Thought is an infection. In the case of certain thoughts, it becomes an epidemic. – Wallace Stevens
Back in February I published “Not an Addiction”, in which I criticized the popular confusion of the word “addiction” with the related concepts of habituation and obsession. I was (and remain) especially critical of the concept of “sex addiction”:
Craving something the body (food, water and oxygen) or mind (sex and companionship) actually needs is not and cannot be an “addiction”, though it can certainly become an obsession if one thinks about it to the exclusion of all else and indulges in erratic, inappropriate or even dangerous behavior to gain access to whatever it is he is obsessed with. In the late ‘90s certain pop psychologists started throwing the term “sex addiction” around, and though it is totally impossible to be “addicted” to sex…the term has nonetheless become very popular in the general public and even a few psychological professionals have adopted it (though only for use in popular articles). What makes this improper term even more damaging than such asininity as “internet addiction” is that A) it is confused with the real and serious psychological disorder which the DSM-IV calls “hypersexuality” (and which was previously called “nymphomania” in women and “satyriasis” in men); and B) it has been co-opted by neofeminists to mean “sexual behavior which falls well within the normal range of male behavior but outside the normal range of female behavior.” We’ve previously discussed the damage done to society by neofeminist pathologization of normal male behavior; the application of the very strong term “addiction” to behavior characteristic of two-thirds of men is more of the same and should be fought by every man and every woman who loves men.
Given Newsweek’s fondness for promoting hysteria and willingness to jump on the neofeminist anti-sex bandwagon in its increasingly-yellow pages, it will surprise absolutely no one to hear that on November 25th it published a scare-story under the title “The Sex Addiction Epidemic”. Holy mixed metaphors, Batman! Author Chris Lee writes that this supposed affliction “wrecks marriages, destroys careers, and saps self-worth” and ominously warns that “Americans are being diagnosed as sex addicts in record numbers”; considering that “sex addiction” is not a valid diagnosis (it doesn’t appear in DSM-IV and, as I confidently predicted in February, was rejected for DSM-V), this statement is roughly equivalent to “record numbers of Americans are being diagnosed with orgone deficiency.” But because the truth rarely supports hysteria, Lee eschews interviewing reputable psychologists and instead quotes religious counselors, the director of a “reality” TV show about “sex addicts”, the staff of for-profit “sex addiction” clinics and other quacks.
Salon, on the other hand, published a Tracy Clark-Flory interview with clinical psychologist David Ley entitled “Don’t Believe the Sex Addiction Hype”; it starts out strong:
The sexy alarmism of Newsweek’s latest cover story is irresistible — but it should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Mental health experts haven’t come to the consensus that sex addiction even exists, let alone that it’s an epidemic. The cultural phenomenon of sex addiction, which I first wrote about in 2009, is just that: A cultural phenomenon, not a legitimate medical diagnosis, and the release this week of the much buzzed-about “Shame,” a sex-addiction drama starring Michael Fassbender, further secures the concept’s place in the zeitgeist. Never mind that it was rejected from the upcoming revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychiatry’s bible.
…and it just gets better when Dr. Ley comes in:
…The sex-addiction concept is a belief system, not a diagnosis; it’s not a medically supported concept. The science is abysmal…over the past year or two, [proponents of the sex addiction model] have started trying to use brain science to explain it. They’re now talking about morphological changes that supposedly happen in the brain as somebody watches porn or has too much sex. The reality is, careful scientists will tell you they are absolutely unable to identify any brain differences between these alleged sex addicts and non-sex addicts…[and] that the brain changes constantly — any behavior that a person engages in, especially repetitively, changes your brain. So, identifying changes related to this sexual behavior and distinguishing it from anything else is absolutely ridiculous…
And better still:
They are typically unable to put forth a healthy model of sexuality, and when they do, it is so transparently conservative and religiously driven that it’s frightening. Most of the leaders of the sex-addiction movement are themselves recovering supposed sex addicts and religious folks…what they’re advocating for is a moral system, not a medical one. For a while, they were pushing the idea that if you had an orgasm once a day, every day, that made you a sex addict — but they finally had to back off on that because data was building up showing that there are lots of people who have sex once a day and have no problems. That’s the other big hole in their argument: For every one of the behaviors they raise as addictive — whether it’s porn, strip clubs, masturbation, infidelity, going to prostitutes — I can present 10,000 people who engage in the exact same behavior and have no problems, and they can’t explain why that is…This is a moral attack on sexuality…They [want] people to…develop fear of sex. Because they think that if we’re not afraid of sex, people are going to go out and have lots of sex. God forbid.
And best of all:
Instead of examining the application of the concept of monogamy over a 30- or 40-year marriage, and looking at how male sexuality works, it’s much easier to say: “Well, it’s a disease.” I include a quote in my book where a woman says, “When my husband was cheating, it really was a comfort to consider it a disease and that it really wasn’t his fault. Finally, I had to realize that it wasn’t a disease, it was just him being selfish and treating my life and health casually”…There’s incredible risk of pathology here — we only need to look at the history of nymphomania to see that. Women had their clitorises removed, they were subjected to electroshock therapy, all kinds of medication.
When female sexuality was diagnosed as a disease. Now male sexuality is diagnosed as a disease, only instead of getting electroshock therapy they get the country-club treatment for 30 days.
If you have time, you really ought to read the whole article; Flory writes well and is consistently sex-work friendly and skeptical of anti-sex propaganda, and Dr. Ley has the balls to buck the politically correct narrative and call a spade a spade. The public sphere needs more people like both of them to help combat the rising tide of ignorance which threatens to engulf us all.
(Thanks to regular reader Marla for calling my attention to BOTH articles!)
One Year Ago Today
“Courtesan Denial” is a species of historical revisionism spawned to resolve the cognitive dissonance caused by the knowledge that courtesans, temple prostitutes and the like were highly respected in their times, coupled with the belief that all prostitution is degrading.
The problem is … so much of our politics these days are based on pop culture. I’m glad you mentioned the movie “Shame”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/04/PKJC1M2U7C.DTL
So, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of minds full of mush will have their opinions on “sex addiction” defined by this movie.
And … once the public thinks it’s a valid issue – the neofeminists and religious fanatics in government will begin their work to “mold” the science to meet the myth. They’ll do this by throwing grant money to any scientist who’s willing to compromise his principles for a paycheck – and there are many out there willing to do it.
I f’n can’t stand it when pop stars and other Russel Brand-esque stars come out as “sex addicts”.
I’m sure if you both teleported any average Joe into the lifestyle of some guy who has unlimited access to women and cash they’d soon develop “sex addiction”.
It’s amazing how few people seem to realise this.
