Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, who was writing mainly about the usual moronic assumptions pop evolutionary psychologists are making out of the Tiger Woods imbroglio has a wonderfully pithy (and earthy) takedown of the “sex addiction” meme. (Emphasis mine.)
I don’t like the framework around “sex addiction” not because I think that every man is a natural dog who will fuck every woman he sees if given the chance, and that women are fools to expect otherwise (or have the duty to milk our men 3-5 times a day to stop him—-most men wouldn’t want that, either). I don’t like it because the framework demonizes sex itself, even as those who push it deny that. Do I think people act out with sex? Sure, but it’s usually in service of some other neurotic need. Call Tiger Woods a “sex addict” distracts from the more mundane reality.
I’ll note in passing that as usual it’s usually ardent feminists like Amanda who understand that most men are not, in fact, the uncontrollable sperm hydrants of anti-feminist fantasy. Which begs the question of which side really hates men.
I’ll also note that while “sex addiction” is nearly always represented as a male condition at least one counselor (who specializes in men) says it’s about 20% women but the (not trustworthy enough to link to) sources say it’s mostly because women are way less likely to report it or to seek counseling or attend “sexaholics anonymous” meetings. And something called the Sexual Recovery Institute suggests many women may prefer to call themselves “love addicts” instead, though according to SRI’s checklist it all amounts to the same thing. But which might skew reported ratios anyway.
I’ll also note in passing that by belittling conceits such as sex, fishing, or shopping addictions I’m belittling real, actual, biochemical-substance addictions such as alcohol and narcotic addictions. I’m pretty sure literally nothing could be further from the truth.
I’ve been hearing that a lot
Submitted by Nightfall (not verified) on Wed, 2010-03-03 02:02.I’ve been hearing that a lot of people now believe that nearly all addictions, aside from substances which promote a purely physical dependency, are a form of self-medication or self-therapy for other psychological problems. (And usually, they don’t work very well, providing only temporary and often inadequate relief.) So even a “shopping addiction” or whatever, provided it’s severe enough to mess up one’s life, (Like, say, running up debt on multiple credit cards for stuff you really don’t need) is still a sign that something’s seriously wrong. And that something probably has nothing to do with shopping. It’s just that some addictions are easier to cure or to replace with a less self-destructive behavior than others.
Of course, even if that’s true, many non-chemical addictions are probably over-diagnosed (or at least too often diagnosed by non-professionals in people who only superficially appear to have them). Just because someone has a high sex drive and poor self-control does not necessarily mean that they’re addicted to sex. That combination of traits may often be a problem in itself, but unless they’re both merely symptoms of some other psychological issue, that’s not really an addiction, and treating it as one probably won’t help.
I just realized, the term “nymphomania” seems to have disappeared. Perhaps there’s a connection between that and the rise of the term “sex addict”? There doesn’t seem to be a gender-neutral concept for people whose sex drives are far higher than their practical ability to engage in sexual activities. And either suffer for it or engage in socially risky behaviors (like cheating or seducing people they really shouldn’t).
[“And that something probably has nothing to do with shopping. It’s just that some addictions are easier to cure or to replace with a less self-destructive behavior than others.” Exactly! It’s not that people shouldn’t treat such problems seriously, it’s that the treatment for potentially-fatal addictions like alcohol or heroin is last-resort and draconian — comparable to amputating limbs to save lives. And the least ineffective (there’s no “most effective” with addiction) methods for real addiction are still highly unlikely to suceed. Which means if there are available alternatives to that treatment, and if they’re clinically shown to be more effective, then one should consider those first.
