In his appearance (the teaser for which appears above), Pantoliano mentions that he takes antidepressants, and argues for the less controversial causes of mental health parity and frank discussion of mental illness. He's founded a nonprofit organization "based on accepting, encouraging people to admit to their disease — to seek treatment and become even greater members of society." But some members of the Mad Pride movement prefer to forgo treatment — at least, the conventional psychiatric variety.

ABC's Ia Robinson and Astrid Rodrigues talked to musician Madigan Shive, who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder but now prefers not to label her condition. Though she has delusions and "extreme state[s] of consciousness," Shive doesn't take medication or go to psychotherapy. Instead, she relies on her own "mad map" of triggers and coping strategies, and a network of friends who will take her to a hotel room, instead of a hospital, when her symptoms become severe. She says, "Please don't change this thing in me that creates this music and keeps me alive. ... I need my madness."

Shive says she knows people who take psychiatric medication "and use it smashingly well and I support all that." Similarly, David Oaks, leader of Mad Pride group MindFreedom International, says his organization isn't against drugs, but only against forced drugging of people who would rather manage their illness in other ways. One of MindFreedom International's FAQ pages says, "one of the main human rights violations in the mental health system today, is the way the psychiatric drug approach dominates, squeezing out alternatives and spreading dis-information."

Writer and psychiatry lecturer Charles Barber might agree, though he comes at the problem from a different direction. In a Salon article, Barber advances the recently popular argument that the rise in antidepressant use in America can be blamed on pharmaceutical marketing. Of TV ads for antidepressants, he says,

Often it is hard to tell exactly what condition the drugs are treating. The taglines of the drugs are often vague - for drugs for depression, the slogans might speak broadly but inspirationally about change and hope and getting back to one's true self. (Now that I think of it, these meta-messages are not unlike those of the Obama campaign.) The drugs thus appear to be defined less as mediators of specific medical conditions than as ways to enhance one's lifestyle and quality of life. And this is good for business: It turns out that the market base of people who are interested in enhancing their lifestyle is far greater than of those who suffer from major depression and other serious and debilitating mental illnesses.

Barber doesn't really address the problems with the health insurance industry that cause many people to take medication when more expensive therapy — or a combination of meds and therapy — might be more effective. Instead, he's more interested in branding those who take antidepressants as greedy consumers intent on "enhancing their lifestyle." And is he implying that the Obama campaign, too, was trying to sell us something we don't need?

It's become popular to argue that lots of people are on antidepressants for frivolous reasons, for what Barber calls "the blues, or financial, career or relationship problems, all of those things that we used to regard as life problems, and not medical or diagnosable ones." Most people who make this argument blame the pharmaceutical industry, but some, like Barber, seem to reserve a bit of blame for patients as well. It's undeniable that more people are taking antidepressants than ever before, and it's certainly possible that some could benefit more from other treatments. But who are these vaunted pill-poppers who don't "really need" their Prozac? Whose problems are too minor for drugs, better suited instead to finger-wagging and a course in biting the bullet? Would Barber be willing to point the finger at someone who's lost a job, a marriage, a child, and say, this form of relief should not be available to you?

A more compassionate approach would be to examine psychiatric drugs from a patient's point of view. Are they being pushed on patients who don't want them? Do antidepressants lessen patients' self-reported feelings of sorrow over what Barber calls "life problems"? Are there other treatments or practices that might help them more? In many cases, the answer to this last question is yes, and when that's the case, insurance should cover these more effective practices. But we're not going to get the answers to any of these questions if we infantilize patients, assuming they're all reaching for something they saw on TV as an easy way out of their troubles.

There are plenty of problems with the Mad Pride movement — for one thing, untreated mental illness can make people hurt themselves or others. Robinson and Rodrigues mention John Hinckley and Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho as people whose violence may have stemmed from insanity. Oaks says, "The vast majority of people with psychiatric diagnoses [...] — we're law-abiding, we're peaceful," and this is no doubt true, but he doesn't offer a solution for people who are so violent or suicidal that they can't make decisions about their own treatment. At least, though, Oaks and his fellow Mad Pride activists argue for more autonomy for those who are suffering. In arguing against the pressures of pharmaceutical companies, Barber is actually exercising his own kind of pressure.

At the end of his piece, Barber changes direction, acknowledging, "I can claim confidently that there is, right now, a high-water mark of worry and suffering on numerous fronts - economic, of course, but also social, with our ever-increasing isolation and Internet-driven loss of human connection and the ongoing trauma of wars and crises that just don't seem to end." In some ways, he recognizes, this is a difficult time to be alive. Perhaps it's not so shocking that many people turn to medication for relief — and that others find more relief in refusing such medication. And while both approaches have drawbacks, perhaps we should be a little slower to judge them.

