Is there such a thing as a woman that's too horny?

ermghoti said:
Why are you assuming from my refining your hypothetical couple's activity to be a generalization about married couples generally?

You want scientific citations in response to your utterly unsupported diatribe? Cool. There's one. Need more? Get reading.

I'm pretty much the furthest thing from some touchy feely granola cruncher, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of noting a near-unanimous consensus within a field of study.



Other than losing one's job, the ability to interact with real humans that differ from one's sexual fantasies, withdrawing from friends and hobbies, injuring one's genitals, nothing at all. Of course there are links.
Click to expand...

Your first link is a valid published article, the second is a source for bad information. Yes I have access to all of the private databases any other grad student or researcher has access to through my university. And if you've done any research on the subject you should have run into an equal number of peer reviewed papers not belonging to your supposed consensus. We can share links to opposing articles on a guitar forum if you think that would be productive.

I believe you began by making an unsupported generalization about the sex of married couples.

Here's one (couldn't resist):
The Myth of Sex Addiction

David J. Ley, Ph.D.

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2012


I cannot stress enough how important this book is, not just to the helping professions but to the general public who get to read and hear (incessantly) about someone famous who is called a "sex addict". Think Jessie James, Tiger Woods, Bill Clinton, etc. The topic of sex addiction has been with us since the 1980's, at least. Yet, as this book shows, there is no empirical scientific evidence that would confirm the existence of such an addiction. However, there was a very hard push to make this a diagnosable disease in the upcoming revision #5 of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association). Sex addiction did not make the grade, instead Hypersexual Disorder was proposed.

"In the "Rationale" section of the DSM5 workgroup's discussion of hypersexual disorder, it is explained that there is a clinical need for this diagnosis because there is a "demand" from consumers and providers of services to recognize and diagnose the groups of people who are seeking and receiving treatment for "out-of-control" sexual behaviors. So, in other words, like the Kevin Costner film Field of Dreams, "because they came, we built it." It's a disturbing argument that because there is a group of people saying they have a problem, and because there is an industry and a group of people treating that problem, we should therefore create a diagnosis around it. As others have pointed out, just because there are many people who believe in alien abduction, we have not proposed creating a specific disorder for this condition." p.27

"In the DSM5 workgroup's justification for hypersexual disorder, published in 2010, it is stated that "significant gaps in basic knowledge remain." p.28

Dr. Ley states "The reason why clear medical terminology cannot be created in over thirty years of effort is because this is not a medical issue but a moral and social one." I believe it reflects our sex-negative environment where sex education is politically unacceptable and belief trumps reason when data on the high rates of sexual activity are noted. The whole idea is that sex is different, sex without a relationship is wrong, sex for pleasure is dangerous. This book explores the morality behind making a disease out of sexual behavior. It notes the comparison with the diagnosis of "Nymphomania" used in history to describe women who liked sex (more than men thought they should).

Sex addicts are often described as being out of control. There is a big difference between feeling out of control and being out of control. Saying that someone is sexually out of control is saying there is a mind/body split, the mind cannot control the body. This offers a readymade excuse for sexual behavior that one's partner or society thinks is over the limit (whatever that is). Maybe feeling out of control might be a good feeling of pleasure, but if these feelings conflict with a person's values, guilt or fear might be the result. "In our culture, we rarely teach people that feeling out of control is something different from being out of control. Many people drink alcohol as a "social lubricant," drinking it as "liquid courage," to reduce their inhibitions in social settings. They drink it specifically to feel less in control, because they want to have fun, and they feel that their internal controls are somehow in the way." p.80

However, in our society we are held responsible for our behavior when we are "out of control" due to alcohol. When you are drunk, there is a lot of data on the effects on the body. Sex addiction holds that self-control is not possible without professional help when we feel we are are sexually out of control, since they indicate that feeling and being are the same thing. But there is no science behind this claim.

