Sex Addiction: A B.S. Excuse for Not Thinking

Sexual compulsions are real and they harm the person in their grip as well as others. But treating them like a problem — something to be ‘fixed’ — isn’t working.

Tiger Woods has reportedly sought treatment for sex addiction. Given the tsunami of false reports about him, this rumor is highly suspect. Nevertheless, no one would be surprised if he joined the list of high-profile figures, usually men, who have been labeled sex addicts or actively sought treatment as such, e.g. David Duchovny, Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Foley and Ted Haggard, to name a few.

Whether applied earnestly or as a PR gloss for bad behavior, sex addiction is an increasingly common diagnosis. In my view, it’s a problematic one. It’s ambiguous, hard to define, blurry around the edges, and an excuse for not thinking. If a married man has a lot of extramarital sex, is he necessarily a sex addict? If a seemingly straight man frequents restrooms for casual sex, is he an addict? How much pornography does someone have to look at, how many hours spent in chat rooms, hookers hired, to go from “hound dog” to “sex addict?”

Current attempts at diagnosis focus on the extent to which sexual compulsions interfere with a person’s good judgment or are pursued despite obvious risks to health, job and family. Anyone who has experienced such compulsions or has treated them knows what I mean — the husband who spends untold hours cheating on his wife online or with hookers, spends money he doesn’t have pursuing his sexual interests, engages in unsafe sex, etc. But how much risk does there have to be? If my lifestyle easily allows me to spend five hours a day surfing Internet porn or cruising for hookers, I may experience little risk but a high level of compulsion. If I feel too guilty to leave a terrible marriage and instead have a series of affairs, am I being compulsive or simply escaping a lonely existence? What about a priest who feels compelled to have sex, thereby risking his entire identity and belief-system; is he a sex addict or did he choose a ridiculously unhealthy lifestyle? Subjective experiences are clearly unreliable: Some people with very strict consciences and conservative backgrounds experience almost any sexual impulse as “out of control,” while for others, living in a Fellini film would barely make the forbidden list.

Full Story Sex Addiction: A B.S. Excuse for Not Thinking | Sex and Relationships | AlterNet.

Post to Twitter

Share

Filed Under: social issues

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Thom’s Blog
    Thom plus logo
     Who will you vote for this year: Big Oil, Big Casinos, or Wall Street?

     
    Billionaire hedge fund manager - and primary contributor to Rick Santorum's Red, White, and Blue SuperPAC - Foster Friess let the truth slip out about politics in this post-Citizens United age during an interview with Politico. Friess was among several billionaires who attended the Koch brothers secret meeting last month where over a hundred million dollars was pledged to beat President Obama.
    Trying to get other oligarchs on the side of Rick Santorum - Friess said, "There isn't a person at the Koch brothers events who would not get a good return on their investment by investing in [Santorum] as president, because of what they believe about the free enterprise system." The key word there: investment. These aren't campaign contributions - these are investments that millionaires and billionaires are making to keep their tax breaks, their subsidies, and their lax regulations in place.
    We no longer have actual people running for President - we have a few very, very rich people like Friess and the Kochs investing in stooges to do their bidding - and hoping to see major returns in their bank accounts. So who will you vote for this year? Big Oil, Big Casinos, or Wall Street?
    -Thom
    (Who will you vote for this year? Tell us here.)

  • LEGALIZE Democracy

    " We the corporations" On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. __________

    MOVE to AMEND

    a project of the CAMPAIGN TO LEGALIZE Democracy

    Help end Corporate personhood