'Mad Pride' Activists Say They're Unique, Not Sick [ABC]
Are We Really So Miserable? [Salon]
MindFreedom International [Official Site]
Teaser - Joey Pants on ABC Primetime - Tuesday, Aug. 25 at 10pm [YouTube]

First there's the "Not Feeling Intimate" couple from a Psychology Today piece. The gist: A young couple. Both want a baby. They'd started fighting after work, though; and when she'd get in his face, he'd push her. They sought therapy, thinking they couldn't bring a child into a violent environment.

[The therapist] said there was something the husband could do, but it was difficult and she wasn't sure he could do it. "I can do it," the husband insisted.

"In the future, whenever she begins to go after you and wants to discuss money-whether at home, at a party, on the street-put your hand under her blouse or her skirt and fondle her."

"You're not going to do that!" said the woman. "Oh yes I am!" said the man.

Not only did the tactic successfully interrupt the pattern of angry confrontation, it transformed it into a playful and warm dynamic. Within a month, she was pregnant.

Yeah, that's right. The dude who'd previously pushed his wife was now given free reign to fondle her when she was angry.

Next: A man asks Pamela Stephenson Connolly, psychologist with a column in the Guardian, if he can persuade his wife to wax her pubes. He writes:

My wife occasionally has a bikini wax, but I would prefer her pubic hair to be neater than it often is, as I believe this is all part of good grooming. I would really like her to adopt a "landing strip" style which I find very sexy and arousing. She takes trouble over her hair and makeup, so why not in this area? How can I get her to go along with my wish? Or am I just being selfish?

I didn't study psychology or psychotherapy, but my answer to this man would be: "Yes. You are being selfish. Sure, bring it up. But understand, if she says no, that you are lucky someone is fucking you in the first place. If you love her, love her as she is. Leave the hot wax near the genitalia out of it. And stop watching so much porn." But that's just me. Here's what Connolly, a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist suggested the man say to his wife: "I always enjoy making love with you, but I must confess that I am turned on the most when you have just waxed. Would you please consider doing that more often? And for me, the visual appeal of a 'landing strip' guarantees extra excitement - how about giving that a try? I promise you'll like what it does to me…" Wow. Well, the commenters on Guardian's site didn't like that one bit. "Flaneuse" fumed:

We're just going to gloss over the fact that he's asking her to do something REALLY EFFING PAINFUL for his sexual pleasure, are we?

I mean, sure, you can ask. And lots of women like the pain of getting waxed, or like the results enough to tolerate the pain. But it's pretty disingenuous not to mention that you're asking your sexual partner to do something that HURTS to please you, and compare it to doing your hair and make-up.

"Bauhaus" wrote:

Why do you want your wife to look like a pre-pubescent girl?

"Opinions" ranted:

Why do men think that their callous desires are important? Doesn't this man get that his tone and suggestions are from two centuries back? His wife should do with her body as she pleases, and he has no command over that! I would love to see a photo of this man and I would suggest his wife to demand from him nothing less than the body of a male model, like that of Garrett Neff? So start dieting, going to the gym, waxing your body hair (or getting some if bold)... How would he feel if the wife turns to him with all these suggestions because she finds those more sexy and arousing? Grow up.

But maybe the best came from someone called "nocommentnc":

As an older man I would give anything for regular sex - hairy or otherwise. The years fly by much quicker than you think, so make the most of what you've got and quit quibbling over details.

You're Driving Me Crazy! [Psychology Today]
Sexual Healing [Guardian]

She writes: "Americans now spend more years unmarried than married… What it means to live single has changed dramatically over the past half-century, but our perceptions have been left in the dust. Bogus stereotypes rule, and they need to be dethroned." Plus: she counts all the ways the 92 million single people in the U.S. are basically screwed over:

Writes DePaulo:

"Our educational institutions - those colleges and universities that should be at the leading edge of scholarship and critical thinking - have been just as smitten by the marital mythology as the rest of society. Those bastions of higher learning are filled with courses, degree programs, textbooks, journals, endowed chairs, research funding and all the other components of the intellectual industry that is the study of marriage. As for the other 42% of the adult population, we're still waiting for the scholarly spotlight to shine as brightly on us."