It’s the same way people defend police brutality by claiming that cops are “just like everyone else”, thus ignoring the fact that 99% of “everybody else” given a cop’s power and lack of consequences for their actions would act in exactly the same way.
I’ll disagree a bit on this. I believe the cops self-select for bullies and thugs.
True, but consider the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Young people make mistakes that they wouldn’t make when they are older. Don’t extrapolate the Stanford Prison Experiment as if Stanford undergrads are normal people (instead of normal kids).
Given the way petty bureaucrats behave and the way most people eagerly lick whatever badge is presented to them, I sincerely doubt a few years more age makes any difference.
I tend to reject arguments based on Well of course those people would do it. Not all the participants in the Milgram Experiment were young folk.
Et tu Ace?
http://www.contactmusic.com/news/gene-simmons-branded-sex-addict_1253366
Gene Simmons pretty much blows the lid off the sex addiction myth – I believe. He’s spent an enormous amount of time in the activity yet he’s still been very responsible and attentive to his business and family. Guys like Charlie Sheen destroy their careers with their antics – but Gene was the businessman that catapulted KISS to the commercial success it has always been – and is today.
Anyway … addictions are supposed to destroy your life, business, and family right? He’s pretty much the proof that it’s all a myth.
I met him, by the way – after an Endymion parade in New Orleans in 2005. He’s quite a character.
What does neofeminism have to do with sex addiction?
The neofeminists and their allies, the religious fundamentalists, are pushing it as part of their anti-sex agenda along with claims that porn causes rape and “sex trafficking” hysteria.
The problem with the sex addiction hype is that all too often it’s used interchangeably with “porn addiction”, although I do think the latter has an element of truth behind it, both concepts are get-out-of-jail-free cards for people who may have serious mental health issues such as bipolar for example.
Also the DSM refusal is interesting, I was hearing from a less-than-trustworthy source that they were changing the definition of “addiction” to include compulsive gamblers and porn users as they had the same brain scans as alcoholics and heavy drug users. Was wondering if you heard the same news or had written about it earlier.
Nope, they are doing no such thing; the brain-scan thing is even explained above. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of crypto-moralism disguised as science in this country; the “Center for Science in the Public Interest”, a fad-nutritionism group with PETA-like sensibilities, is even brazen enough to include it in their name despite the fact that they have never as much as sponsored one single study.
I was under the impression that CSPI had sponsored several “studies”, it was just that their methodology was so obviously flawed that nobody else would cite them.
You’re probably right; let’s make that “one single methodologically-sound study”.
The degeneration of the definition of Addiction can, I believe, be traced to the Anti-Smoking Crusade. It was awfully difficult to cast smokers as helpless victims under the old definition, since the body’s craving for nicotine passes in about three days. And casting the smokers as helpless victims was absolutely necessary if one wanted to view smoking as something other than voluntary behavior. And, needless to say, framing smoking as something other than voluntary behavior was absolutely necessary for winning lawsuits against the tobacco companies.
People who cast voluntary behaviors as ‘addictions’ are clearly addicted to minding other peoples’ business, and should be clubbed to death as expeditiously as possible.
‘People who cast voluntary behaviors as ‘addictions’ are clearly addicted to minding other peoples’ business, and should be clubbed to death as expeditiously as possible.’ – Excellent! Don’t mind if I borrow this paragraph, do you?
I agree with your general idea that casting voluntary behavior as addictions is wrong. But your above example is totally different from “sex addiction”. As I think any object or action with negative consequences to your body and to others is something we generally should discourage. One stick is bad, no matter how you look at it, One or multiple sex acts does not have a negative impact on anyone involved or not involved in the act.
That would certainly be beating them at their own petard if I may seriously mix my metaphors.
C. S. P. Schofield, you are wrong on several levels here. You state: “casting the smokers as helpless victims was absolutely necessary if one wanted to view smoking as something other than voluntary behavior.” No, “helpless victims” and “voluntary behavior” are not the only possible alternatives. Human free will is NOT an absolute, binary yes-or-no; it is possible to be in between total free will and total helplessness. Chemically addictive substances including nicotine DO diminish free will.
The brain’s craving for a chemically addictive substance will decrease after the withdrawal period, but there’s no guarantee that the withdrawal period will be only three days; many ex-smokers have reported an intense craving for nicotine even months or years after they quit. Even when the withdrawal period is relatively short, that doesn’t solve the problem. Withdrawal is a living HELL. I met a recovering heroin addict who said that his withdrawal was three days long and that he would rather commit suicide than go through withdrawal again.
This goes much deeper than pop psychology. For years, monotheistic religions have had a big issue with the soul/body divide. (Despite there being absolutely no proof for a soul existing.). In their superstition, the soul was divine, and the body “grosse flesch”. The body had animal desires, food, drink, and sex, while the soul longed to be free of those desires and reunited with god. Thus we got religions pushing fasting, celibacy and sobriety. And civilization has been plagued with that issue for centuries.
Now, we’re trying to use pseudo-science to support those ancient superstitions, what we already believe.
While we may no longer go on long fasts, practice celibacy, or vigorous anti-drink stances (except for the religious) Our “moral betters” are still nagging us to ignore what our bodies want. The reward used to be heaven, now it’s good health.
One of the reasons that I’m an agnostic, rather than an atheist, is the positions that the Theists and Atheists take regarding this very issue. The Theists (or the Western Theists, anyway, as I will show later) argue that humans have souls, but nothing else in the realm of matter does. I find that hard to accept. The Atheists argue that there is no such thing as soul, which I also have trouble with.
In may experience, many things have soul, including some rocks, while some people don’t (I don’t mean Evil people with elaborate justifications, like a certain Austrian Paperhanger, but people who apparently cannot understand, even at a “I’ll get in trouble” level, why they shouldn’t spread the gore all over the walls.)
C. S. P. Schofield, while I will agree that most humans possess an intelegence and empathy that trancends the sum of its parts, as do some animals – that is not proof of a soul as generally defined by most religions ie as in a shell of some form or another which forever retains the individual charecteristcs of its ‘mortal coil’.
I dont know many atheists that would argue we are nothing but clockwork automotauns every action and reaction pre ordained and irrevecobale – but I do know some Calvanists who do
I forget whether I’ve said this here before – Atheist here. We have souls. They’re mortal, and made of brains.
> we are nothing but clockwork automotauns every action and reaction pre ordained and irrevecobale
Saying we’re ‘nothing but clockwork automatons’, is more absurdly understating matters than calling the internet an abacus hooked up to a tin can telephone, as a matter of degree. Quantitative changes in complexity make a big qualitative difference.
What are the implications for souls if actions and reactions are NOT pre-ordained by a fixed causal network? Your soul couldn’t be a well-defined entity. You could ‘really want’ something, and then find yourself ‘really wanting’ something else because the future just changed – sorry! Nothing came along to change your mind, the rules just changed and you wanted something different.
