Sandra Harmon was a student of Pat's and the (not-so-) ghost writer for the book -- it was NOT her stuff, and so there's no reason to be pedantic or defensive on Harmon's account. (Harmon tried to sue Pat Allen recently, and got thrown out of court.)

The energies aren't arbitrary, but are instead based on scientific, psychological, and medical studies (as well as ancient Chinese wisdom <VBG>); Pat has a huge number of references she mentions in her talks, which were not put in the book. Among them: David Buss, The Evolution of Desire; Theresa Crenshaw The Alchemy of Love and Lust; Robin Baker Sperm Wars; Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene; Leonard Schlane Sex, Time, and Power.

Also, Pat is a cognitive behavioural therapist -- so, she comes down from Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Eric Berne... As she describes it (12-27-04 Monday night public session):

I'm a transactional analyst. That's Eric Berne's work; he took Sigmund Freud, and turned him into circles: Parent, adult, child. John Bradshaw made child, the inner child, into a cottage industry remember? Bradshaw, who's at The Meadows now, with ... my supervisor, Patrick Carnes, who is the leading sex therapist, as far as I’m concerned, in the U.S. He wrote Out of the Shadows and Don't Call it Love ... And he supervised me for my addiction specialities, from Harvard University Medical School for Addiction, and I am certified in alcoholism and sexual addiction. ...

I like Carl Jung, and I like Sigmund Freud. I'm fairly committed to Sigmund Freud through transactional analysis. But Carl Jung was a partner of Sigmund Freud. He was in Switzerland, while Sigmund was in Austria. And Sigmund was very much into what made people tick, and he said money and sex were biggies. And that, basically, we humans wanted to capture those people called mommy and daddy. Girls wanted to steal daddy from mommy, that's called the Electra Complex. And boys wanted to steal mommy from daddy, which is called the Oedipal Complex.

Carl Jung said: I don't think so. I think that boys want to get in touch with their own inner feminine, not mommy. Mommy may be a bull dyke actually and not be very sensitive anyway, so that boys are to get in touch with their own inner feminine. And he liked the concept of yin-yang, of the Chinese, yin-yang. Which to me was the study of energy, ancient energy.

The distinguishing between thoughts and feelings is because in Pat's system, you agree to "take sides," -- to negotiate in a complementary fashion -- either always as designated in a covenant relationship; or randomly and as desired in a convenient relationship. So, one partner chooses to be the respected leader (the Yang), who is respected for his (or her) thoughts and opinions and gives up his right to freely express his feelings. The other chooses to be the cherished follower (the yin), whose feelings are cherished, but gives up the right to freely express her (or his) wants and opinions.

In an article Pat wrote:

In a convenient relationship, i.e., one in which each partner is equally respected and cherished, there must be some distance based on pragmatic reality. Two people can 'equally' disco but they cannot 'equally' waltz. A waltz is much more intimate but also much more dependent on each partner sacrificing some personal freedoms for the sake of the dance. A covenant relationship is one in which one person is designated the respected leader, either because of personal skills or because the significant other doesn’t want the job. Likewise, the cherished follower is designated as such because of their temperament needs or because the significant other doesn't want the job as much.

In a covenant relationship, the yin partner is ALWAYS welcome to bring up her wants, thoughts, and opinions – but must first "prepare" the Yang by notifying him that she wishes to do so -– this prevents him from feeling ambushed or ordered or mothered (or from arousing his natural competitive response to a challenge). And a Yang partner is ALWAYS welcome to bring up his feelings -- but should first "notify" the yin partner, so as not to overwhelm her by dumping on her.

In a convenient relationship, EITHER partner may always bring up thoughts or feelings, but should do so in a complementary fashion. That is: "I think this, how do you feel about that?" By both partners observing the complementarity -– the yin/Yang balance -- there is much less chance of clashing. However, the convenient is less intimate that the covenant.

The "problem" with a covenant is that it is more fragile than the convenient. When two people are discoing, if one falls the other usually doesn't because they are not so closely linked. In a waltz if one partner falls, so, usually, does the other.. The benefit of a covenant is that is it more intimate.

And yes, it is usually the woman who wishes to be the cherished follower, and the man the respected leader. David Buss (mentioned above), in his Harvard study of 10,000 people around the globe, found that 2/3 of women want to marry for status and support, and 2/3 of men wanted to marry for sensuality and sexuality. (His book is absolutely fascinating!) So YES there will be women who wish to lead and men who wish to follow. Taken In Hand is NOT geared toward them, yes?

Mike's Girl

As for the dance analogy, that doesn't really appeal to me. I never cared for either disco or ballroom dancing.

Yes, but whether you like dancing or not, you have to admit ballroom dancing simply wouldn't work if both tried to lead.

Well, the quick step and latin are also types of ball room dancing, so I suppose whether it is dreary or not could be debated.

But my own favourite type of dancing, country, involves a good deal of changing partners and being whirled around by a lot of different men, which isn't a very good analogy for a marriage!

I also love this type of dancing and it, actually, is a very good analogy for my marriage. But that is a post all on its own, I suppose, LOL.

But must marriage be like a dance anyway? I'm not convinced that marriage can't work unless there is a clear leader.