Dr. DePaulo also points out that single people get "shorted" on the federal benefits, protections, and privileges that are available only to people who are legally married. Not to mention the housing discrimination, tax penalties and pay disparities linked to marital status. She believes that unmarried people have untapped political potential and that for singles, "friends are hardly 'just friends.'" Meaning: We forge strong relationships! And yet we get no family leave if someone close to us is ill. DePaulo concludes: "We need to value single people because that's what progressive nations do. They look for the people who have been marginalized and diminished, and invite them into the center of society. That way, we can all live happily ever after." Sounds awesome.

But doesn't Singles Week really need some kind of mascot, like the Easter Bunny or the Groundhog? I was going to propose a gin and tonic, but actually, I think something more like an unbridled unicorn (single horn!), running free, might be fun. Any ideas?

It's National Singles Week: Here Are 14 Reasons Why We Need It [Psychology Today]

Regular magazines are getting more like women's magazines every day. Here's where we post our egregious examples!

• Page 24: Boost your man's confidence! A story called "Maxim Insecurity" tells us that guys feel insecure when they read men's mags just like we hate ourselves after reading women's mags! Not because of the buff dudes — those are for fags! — but because of the beautiful women these men are paired with, making the male readers feel insecure about their own inability to get such unattainable and attractive women
• Page 24: "Brighter Teeth, Better Life?" — Will using Whitestrips make you more self-confident? A University of Michigan efficacy study doesn't actually say anything about that. But this story will lead you to believe it does!
• Page 42: "Field Guide to the Materialist" Victoria Frances (not her full name, but there is a full picture of her in the magazine! And surprise surprise, she is thin!!) is a magazine editor who really really really loves shopping. And does she feel guilty? No! She's an "unabashed materialist, a high-end version of the mildly object-obsessed masses in our capitalist society". It's perfectly normal! But: The realization that buying things won't fill that void in your life (???) can cause ennui she says. To remedy this, Victoria plans on: Traveling to India, moving to Wyoming, and volunteering. How 'bout we check back in October on that one! How to "dematerialize"? "Be More Scholarly about Stuff" and "Embrace Your Inner Beatnik," says a sidebar (page 44).
• Page 75: "Gut Almighty" is a story about trusting your gut. It says you should trust your gut, except when you should probably ignore it because you are over-obsessing your gut's reaction to something bad. (We think that in the story, "gut" = "brain.") In fact, a strong hunch can be the beginning of a beautiful relationship, reports the magazine; we might be guided by "unconscious emotional pattern-matching that produces intuition". Hmmmm. But beware the intervention of the "gut" in the middle of a romance: Women in long-term relationships sometimes think they can "mind-read" their boyfriends but are really only looking for "relationship-threatening" triggers so they overobsesss about the negative things and fade out the positive stuff. In other words: We are fucking up our relationships! More depressing news: "Anxious women are accurate at the wrong times" (page 73).
• Page: A House Divided: Divorce-battles can lead to using kids to manipulate the other person (No crap!). They offer some tips to not be manipulative or alienating of the children. Basically, they say to stifle your emotions about your ex's new mate, and don't tell your kids your problems.
• Page 48: Unconventional Wisdom (Relationship Advice): Some woman is mad her boyfriend is messy, another woman is mad that her husband is dragging his feet about having a baby, a really sad woman is staying in her horrible marriage because she doesn't want to lose medical insurance!! (Page 49.)
• Page 52: Health & Happiness: A ballerina named Wendy Whelan is portrayed as the paragon of health and virtue. She weighs maybe 78 pounds! Also: Yoga is good for you. (Page 57)
• Page 78: The Laws of Chemistry: Women are unconsciously attracted to men with different immune systems (This explains why all our BFs are allergic to cats!!) and we trigger that attraction by smell. Social background and upbringing have little to do biologically with who you are attracted to. The author makes a list of the four personality types that lead to chemistry (?): Explorers=risk-takers, impulsive, and creative; Builders=social and popular; Negotiators=verbally skilled and good at reading others, nurturing; Directors=focused and outwardly competitive. What does this have to do with chemistry? Builders like Explorers and Directors like Negotiators. Blah blah blah. It ends with a personality test. Jezebel's Intern Maria is an "Explorer." Because she is "outgoing." Yes, and she is also fat.
• Page 87: The End of the Private Self (blogging special): Blogs blogs blogs. Hot pic of "Washingtonienne" blogger Jessica Cutler in bed! Apparently blogging might make us smarter! By keeping secrets our mind gets bogged down, but by telling them we free up our mind for more "productive" thoughts. Uh, yeah, we have REAL productive thoughts every day when we leave this job. Like: Whiskey? Or beer? Or whiskey and beer?

Psychology Today