As Eliezer Yudkowsky says: That’s not free will, that’s brain damage.
Free will and the soul, if they mean anything, must have a causal connection to what goes on in your brain. If they’re something you’d care about having or not, then they should be law-abiding entities, not liable to the above-described ‘brain damage’.
Once you’ve established that, there’s no reason to worry about this law-abiding system being made of meat.
There’s at least a few meetings for Alcoholics Anonymous that are specifically for atheist people. There’s also 12 step groups (which AA is 1 of) specifically for Christians (the horror…eyeroll). Most AA groups are SECULAR. Yes, the 12 steps ARE Biblical concepts (I wrote a little piece about this a while back), but within the many SECULAR meetings that won’t be mentioned (on purpose). There’s many religious people in the world (and always have been) that don’t literally order anyone around in these areas and also don’t want political power. There’s also been all through history those who fast, who are celibate, don’t touch any alcohol and drugs and choose to live this way and it has nothing to do with religion. There’s also some with no religion who only do 1 of the above listed things. Also not true that ALL religions demand celibacy, etc. Satanism is 1 where some (not all) indulge in sex, alcohol, etc. Not everyone WANTS TO have sex, use drugs and/or alcohol, etc. That’s their right.
While we may no longer go on long fasts, practice celibacy, or vigorous anti-drink stances (except for the religious) Our “moral betters” are still nagging us to ignore what our bodies want. The reward used to be heaven, now it’s good health
Eat Healthy. Live Right. Die Anyway.
The difference is that while there is no empirical proof that heaven exists,* there is oodles that a healthy diet, not smoking, and regular exercise do indeed promote good health.
Let’s not get into the habit of saying everything is the same, because it isn’t.
* I’m not saying that heaven doesn’t exist, so nobody blow a gasket. How could I possibly know that heaven doesn’t exist, even if it doesn’t? I can’t, so I don’t make such a claim. So relax.
That’s true, but there are two problems with that. The first is that the so-called “evidence” of what constitutes a healthy diet changes every year, is not determined scientifically (with controlled studies), is often reversed and (worst of all) is based almost entirely on the scientifically-unsound “evil food” concept (i.e. that some foods are “bad” even in moderation). The second problem is that it’s wrong to make people’s personal decisions for them no matter what the supposed benefit; the premise that a longer life with fewer health problems is empirically “better” than a shorter but much more pleasant and interesting one is absolutely not a fact, however much our government wants to pretend it is.
The only reason governments promote their idea of a “good life” by threat and violence is that they have foolishly agreed to foot the bill for the consequences of our actions. Conversely, though, anyone who agrees to let the government pay for treatment of health problems resulting from voluntary behavior has no right to complain if the government bans him from doing things that will cost it money, on the “as long as you live under my roof…” parental principle.
That regular exercise, not smoking, and low fats (especially saturated fats) lead to good health has held rock solid since before my teens, and I turn 46 in February. Certainly details, like whether or not moderate alcohol consumption is healthy, change as more is learned. But the big things don’t change on anything remotely like a year-to-year basis. I saw an episode of My Favorite Martian that talked about polyunsaturated fats.
But it seems you and I are talking about entirely different things. I’m talking about what is pretty generally accepted as healthy, and you’re talking about… um… the government forcing us to eat health food or something.
So far, nobody has banned fatty foods, empty calories, junk food in general, or even cigarettes. I know that there is constant wailing and gnashing of teeth to the effect that the feds will be raiding McDonald’s any day now (“Put the McRib down and move away, NOW!”), but it never, ever happens. I think people need to relax.
No, I’m talking about attempts to restrict, discourage or ban activities or things the government deems unhealthy, which you’d have to be living under a rock not to have seen news of.
Once I got past the ads, I read about the e-cigarette article. The ban had nothing to do with health, as the article itself noted. It had to do with the fact that they just don’t like the idea of people “getting around” the workplace smoking ban. People using e-cigs look like they’re smoking, and they couldn’t stand the idea that anybody could even look like they weren’t following the ban. It’s more an obsession with “closing loopholes” than about health. Yeah, it’s stupid, but it isn’t about health. It’s an almost luddite silliness. BTW, I’m a non-smoker who totally supports e-cigs. Also, I saw no year-to-year changes in that article.
The second article puts a rather dishonest spin to an admittedly stupid city ordinance. Nobody was banning fatty foods, but they decided to ban free toys with fatty foods (which is stupid; for one thing, the toy wasn’t free but rather the minimal cost was a part of the overall cost of the Happy Meal). Also, I saw no year-to-year changes in that article.
The third article is about a new regulation reducing the amount of salt in processed foods. So what? Corporations aren’t people; they can be regulated more than individual human beings. If you want to add salt to your canned peas, by all means do so. Federal agents will not be knocking down your door to stop you. I tend to think that posting sodium content on the label is enough, but it’s not something I’m going to start wringing my hands about. Something was said about changing health standards from year to year,but when you follow the links you see that it’s actually decades, not years. I am shocked, shocked I tell you to learn that the state of scientific knowledge changes over decades!
Only the last story had anything to do with Big Bad Washington, so I guess it serves the purpose of reminding people that state and local governments aren’t always benign just because they aren’t Big Bad Washington. I think people need to relax.
Low fat is a terrible way to eat, esp. for a man. You want a lusty brain and sack? — eat good fat, and plenty of it.
udoerasmus.com
Not difficult to do, in today’s world. But even good things can be overdone. I know: I overdo a couple or so.
I read posts like this and shake my head in wonderment. The field of behavioral addiction has progressed way beyond where you and David Ley would like it to be. For those who are up to speed on recent research on the brains of Internet addicts, food addicts and gambling addicts (showing addiction-related brain changes similar to those seen in drug addicts) your statements just seem, well, naive…not to mention dogmatic to the point of suppressing modern science in favor of your favorite slogans. I believe this is actually what you accuse the religious extremists of. Hmmm…
If any of your readers would like to understand the history of why sex addiction was excluded, in error, from the list of possible addictions, read this bit of history: “The Wages of Sexual-Addiction Politics” http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201112/the-wages-sexual-addiction-politics The original omission has now been corrected by the premier group of addiction specialists in the States: http://www.asam.org/1DEFINITION_OF_ADDICTION_LONG_4-11.pdf and http://www.asam.org/pdf/Advocacy/20110816_DefofAddiction-FAQs.pdf
David Ley has painted a very false picture because he is not trained in brain science – like most sexologists and psychologists. Many folks are now paying a heavy price for such expert ignorance. Maybe learn some more about addiction science before bundling yourself onto his bandwagon. It’s just a matter of time before the mainstream has to come into conformity with Reality.