And with sex the problem is compounded by the fact that it’s a legitimate appetite, with the result that in my direct field of friends and family there’s at least one member who’s been in Sexaholic Anonymous, for years, because they couldn’t control their urge to… want sex as much as their no-doubt-about-it very-low-libido partner. So for him “addicted” meant “my partner thinks I’m a sex fiend” even though for me, say, it’s hard to accept that desiring sex daily or weekly instead of, say, every couple of months, constitutes “addiction.” At all! The problem with sex as demonization is that it puts people at risk of seeking medicalization for desiring sex at all, period. The funny thing, or at least the heartwarming part, is that this individual really, really does get a lot of benefit from the intense discipline of meticulously following the 12-steps. But is not in any way “addicted” to sex. Thanks, Nightfall. —fl]
“The funny thing, or at least
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-03-03 09:48.“The funny thing, or at least the heartwarming part, is that this individual really, really does get a lot of benefit from the intense discipline of meticulously following the 12-steps.”
now you’ve left me curious – how is this possible? Could you tell me more about this?
[“now you’ve left me curious
Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2010-03-03 10:26.[“now you’ve left me curious – how is this possible?”
I did leave that hanging a little didn’t I? What I meant is that some people (I’m sure someone into Meyers-Briggs or something like that could even tell you the alphabet combinations) really appreciate, enjoy, even benefit from rigorous self-discipline, whether it’s in a religious/monastic tradition, a military one, athletic ones or, say, survival-oriented activities like mountaineering or small-boat sailing. Or even, say, ritual dietary restrictions such as windfall-only veganism. From second- and third-hand experience with 12-step programs the key seems to be to put enough social and psychological demands on yourself that you can keep your biochemical demands at bay. There’s certainly nothing about, say, having “made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves” that restores the ethanol metabolism pathways in the liver or brain to a pre-alcoholic, pre-craving state. Instead (for the subset of people it actually works for!) it keeps them busy, focused, and disciplined enough to withstand their cravings. There’s no reason, though, that the same methods for staying busy, focused, and disciplined wouldn’t benefit someone who a) enjoyed feeling disciplined but b) wasn’t dependent on substances. The only problem with I see with 12-steppery, and I happen to think it’s a very big problem, is that it’s premise is that something about you is bad, wrong, harmful, and possibly evil. That happens to be a perfectly fine way to look at something like metabolic alcohol or drug dependency. I just balk at the notion that feeling horny all the time because you believe you should only have sex a few times a year makes you bad, wrong, harmful, or evil. I should add that I really there are more productive forms of discipline that the person I mentioned might find even more satisfying. Lots more. But that doesn’t mean the person doesn’t feel any benefit from doing 12-step discipline instead. Thanks, Anonymous. —fl]
12 Steps programs have a
Submitted by Redleader (not verified) on Wed, 2010-03-03 17:49.12 Steps programs have a notoriously poor outcome record.
But that said sex addiction and of course porn addiction are real problems.
Some porn addicts actually lose interest in sex with real people, because it comes up so “inferior” to porn in their minds!
Of course not everyone exposed to porn will become an addict, just like not all drinkers become alcoholics. But it isn’t just something invented by social conservatives and radical feminists. It can really happen.
RedLeader: The problem
Submitted by DanceDreaming (not verified) on Fri, 2010-03-05 04:28.RedLeader:
The problem isn’t whether people do have this difficulty. It’s well established, I think, that people do get unhealthy obsessions with sex, and with porn. I think the term ‘addiction’ is what people find problematic. Especially since it seems to be a very low-bar, self-diagnosis style term. ANd hence many people get int the aforementioned mindstate of ‘something is wrong with me’ simply for having a high libido.
It’s always struck me that sex-focused obsession describes the thing better. And classifies it more properly. It’s a form of OCD, from all I can tell. Marking it as such would raise the bar some, though possibly cause more stigma against it. Sadly, there is a lot of ablist bigotry against people with ‘disorders’.
It strikes me as interesting though, that 80% of those who are classified as sex-addicts are men. One would think, in our current culture, that since women are
expectedto universally have lower sex drives(despite highly overlapping bell curves), that women with higher sex drives would be more likely to feel themselves as being somehow disordered. It’s certain that when ‘nymphomania’ was a popular diagnosis, it was one most often(almost exclusively) used to describe women. Something sociologically interesting going on here.