The book discusses several other "addictions" like caffeine. While having a physical effect on the body, caffeine can create addiction-like behavior such as tolerance and withdrawal symptoms, it is not in the DSM because it was not a good idea to have 60 million people, who love coffee and drink a lot of it, wake up in the morning thinking they had a mental disorder. Yet it apparently is OK to have people who love sexual pleasure and have a lot of it think they are diseased. Enjoy watching porn and you are on the slippery slope to sex addiction!

Sex addiction is big business, there is an American Society of Addictive Medicine that says addiction is a "chronic brain disorder" but this is unsupported by research. There are many clinics where the wealthy (males) can go to be cured. About 900 people have been certified as sex addiction therapists (CSAT) at a cost of about $5000. Chapter 4 covers this well.

Check out Chapter 3, Valley Girl Science, for an interesting view of sex addiction being "like" so many other things. If you are feeling sexy, go to Chapter 6. Chapter 13 is "The Ignored Aspects of Masculinity" where the sex addiction field focuses on men as intrinsically selfish, focused on "scoring" and virility. It ignores the part of men that are seeking love and trying their best to please their partners. This is an especially powerful chapter. Actually, there are no chapters in this book that you would want to skip over.

Dr. Ley does not question the intent of the leaders of the field as much as the methods and goals.

"Patrick Carnes, Robert Weiss, Douglass Weiss, and most of those treating sex addiction are doing so from a place of good intent, trying to serve people who are desperate for help. Treatment for sex addiction often includes clinically appropriate goals of building positive self-image, addressing issues of shame, and the need for support and healthy relationships. Issues of narcissism and selfishness are often addressed, along with the development of guidelines for behaviors and choices. But within the treatment there is an intent to "separate the behavior from the person," and to split men from their sexual desires. This is an expression of the mind-body problem described in chapter 6." p.197

Writing this book has a risk involved. Reading it might involve some risk to you if you come to agree that sex addiction does not really exist.

"The field of sex addiction is a belief system, not a scientific or medical school of thought. There are careful and thoughtful people involved, trying to carefully piece out the kernels of truth embedded in this muddy concept. But the cult of sex addiction is driven by charismatic and convincing leaders who espouse sensationalist and reactive views of sexuality that are based on their own experiences, conviction, and religious faith, not on science or valid research. As I have begun challenging and questioning these beliefs, the levels of defensiveness and anger have shocked me. Strong reactions have come from individuals and family members of the self-identified sex addicts. But even stronger reactions and ad hominem attacks have come from my colleagues, who make their livings treating and diagnosing sex addiction." p.211

If you are a teacher, therapist or just a sexual person, I cannot encourage you enough to read this book. It contains an enormous amount of data, is well written, has a great index and end notes.

Reviewed and enjoyed by David S. Hall, Ph.D.

Hall, David S.
 
Last edited:
rickenvox said:
Yes of course (the breathing bit having no negative consequences). But the hierarchy of human needs is maybe breathing at the top, drinking water, eating, relieving oneself, and sex. They're all natural desires. What you're saying, I believe, is regular overindulgence with bad consequences is addiction. Of course people can have bad consequences the first time they overindulge, which wouldn't be attributable to addiction. Anyway, I fully realize people categorize these things as addictions and I have no desire to change that - just think we should question things instead of blindly accepting every pop psychology concept.
Click to expand...

I’d agree that sex addiction is a widely overused and abused term, perhaps largely due to America’s prudishness, conservatism, evangelism, and general anti-sex cultures.

But some people with predispositions can develop addictions to pretty much anything.
 
Flamencology said:
I’d agree that sex addiction is a widely overused and abused term, perhaps largely due to America’s prudishness, conservatism, evangelism, and general anti-sex cultures.

But some people with predispositions can develop addictions to pretty much anything.
Click to expand...

I would agree with your bottom statement tempered by the top statement.
 
Yes

10558Queen_Sheba,_Solare_Horned_Lizard.jpg
 
rickenvox said:
Your first link is a valid published article, the second is a source for bad information.
Click to expand...