“Reality” is that it is possible to be obsessed (not “addicted”) with literally ANYTHING. It’s not even necessary for the subject of the obsession to be pleasant; people become horribly obsessed with evil, self-destructive philosophies that make them miserable, and can ruin their lives as easily over religion, politics, vengeance, power or a misguided philosophy as they can over sex or the internet, yet somehow it’s only the pleasurable things which are declared a “problem”.
I think it’s fascinating that people like you presume that people like me are “ignorant” because we come to a different conclusion than the one you have. As it turns out I have read all about the recent research, and my conclusions are much the same as Ley’s. Referring to any (even mild) obsession with something of which moralists disapprove (sex or gambling, for example) as “addiction” while giving (even severe and life-destroying) obsession with things of which they approve (religion or anti-porn activism, for example) a free pass is not a factual judgment, it’s a value judgment which makes that loose “addiction” construct therapeutically useless.
Dear philosophe22, thanks for your input. It’s always great on here (and everywhere else online I’ve been) to see other views and information put out. Thank you for pointing out how true addiction is COMPLICATED. There’s still things not known for sure. It’s the same with post-traumatic stress disorder and the effects on people in general from traumas and abuse. There’s new information coming out all the time on these things. Actually, on here you don’t have to be a religious extremist to see constant unfair stereotyping, blanket statements, outright lies and prejudice (like with the Muslims), towards those who have any kind of religious beliefs. Thanks again for your information.
Laura, not everyone “here” hates religious people. I’m not really that religious myself and I genuinely LIKE religious people. It doesn’t bother me that they adhere to certain rules of behavior that I don’t. In my high school – I was from a Catholic family but I was the only one – the rest of my schoolmates were some form of evangelical. All of them believed that dancing was a sin – most all of them believed that if a woman cut her hair it was a sin and half of them believed that if a woman wore “pants” – that was a sin (skirts only). I managed to “snag” a date for the prom from amongst the girls who wouldn’t cut their hair but DID wear pants … that dirty girl! 😛
It was pretty rigid but I could still see normalcy in the way they interacted with people and most (not all – but most) of them were very nice and non-judgmental about myself and a few others who didn’t adhere to those beliefs.
Still – occasionally, they do band together to do things that I scratch my head over – like here in St. Tammany, where they banded together to kill a Casino complex proposal on Lake Ponchartrain that would have been a BOON to this community.
Dear Krulac, I never said “everyone” or “all”. I’m very careful to take the time to type phrases like “some not all”, etc., BECAUSE OF the ###*** about religious people all over online and off. Also for the non-whore women who aren’t conservative sexually, politicians, prosecutors, cops and governments in general. But, there IS a pattern on here of ***### stuff said about religious people, especially Muslims and Christians. 1 positive I should have mentioned: there’s a few also on here who defend the Muslims (thank God) and also the Christians. This isn’t the only website where this stuff is a pattern, unfortunately. I’m on a message board where the evil lies against Muslims got so bad that the lady who runs the board (who’s a wonderful person I’m proud to call a friend) laid down the law and said NO MORE and said if you want to do this you have to go into a private room that’s password protected. This is a “fight room” where you can also take any argument you’re having where it doesn’t have to be seen by all the members on the board. So far none of the prejudice lovers have gone into this room. But, it did stop the ###*** on the open board. I think it’s great you gave these religious people a chance to begin with. It’s a sad state of things in the world that some are never wanted as friends and/or given a chance just because of their religious beliefs, politics, sex lives, etc. I’ve seen this with the endless debate over the death penalty online also.
Laura, grow up – mean people said hurtful things, boo fucking who.
Meanwhile your ideolgical predecesors and alot of your contemporaries have the power to murder thier ideological outsiders.
Heres a suggestion, fight back, use reason instead of emotional appeals to an authority your opponets dont believe in.
There are unreasonable assholes in every group of people, people who will look to be offended no matter what you do or say. Stay cam(it drives them nuts) and let them come off a the raving demogauge.
People are jerks, especially when they think they are anonoumus
Gee, that was condescending. Mean people said mean things and the board was engulfed in flame wars and the board couldn’t be about what it was supposed to be about. So the moderator said to take it outside or in the fight room. Seems reasonable enough.
Now, I realize that isn’t as tough-sounding as “boo fucking who,” but there you go.
Please don’t use swear words towards me and/or my beliefs. It’s abusive at the least. Yes, let’s just accept people trashing each other, lying about each other (including whole groups, like Muslims), that’s just how it is, right? I won’t ever go along with it. It’s disgusting, abusive and I’m sick of it. So are others online like my friend who told the vicious and arrogant Muslim haters to go into a private room on her board to put out their hate and lies. This lady has lived in countries which are populated by mostly Muslim people and saw 1st hand how most aren’t terrorists, rapists, etc. She defends them all the time (thank God). Yes, me and my “ideological predecessors” we think about killing everyone who doesn’t think like us ALL THE TIME. You willfully ignore how in the Bible we’re told (especially in the New Testament) how we’re NOT to murder and if you do murder and you don’t repent you’ll go to hell. I know 1st hand the devastation that murder causes. Before it’s ASS-umed about me (since you’ve always shown on here such an OPEN MIND towards Christians, Muslims, etc.) I’ve never killed anyone and never plan to. But, I thought me and the 1’s before me, that’s what we’re into? HHMM…as far as using reason I’ve been doing that for a lot of years online. As far as killing people goes, many of us Christians have a struggle with God killing whole groups of people in the Old Testament. Do you really think we “revel” in it? Saying to ourselves you go, God! KILL! KILL! No, many of us DON’T. It’s the OPPOSITE. I have a big struggle with it, to be honest. Not with the adults that were ###*** (like serial killers, politicians who have people killed, etc. to make a more modern comparison), but with the kids. They’re the 1’s I don’t think it was completely fair to. Even with the 1’s who were ###*** (adults old enough to know better), it’s very sad to me and also tragic. People didn’t have to BE evil. They chose to be and that’s always a tragedy. I also have a BIG problem with those who revel in people under 18 getting the death penalty. Also the truly mentally sick and retarted people. Many Christians don’t revel in this stuff like you THINK we do. Those who do revel in all of it are going against Biblical teaching (especially in the New Testament). As far as people getting killed for their beliefs goes, that’s still going on in the world and it’s being done to Christians. There’s a lot of what’s called “physical persecution” going on. There’s not much in the US, but outside of the US it’s happening more. But, I thought we Christians are the 1’s who are doing these things? HHMM…really? Also, you love to bring up what I call the “good old days” when talking about killing over beliefs. You never bring up how that’s happening a lot less overall over time even WITH what I just talked about (physical persecution in other countries). Can’t have any positives mentioned!
