicians rank somewhere below used car salesmen.  The 
public perception of a politician’s character is so cynical the term political ethics is an oxymoron.  Why is this so?  
Why is it that a profession having so great an influence on the public welfare is riddled with scoundrels?  Part of the 
answer lies in the nature of the job.  Politics provides a fertile breeding ground for two factors having the greatest 
potential for corrupting human character.  Power and greed.

 Lord Acton said "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  The history of civilization validates 
his observation and it is especially evident in political history.  The ferment of power and greed brews a toxin 
capable of prostituting the most saintly citizen.

This latent contaminate can destroy the noblest of intentions.  Idealistic reformers enter politics only to be ground 
into self-serving opportunism by the realities of a political system more concerned with self-perpetuation than 
service.  Since politics is essential to government and effective government is essential to human welfare, controls 
must be implemented to limit this occupational pollution.  One such control is term limitation.

Our founding fathers never intended government to be a career, they intended it to be a public service.  Their 
vision was for the best of our citizenry to step aside from their personal pursuits and devote a ration of time to the 
public welfare.  Somewhere between then and now the concept of temporary public service with its implied personal 
sacrifice became perverted into personal aggrandizement.  When politics is a career a politician’s first order of 
business is to secure his perpetuation.

Since continuing in office becomes a career politician's number one priority, personal integrity and the public good 
are subordinated to keeping the job.  Political decisions are made on the basis of soliciting the public's vote instead 
of serving the public's welfare.

If the concept of temporary public service was returned two important changes would occur.

First, politics would attract a different type of person.  It's no secret to anyone partially aware that, as a general 
rule, the finest of our citizenry do not enter politics.  They enter business and the professions.  If terms were limited 
making a career in politics impossible, it is likely that better qualified people would donate a few years of their time 
to serving the public interest.

Secondly, uninfluenced by the need to protect a career, decisions would be more apt to arise from conscience 
instead of expedience.  The finest among us would contribute a portion of his life to limited public service and 
devote his best efforts to the public's benefit.

Trembling with foreboding career politicians warn that if term limitations are enforced government will be run by 
bureaucrats.  Frankly, it already is so what would be new?  These same politicians conveniently forget that the unwieldy 
bureaucracy was created in part by pork-barrel politics and much of it is not only unnecessary, but dangerous.  With 
no need to appease political supporters and special interest groups much of this redundant machinery could be 
dismantled.  Passionate idealists and pragmatic realists could join forces to provide appropriate supervision of the 
rest.

"It takes a long time to learn the job" is another common response to term limitations.  "Several terms are needed 
to catch on to the way government works" they explain in justification of their opposition to career limitations.  This
explanation has face validity, but only on the face.  Closer examination reveals the fallacy.  It doesn't take several terms
to learn the job it takes several terms to learn political machinations, it takes several terms to move up in the pecking
order, it takes several terms to learn how to cope with solidly entrenched and viciously self-protective political
careerists.  If terms were limited political manipulations would be minimized and the pecking order would be
dramatically reduced.  Everyone would be a "short-timer" and no one would need to protect their position.

Let's reject politics as career development and return to the concept of politics as public service.  It's not the 
complete solution to all the problems of government, it's only a small step.  But it's a step in the right direction; and 
that’s the view from here.

Here are some thoughts for male chauvinist’s to consider. The leader of a wolf pack is always a female. Among the 
Great Horned Owls the females hoot baritone and the males hoot soprano.  While Poppa Lion, so-called King of the 
Jungle, lies around dozing it’s Momma Lion who does the hunting and takes care of the kids (next time some 
husband says he’s King of his castle give a chuckle). . .

Got arthritis?  One medical specialist strongly recommends more sex to his suffering patients.  Seems that sex 
stimulates the adrenal gland - the adrenal gland secretes cortisone - and cortisone relieves pain and swelling in 
inflamed joints.

In Thailand if a woman was still unmarried at age thirty she had the right to apply to the government for a 
husband.  Before you buy your airline tickets be advised it was several years ago.  Nor did they mention whether or 
not she got to pick the man herself.  Besides, if the government was running the program . . .well . . .

When the Byzantine Emperor Justinian controlled Rome he decreed any couple could divorce by mutual consent . 
.. .if they vowed lifelong chastity ever after.  Think it worked?

Ancient Athenians may have had a better idea . . . their marriages lasted longer than any other Greek city of the 
time.  Seems that Athenian law required divorcing husbands to give back the wife’s dowry!  Since the wife could 
kick out her husband and recover her dowry if dissatisfied it must have given second thoughts to many a lackluster 
husband.

Speaking of dowries . . .what about the "New World" practice.  When the English first settled in Jamestown the 
price of a new bride was 120 pounds of tobacco.  Now there was a group who knew the value of a good woman.  
Tobacco was their most valued asset . . .