I think marriage and life are both very much like a dance. Some people's marriages simply don't work if there is no clear leader, at least not as well as they could. I know mine didn't and certainly our sex life wouldn't. The thing is, just like there are all types of people and all kinds of marriages, there are a lot of different types of dancing. Many forms have no clear leader and some, the lead goes back and forth. I like the way John Michael Montgomery said(sang) it: "Life's a dance you learn as you go, sometimes you lead, sometimes you follow. Don't worry 'bout what you don't know. Life's a dance you learn as you go."

Personally, I am just glad that in our little dance my husband enjoys the leading and I the following, because as the Shakers say, "Tis a gift to come down where we ought to be."

Dr Allen's idea is not that women should not be allowed to have thoughts, or men feelings, but that a 'feminine energy' woman is supposed to ask the 'masculine energy' man before expressing a thought, and the man asks the woman before expressing a feeling. I thought this was pretty silly myself, but it seems to work for some people.

Also she doesn't believe that a woman should not give back to a man, but that she should give less than she receives. A 'feminine energy' woman accepts what the man decides, provided it isn't immoral or unethical or harmful to her or her children. A woman needs to feel good about herself, so she shouldn't do anything that isn't going to make her feel good. Dr Allen doesn't recommend that the man should do everything and the woman nothing, but she thinks that men who expect women to do everything for them are Peter Pans, and she doesn't think women should be Wendys.

Well, I apologize if I have stepped on your toes. As always, there are two sides. However, in her intro to the book, Pat writes:

First and foremost, I want to thank my coauthor, Sandra Harmon. Six years ago she came to one of my seminars. We met afterward and I was impressed by her dynamic, ebullient personality and brilliant mind, as well as the fact that she had coauthored Priscilla Presley's best-seller Elvis and Me

I asked Sandra if she would collaborate with me on this book. and after spending the next year studying my theories and using them in her own life, she agreed. She believed in my work, and I appreciated and needed her extraordinarily logical mind, her humor, and her skills as a great writer, interpreter, and popularizer of complex ideas. "Thank you Sandy" hardly says it all, but it is what I want to say. Without her this book could not and would not have been written.

If it were unethical for her to ask, {shrug} my only response would be -- her stuff TEACHES people not to go along with unethical requests. But it is often the case that money causes problems between friends and coworkers. I can't wish you luck in your lawsuit, because my loyalty lies with Pat. If your writing contract was not suitably "lawyered up" -- well that's why there are courts.

Mike's GIrl

Sandra wrote:

Well Mike's Girl,
If you are "shrugging" when hearing that Pat Allen asked me to do something unethical, I think it says more about you than the two of us.

I was shrugging at your agreement to do something you think is unethical. If you did not think it was unethical then, why should you now be crying foul? (Rhetorical question however, I don’t really care. Not because I am blindly loyal to Pat – I’m most assuredly not! – but because I believe in contract law and personal accountability.) I assume you had a contract with her before you commenced your year of study with her to write her book(s); and so I assume you had a lawyer look over your contract before you signed it. I attribute choices made to the person making the choices.

I wrote the books, based on Pat's work, with my additions and changes based on my own research, etc.

That is a standard description of a ghost writer, is it not? You are not (or were not then, if you are now, but I don't see any credentials on your website) a psychologist or a certified counselor; you were a ghost writer.

Pat might "teach" people to be ethical, but she was my therapist, and as such, she has an ethical responsibility and a legal one, not to engage me in commerce so that she can profit at my expense. That is called "medical malpractise" and that is what she practised. And yes, I went along with it because she told me she was in debt and I cared about her and I believed in her theories, even while I was challenging and improving them.

Surely you are not saying that you were mentally disturbed and Pat took advantage of you? If you made bad choices in your earlier life, they were your choices

It took me years to write those two books while Pat was enjoying her practise. Then, after they were published she took credit for them, which hurt my own coaching and writing career, and also sold a package of books and tapes for which she was supposed to pay me half the profits, but did not. She continues to sell the packages and keep all the money while proclaiming her ethics and telling everyone she wrote the books.

According to your website, you had never heard of her material until you went to her seminar in the 1980s; a seminar she gave on the basis of her schooling / degree / certification as an MSW and her knowledge and theories. Are you saying that you had some responsibility for her knowledge, skills, and licensing? Her theories and her cognitive behavioural training? Well – never mind; obviously that is something for the courts to decide.

So, Mike's girl, if your loyalty is blindly with Pat, without knowing or caring about the truth and just being kind of smartass about my writing contract not being suitably "lawyered up", it sounds to me like your "ethics" are as far up your ass as Pat's are.

Am I supposed to accept your version of things as the “truth” merely because you say so? My ethics will withstand any challenge. And I wasn’t being a smartass – I was writing the truth as I see it: Any ghost writer who doesn’t have a (good, solid, “lawyered-up”) contract with her author may get screwed. That’s a standard truth of the world. All experience in the world is worthwhile for the lessons it gives.

If the fact that I don’t immediately accept your complaint as the truth angers you (and, from your loss of composure, apparently it does), then perhaps that anger is better directed at your own younger naivete and mistakes; albeit compassion for your younger self would better serve.

Mike’s Girl