First off “boo fucking hoo” is a fairly common colloquialism. If you want to take issue with my frustration on your persecution complex feel free, but lets not pretend it was only my choice of a single word which bothered you
And yes people are jeks, but at least were no longer at the point in history where it was considered acceptable to murder people who disagreed with you
Predeccesor means amoung others things ‘those who came before you’, and yes, the faithful of a few decades, centuries and millenia ago did in fact kill their ideological heretics and detractors, but by all means lets pretend I was talking about you, today. Sure its dishonest but not technically a lie, so I guess it isnt disgusting or abusive for you to do it, right?
Yes, thankfully more and more muslims are becoming more and more like chritians in so far as thy have no real idea of what exaclty they god demands of them and as a result are becoming more peaceful – so what? A lot of them are still more then willing to follow the dictates of their faith which demand ass sorts of horribel acts unfit for modern society.
Quite frankly you should priase your god that the worst these people do is is fruitlesslt rant on a message board, a few hunddered years ago they would have gathered up weapons and marched off to war
And I have a very open mind about religion, so open in fact I read and reaserech everything I could find on the subject which is what led my to being an atheist. Yes I riducule and yes I poke fun, but I do that only after my opponets leave me no other option in their refusal to even try and answer the simplest of questions
And to be clear, people such as your self and half a dozen others I know of who seem truly sincear in their beliefs are not the religious people I have issue with, it is those who seek to enforce their will onto others for no better reason then the half baked ideas they get from selective cherry picking bits and peices of a book with more historical fiction in it then a Disney move
As for your questions about gods calling for the muder of some in the old testement, be careful, questioning any of gods actions are punishable by an eternity in hell – but thats only because he loves you so much and your actions are forcing him to hit, er punish you. (Yes, Yes, I know a joke – but notice how eaisly the role of the god of Abraham become the role of wife beater?)
You ay many christians do revel in such actions by god and the sate deth penalty – we’ll I wanst born into an theist family. SOm in my family are uber religious, kinda religious, and sorta religious, but I grew up going to church and a lot of them do
What is” ###***”? I’m not offened by swear words and writting them in code so other people wont know what they are is fairly pointless as you are the one thinking the word anyway
And as for the last two points in your last paragraph, according to Jebus himself in the new testement none of the law of moses is open for interpretation, debate, or renunciation – it is all still in effect to be read literally
And most of the murders and peresecutions of chritiians world wide is being dome primarily by the mulsims and secondarily by other sects of chritsians
The most likey thing an athiest is willing to bludgeon a christian with is an argument.
Now for a question to you. DO you belivie in Thor? Anubis? Marduk? Tezcatlipoa? Or Helm? Why is your dismisal of all these other gods any less disrespectful or damning then my dismissal of yours?
Response to a long and rambling post with another long and rambling post.
Well, I guess fair’s fair. But I would suggest that you follow the same advice I gave Laura: read the thing over before you hit “Post Comment.”
Thats why I brke it into paragraphs, cant spell to save my life, dyslexic, and that was after three sperate proof reads for spelling errors.
I’m sorry you have dyslexia. I’m not being sarcastic. I mean it.
Yeah, what she said. Gotta be tough in today’s message-board world. Good luck in all, though.
I’ll admit your comment confused me, as I stopped reading Lauras post about three sentances in
Yes, what I call the “confusion dodge”: project onto the message where a person is defending herself, explaining things, giving examples of people who don’t fit stereotypes, etc. It’s similar to other dodges: the you hate all 1 in which you hate all men, women…(fill in the blank)…you literally don’t understand what I’m saying; you NEVER understand what I’m saying; you don’t want to ever hear any criticism, etc.; you belong to a certain group so you’ll never literally understand and also not even want to.
No acctually I was responding to the attitude displayed in the fist part of your post, not the antecdotl example you went on to provide that I didnt bother to read
“Didn’t bother to read”-thanks! There’s that wonderful open mind of yours again! If I’d put down something vicious about Muslims you would have read it since you love to read anything negative (including lies) about them and others with religious beliefs.
Again, I was responding to the emotional outburst of your first few sentences not the antecdotal example you went on to provide.
And given how quickly you yourself twisted my words, I dont see why your getting so upset at others doing the same as you, in spirit if not in scale
I’m sorry Laura, but your post of 5:39 AM was long and rambling. It’s hard to follow. I had to read it over more than once, and I know you. You need to calm down and look your posts over before hitting “Post Comment.”
Yes, I was angry when I wrote it. But, overall, you know I’m doing way better online and off when it comes to these things. This shows there’s a little bit more work for me to do and you know I’m doing it. I think it’s a good thing that when I wrote the piece that was published I wasn’t in as angry a state as with this 1 and also the times I’ve written policies/procedures on the job…lol.
Yeah, well, we all do it sometimes. I was in an argument I probably could have won like that {snaps fingers} by pointing to the Milgram Experiment, but by then I was so mad I didn’t remember it.
The soul/body split, and mortification of the flesh, isn’t philosophy or vague opinion. It’s history. It’s fact.
…and it’s still going on, albeit in more subtle form. Anyone who doesn’t see the deep connection between modern “food guilt” regimes (nutritionism and veganism) and religiously-inspired fasting or partial fasting (bland foods, no meat); or between modern anti-sex rhetoric (“sex addiction” and anti-sex work propaganda) and religiously-inspired chastity or semi-chastity, isn’t looking at them with open eyes.
Internet? Food? Gambling? why don’t you add video games and television as well? Are there also love addicts? Is putting time, effort and value into something an addiction? Shouldn’t addiction be viewed as doing something that has a direct negative impact on your life? Are you trained in brain science? Then you should know better, analyze yourself before you analyze others. You are too proud my friend, how would you convince others with your tone (technically I don’t know if a post has a tone.. :P) The brain works that way, I’ve already associated negative emotions to you because your comment was very condescending. And I know why you did it anyway, it was so that you could feel better of yourself and I think you already did.
[…] had a couple of articles and discussions about the subject in her blog. Not An Addiction, and Neither Addiction nor Epidemic examine the subject of the concept of sex addiction and what’s behind it in loving […]
The bottom line is that there are people, whether you call them addicts or obsessives, who are in a lot of pain and turmoil. This isn’t some made up fantasy. People aren’t seeking help for sex addiction because it’s trendy or because a they saw a movie or read an article in Newsweek. I sought help because I desperately wanted to stop a set of behaviors that was ruining my life.
Also, why do you keep bringing feminism into this debate? Since when does a desire for gender equality equal hating sex and sexuality? All the feminists I know, including myself, are extremely sex positive.
What you (and indeed many women) consider “feminism” is not at all the same as institutionalized academic feminism, which is not at all sex-positive. Academic feminism (or as I call it, “neofeminism”) isn’t about equality but about securing power for academic feminists backed by a female voting bloc. If you want to know the kind of women I’m talking about, my column “In Their Own Words” would be a good start.
I actually know a bit about academic feminism. I minored in women’s studies at a major university (I was an English Lit major and got bored reading nothing but dead white guys). Maybe I wasn’t taking the right women’s studies courses, but I never had a professor bash men or sex. In fact one of my professors was a sex-positive former sex worker, and I even had a male Women’s Studies professor (it’s amazing how many people don’t understand that men can be feminists too).
The women you talk about in your article are anti-porn crusaders and don’t represent feminism as a whole. Look at Camille Paglia, Susie Bright, Betty Dodson, and Tristan Taormino for just a few examples of sex positive feminists.
Feminists didn’t invent sex addiction, neither did anti-porn crusaders. If you are interested in learning about what sex-addiction is really about check out some of Patrick Carnes’ works.
Imperfect, please don’t make the mistake of assuming that I don’t accept the concept of “sex addiction” because I don’t know enough about it; I don’t make judgments in a vacuum. On the contrary, the more I read about “sex addiction” the more I recognize its dubiousness.
I’m well aware of sex-positive feminists, and in fact quote Paglia often. But it’s a mistake to imagine that the majority of feminist political power is held by such women. Most of the “feminists” who have the big grant dollars (Melissa Farley, for example) are as sex-negative as they come. I don’t even consider them true feminists, though, hence the term “neofeminism”.
But it is a made up fantasy. It is not a biological craving, that gives you night sweats and wants you to rip your skin to shreds so that you could get that shot. It is just you trying to find an idea to help you moderate your own desires. It is your refusal to accept that you are in control and everything you did was your own responsibilty.
No offense James, but you don’t know me. Please don’t try to tell me that my problems and experiences are imaginary.
Dear imperfect, THANK YOU! I wish you the best with resolving your problems whatever they are. Yes, no one can take away your experiences and also shouldn’t try to discount them based on a few posts. A tip to those who are truly wanting to learn about addictions (whatever kind they are): not all the information is found in books, articles, etc. A wealth of information comes from making the effort to talk to the people in recovery. There’s always a lot of talk on here about how people put down whores, don’t make the effort to talk to them, etc. so they don’t get all the information out there. The same goes for those with addictions. Those who are in recovery have a wealth of information that’s from 1st hand experiences.
The word “addiction” has a very specific meaning. Saying “you don’t know me” doesn’t change what the word means. We need to get over this idea that any word means whatever we want it to mean at this moment, and that’s the Parasaurolophus (a word which I’ve suddenly decided has nothing to do with dinosaurs, but actually means “truth.” Don’t anybody dare say differently).
The belief that an abusive, crude phrase is popular means it’s OK doesn’t work with me and never will. All kinds of evil things are popular and that’ll never change that they’re not right. You wonder why I do the ###*** thing? It’s pointless, but I’ll explain anyway! On 1 of the message boards I’m on I was using words like “scum” and “filth” a lot about certain things and was asked by the staff to tone it down. I changed it to “###***” for that reason and because it lets people reading fill in the blanks. An FYI, when I type “###***” I don’t automatically have traditional swear words going on in my mind. WOW! What do you know? “Persecution complex”-WOW! Thanks! What I call “Internet diagnosis” at its best! You diagnose me through just reading posts. It’s like on here a while back when 1 man was diagnosed as “gay” based on less than 5 posts. Funny, but things like “persecution complex” and “gay” are only TRULY diagnosed with actual exams by doctors, etc. Inconvenient, but true. You claim to be open-minded and read so much about religions. What you say about the Bible is so far off I don’t know what you’ve been reading but it doesn’t match the Bible at all. You brought up all the same issues with me before and I answered them with Scriptures, etc., so am not going to repeat myself. But, on the charge that whole groups of Christians are killing people, where’s your proof on that 1? Any links? The atheists aren’t the innocents you claim them to be. Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong are some examples. At the LEAST they ordered millions to be killed which makes them AS guilty than if they’d done the actual killing themselves. Atheism as a “state religion” was as evil as Christianity (in the Roman Catholic form) as the “state religion”. Speaking of physical persecution, you may want to read the stuff from the group “Voice of the Martyrs”. They have a website and it disproves your point that “only Christians and Muslims” are killing, etc. As far as asking me who I believe in, you have that answer.
Actually, who on here does know this person? The only information to go on is his (or hers) posts.
Above was to Sailor B.
But not the one above that.
How many people know somebody has nothing to do with what a word means.
The 1 above it was to lujlp (the 1 starting with “the belief that an abusive…”). I need to do better on writing “dear ___” on stuff still.
It wound up in the wrong place. Probably not your fault. Makes it a little confusing, but I was able to figure it out (as soon as I got past “What abusive crude phrase did I use? What’s wrong with… oh.”).
Sailor, James’ comment that I referring to, “It is just you trying to find an idea to help you moderate your own desires. It is your refusal to accept that you are in control and everything you did was your own responsibility,” was rude and presumptuous. It wasn’t about semantics.
I have no interest in pushing any kind of moral agenda. I love sex. I have no judgements about the frequency or the type of sex anyone else wants to have. I have no judgements about the amount of partners one has. I even believe that prostitution should be legalized.
All I was trying to convey was that there are many people out there, myself included, who have benefitted from the help of recovery programs for sex addiction, or if you prefer, let’s call it “sexual compulsion.”
The meeting I go to are free and secular. They are not filled with Puritans, religious fanatics, or militant feminists. They are filled with educated, free-thinking people who couldn’t hold down a job because they were watching porn and masturbating 12 hours a day, or who spent their life savings on sex workers, or who were so hooked on one person that they tried to kill themselves, or some other terrible situation.
If you want to learn more about me, please read my blog, http://www.thisimperfectjourney.wordpress.com, just don’t try to tell me that I am some repressed idiot who is so ashamed of normal sexuality that I had to create a fantasy of addiction to deal with it.
I don’t assume anything about you other than that you didn’t know that you were using the wrong word. I certainly don’t assume that you have no problem at all, and are just lying for funzi-wunzies. My point is entirely semantic, and isn’t even really addressed to you. But I didn’t state that it was addressed to Laura, so that’s a failing on my part.
I believe you when you say that you have had problems, and that you are making improvements in your life, and that you have found help from people who don’t fit the image of the Church Lady. Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were making it up, because I never meant to imply any such thing.
Dear imperfect, 1 reason that some don’t want to hear about this stuff from people like you and also say it doesn’t exist, isn’t as serious as it’s made out to be, etc. is because $’s can’t be made from the people in recovery anymore once they stop doing stuff.
Wait…what? It sounds like you’re saying that the motive of those who expose quack “therapies” is to somehow make money from people not going to quack therapies. How’s that again?
I’m a little confused myself. How does somebody make money off of sex addiction not being a real addiction?
When people have an addiction, there’s $ to be made off it. Active alcoholics give a lot of $ to companies that sell hard liquor, beer, etc. Drug addicts give a lot of $ to drug dealers and those who abuse prescriptions give $ to doctors to write their prescriptions plus pharmacies to fill them. These people with sex problems are spending on it also. When the people with the sex problems resolve to stop doing stuff no one’s making $ of their problems anymore. That’s what I was getting at.
So, you’re implying that people who care about getting sexual problems properly diagnosed so that sufferers can receive real help and people without real sexual problems aren’t wrongfully labeled as having them, are actually in the employ of the porn industry or some imaginary prostitutes’ cartel? I can’t believe that’s what you mean, but it sure sounds like it.
All recovery programs teach that every addict is to take full responsibility for their actions. They also acknowledge that addiction is complicated and there’s forces involved at times that the addict didn’t have full control over (like growing up in an abusive home).
So, you’re implying that people who care about getting sexual problems properly diagnosed so that sufferers can receive real help and people without real sexual problems aren’t wrongfully labeled as having them, are actually in the employ of the porn industry or some imaginary prostitutes’ cartel? I can’t believe that’s what you mean, but it sure sounds like it.-Dear Maggie, no, I’m NOT saying there’s some big conspiracy, OK? What I’m saying is that $ ARE made off people with addictions, problems, struggles, obsessions, whatever term people want to use. When I was an active alcoholic I gave plenty of $ to alcohol companies. It wasn’t some big conspiracy against me and the other alcoholics. We chose to give our $ to these companies. What I am convinced of is that some people are disappointed when people quit drinking, using drugs, etc., because they’re going to make less profit off them. The people that we were giving $ to DO lose some profit when we quit. The same goes for those who decide to quit giving $ to porno websites that charge, whores, etc. When a person states this it doesn’t automatically mean they believe it’s all some real conspiracy from the alcohol companies, doctors who write prescriptions without any standards, etc. I’m convinced from my own recovery work (am now a little over 12 years sober), the big amount of study I’ve done on recovery/addictions, information I’ve gotten from others in recovery, etc., that 1 reason that some aren’t convinced of the seriousness of addictions, obsessions, etc. (whatever term is used) is because they don’t want to acknowledge it to begin with. It’s like those who say “that person is ONLY drunk on the weekends. That means they don’t REALLY have a problem” or “alcoholism isn’t a REAL problem. The people who drink only to get drunk are just having fun.” That isn’t automatically a conspiracy involving groups of alcohol companies, etc.
Laura, just because some people stand to make a profit from addictions and obsessions doesn’t automatically make anyone who criticizes misconceptions about those obsessions (such as the idea that sex can be an addiction) to be motivated by profit. Lots of people simply prefer the truth.
Yes, I prefer the truth also, OK? But, on issues as serious as these, I’m not going to form my views from only 1 person and that’s on BOTH sides of an issue. It’s not enough information for me. All views should be known to get a fair picture. This is an ongoing problem with endless debates over things like the death penalty. That’s 1 of my favorite examples as I’ve been involved to varying degrees in that debate for over 20 years now. Some go with only 1 or very few views because those are the 1’s they LIKE. They willfully ignore the people who have literally had the death penalty issue touch their lives and or the lives of family members and/or friends. It’s easier this way. When it comes to addictions and physical and mental health problems I’m not going on only 1 view or a few. These things are so serious (and the death penalty is also) that that’s not a standard I can go along with.
My older brother was discussing the issue of internet porn and said that because victims of porn addiction showed the same brainwave response that heroin addicts did, that porn should be prohibited.
I first pointed out that I was for drug decriminalization across the board and so his argument was unpersuasive. I then followed up with this;
“So, on that basis, you would also be in favor of government banning food that people like to eat, right?”
He did a bit of a double take. “What are you talking about?”
I said, “You want to ban porn because it evokes the same brainwave response as heroin addicts getting a fix., right?”
He answered in the affirmative.
“Well, when people eat food they really like, they get the same brainwave pattern. Think about it.”
His response was, “Oh, maybe it’s not such a good standard, then.”
Below is an excerpt and a link to an interesting article on the topic.
But what do the recent neuroscience studies actually tell us about addiction? What is addiction really? An article on the website referenced by the U.S. Senators in their letter to Holder explained sex addiction this way:
Cocaine, opioids, alcohol, and other drugs subvert, or hijack, [the brain’s] pleasure systems, and cause the brain to think a drug high is necessary to survive. Evidence is now strong that natural rewards such as food and sex affect the reward systems in the same way drugs affect them, thus the current interest in ‘natural addiction.’ Addiction, whether to cocaine, food, or sex occurs when these activities cease to contribute to a state of homeostasis, and instead cause adverse consequences.
But this is actually a bizarre form of circular reasoning. For one thing, it confuses the original purpose of the brain’s pleasure pathways. If you think about it, these regions aren’t very likely to have evolved specifically to enable us to get high on cocaine or heroin — that would be evolutionary sabotage. But they almost certainly did evolve to get us to pursue food and sex relentlessly, in order to guarantee our survival. So, these brain regions are designed to make food and sex fun.
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/15/hooked-on-addiction-from-food-to-drugs-to-internet-porn/#ixzz1fjWCT7Ng
I agree with you. I can’t see how anyone can become addicted to natural behaviour. Obsess maybe but never addicted. I enjoyed reading this and some of your other blogs
You’ve hit the nail squarely on the head. I think everyone recognizes that it’s impossible to be “addicted” to natural behavior, so by claiming it’s possible to become “addicted” to sex one implies that promiscuity, fascination with sexual imagery, etc are not natural.
Anyone want to make the effort to actually talk to the people who say they’re sex addicts?
Laura, the people to whom the label are applied are not the issue; it’s the people who invented the label and use it to pathologize normal behaviors. You might as well suggest that little boys who are diagnosed as “ADD” just for being boys would be able to give you a scientific analysis of their condition.
Nobody questions that people can become obsessed with sex, and that such obsession can be extremely disruptive to their lives. The point is that the psychological mechanism is no different than that of obsession with anything else. To blame sexual obsession on sex is exactly the same as blaming religious fanaticism on the religion; normal people can be promiscuous or religious without obsession. The problem lies in the obsessor, not that which he is obsessed with.
When people name a condition, label it, etc., it doesn’t always mean “they’re out to get us”. They’re doing the best they can with the information they have at that time. It isn’t always some bad agenda behind it like making things pathological. I brought up talking to actual people who say they have this addiction in order to be fair and to get all the information there is out there. Addictions like alcoholism (and others) you just don’t get all the info there is out of books, articles, etc., only. It’s the same thing as you say people need to talk to actual whores to get all the information out there. This applies to other groups of people also.
No, the people who claim to have it ARE part of the issue. Saying they’re not is like saying those who are recovering alcoholics have made no contribution to all the knowledge there is about alcoholism. If there’d never been any alcoholics then the term would have never been invented. Even if a condition is found after years of research to be named wrong doesn’t automatically mean the people with the condition didn’t have something wrong with them to begin with.
That’s not the point. A label (“addiction”) with a specific meaning is being applied to a condition which it does not describe in order to promote a moral agenda; no amount of interviewing those who are thus mislabeled will make the mislabeling magically become true.
Think of it this way: suppose that the idea was going around that alcoholism was a form of schizophrenia. It isn’t, but so many people on TV, in magazines, and on message boards keep saying things like, “I think my uncle is schizophrenic, because every time I see him he’s got a beer in his hand.”
So a lot people who are diagnosed, genuinely diagnosed as schizophrenic suddenly become afraid to eat in any restaurant which serves beer or wine, for fear that they’ll transform into stereotypical drunkards, and many alcoholics start bugging their doctors to prescribe them anti-psychotic drugs. Some alcoholics even put working the 12 steps on hold, because what’s the point when you don’t have anti-psychotic drugs to treat your schizophrenia?
Now, alcoholism IS NOT a form of schizophrenia, and no amount of talking to alcoholics who think that they have schizophrenia (because “they all do”) will MAKE alcoholism a form of schizophrenia. That isn’t what the word means.
People who have sexual obsessions, or simply have an interest in sex which some people disapprove of, IS NOT an addiction, and no amount of talking to people who have been told that they are sex addicts will MAKE it an addiction. That isn’t what the word means.
Very well-put. 🙂
Sailor,
I like your analogy here. I think it is spot on.
Dear Sailor B, what you’re leaving out is how many times through history something is thought to be 1 thing and really is another and/or the people who made the label found out they were wrong. You’ve never believed sex addiction is a real thing. You’ve told me this many times. You haven’t made any efforts to check it out on your own either.
Yes I have. Before we ever met I looked into this. I’ve looked into it since, after I got Internet access. Just because something happened outside of your presence doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. I can’t always invite you to watch.
Dear Sailor B, I got this wrong. I went against my own standard of making ASS-umptions based on hardly any info or info I didn’t take the time to confirm with you. I apologize.
Forgiven. Everybody makes mistakes. Some people learn from them. I have good reason to think that you are one of those who learns.
The people who say they have a condition COUNT. Sometimes they’re “written off” because people DON’T WANT their condition to EXIST AT ALL. This has been done with people with multiple personality disorder and other conditions. Again, not every label made is to promote an agenda. They’re not all “out to get us”. Some labels DO FIT after the people who claim to have it are interviewed, diagnosed, etc. It isn’t always something to take away all our freedoms.
No, Laura, nobody is addicted to sex because it isn’t possible to be addicted to sex. People can only be obsessed with sex. If a person claims that his chronic gastro-intestinal problems are caused by a toad living in his stomach and I say he’s wrong, it doesn’t mean I’m denying he has GI problems; it means I’m saying they aren’t really caused by a toad. Nobody is denying that some people have problems controlling their sexual impulses, but it isn’t an addiction and cannot properly be described by an addiction model.
Furthermore, if a herbalist gives our toad-man some kind of remedy which he believes will kill toads but also has the side effect of calming the symptoms of his real problem, he may indeed experience some relief, but that doesn’t mean the toad was real. If, on the other hand, he relies on a faith-healer who tells him he has to pray for the toad to die, he’s not likely to experience lasting relief (though he may imagine he is for a while). And if a quack gives him poison to kill the toad, his condition may worsen dramatically. In no case does the motive of the supposed healer actually matter; if the herbalist is only out for profit while the quack genuinely wants to help him, isn’t he still better off with the herbalist? Or better yet, an MD who will tell him there is no toad and will help him get proper care?
Now do you understand the issue?
Actually, I understood your points from the 1st time I read this entry. I don’t fully agree with you and Sailor B on the whole sex addiction issue. Also want to say I don’t come at this with no experience, etc., with actual addiction as I’m a recovering alcoholic with a little over 12 years sober who’s fully worked the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and done a lot of study on addiction/recovery, etc., in general. Also, the people who contribute to the DSM aren’t infallible. For many years in the DSM it said that being gay was a LITERAL mental illness. That was taken OUT of it and from what I remember that was at least a few years ago. I’m willing to agree to disagree on this whole issue and am glad that this entry got input from people with differing views.
Nobody said the DSM was infallible, but anyone who understands how addictions work on the brain and how evolution produced behaviors which tend to continue the species will come to the same conclusion they did. Nature WANTS men to think about sex a lot and have as much of it as they can, so following that program, even to excess, is not and cannot be an “addiction”, which is a pathological physiological condition.
I think your toad is as good as my schizophrenia. Maybe better. I’m going to copy both to a Word document, which I will label “Schizophrenic Sex-Addicted Alcoholic Toads!”
That first sentence is pretty awesome out of context.
LOL!
It is, isn’t it?
Words have meanings. The Parasaurolophus is, they don’t mean any old thing we want them to mean.
Eating disorders are very strongly tied in with addictions. I can post links about this if anyone wants to see them. Also, there’s behaviors within eating disorders where natural things are literally abused. 2 are exercise and food. Food is abused in binge eating disorder (food is used as a way to comfort and used in quantities that aren’t healthy).
Nobody’s claiming that natural things, such as food and exercise (or sex, for that matter) can’t be abused. The point is that the word “addiction” has a very specific meaning, and anybody using that word to mean something else (in a literal way, not figuratively like we use “that’s cool” to mean something other than “that has a low temperature”) is simply wrong, just the same as somebody using the word “Parasaurolophus” to mean “truth” would be wrong. Or to put it another way…
Maggie, I think you are confusing the terms “obsession” and “compulsion”. An obsession is not necessarily an addiction, but a compulsion CAN become an addiction if it provides consistent rewards to the brain’s pleasure center, just as chemically addictive substances do, and its removal causes negative brain phenomena which amount to a form of withdrawal, though it’s not nearly as extreme as, say, heroin withdrawal. It’s still nevertheless very real.
Real, but not an addiction. The word “addiction” refers to chemical dependence on a substance; not even psychological dependence on a subject is “addiction” (it’s “habituation”), and psychological dependence on a behavior, no matter how powerful, isn’t. One might as well say Pavlov’s dog was “addicted” to the bell.