My second link was Google search results. They include more hits from NIH, I'll let you know when I find one critical of the existence of behavioral addiction.

rickenvox said:
Yes, I have access to all of the private databases any other grad student or researcher has access to through my university. And if you've done any research on the subject you should have run into an equal number of peer reviewed papers not belonging to your supposed consensus.
Click to expand...

I think we have differing definitions of "equal number," because the idea that behavioral addiction exists, is treated successfully with the same approach used for physical addiction, and bears some biological relationship in the brain's reaction to the behaviors and to physical addictions is ubiquitous.

rickenvox said:
I believe you began by making an unsupported generalization about the sex of married couples.
Click to expand...

Your belief doesn't make it true, but that could be the underlying source of the disagreement. It's obvious that I quoted your description of a hypothetical supersexing married couple, and stated that there could definitely be scenarios where their behavior would be pathological.

rickenvox said:
I cannot stress enough how important this book is
Click to expand...

Out of the first five reviews I found, four were overwhelmingly negative, the other could be summed up with "raises interesting points, but highly flawed by its bias."

Is sex addiction being used as an excuse for mere infidelity? Almost certainly. Are there people masturbating to the point of physical self-injury? There most certainly are.
 
ermghoti said:
My second link was Google search results. They include more hits from NIH, I'll let you know when I find one critical of the existence of behavioral addiction.



I think we have differing definitions of "equal number," because the idea that behavioral addiction exists, is treated successfully with the same approach used for physical addiction, and bears some biological relationship in the brain's reaction to the behaviors and to physical addictions is ubiquitous.



Your belief doesn't make it true, but that could be the underlying source of the disagreement. It's obvious that I quoted your description of a hypothetical supersexing married couple, and stated that there could definitely be scenarios where their behavior would be pathological.



Out of the first five reviews I found, four were overwhelmingly negative, the other could be summed up with "raises interesting points, but highly flawed by its bias."

Is sex addiction being used as an excuse for mere infidelity? Almost certainly. Are there people masturbating to the point of physical self-injury? There most certainly are.
Click to expand...

I have 23 other peer-reviewed journal articles stating the same thing (sexual addiction is a myth). I can only copy and paste the content as the links require academic subscriptions.
 
ermghoti said:
I think we have differing definitions of "equal number," because the idea that behavioral addiction exists, is treated successfully with the same approach used for physical addiction, and bears some biological relationship in the brain's reaction to the behaviors and to physical addictions is ubiquitous.
Click to expand...

You're addicted to what? Challenging the myth of sex addiction
Marty Klein
The Humanist. 72.4 (July-August 2012): p31+.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 American Humanist Association
http://www.americanhumanist.org/
Listen
Full Text:
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

PERIODICALLY, some famous politician, athlete, or entertainer gets caught with his or her pants down, damaging or even destroying their reputation, livelihood, and marriage. Within hours, my email starts buzzing, as media vultures circle the fresh carcass and want my expert opinion: Is Tiger Woods a sex addict? Was Katharine Hepburn? How about Eliot Spitzer, David Duchovny, Charlie Sheen, John Edwards?

The twenty-four-hour cable/Internet news cycle doesn't want experts to talk seriously about this-they simply want people (Maury! Tyra! The ladies on The View!) who will announce, with just the right mix of scorn, smirk, gravity, and total confidence that so-and-so is a sex addict.

The schadenfreude is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Moralism stands in for sympathy. High dudgeon stands in for nuanced understanding. From all corners, we hear a Greek chorus of voices linking someone's extramarital affairs to feminism, testosterone, the Internet, sadomasochism, consumerism, or even 9/11. And then they inevitably wheel in the heavy gun: "sex addiction."

Most importantly, these public thrashings are a chance for the audience to condemn sexual acting out while vicariously enjoying it. America loves an excuse to sneakily enjoy unauthorized sex. The fall of the rich and famous is a bonus.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

So when USA Today calls about Eliot Spitzer's high-end escorts, or CNN emails about Anthony Weiner's sexting, I'm usually pretty slow to respond to the ghoulish invitation.

I don't diagnose people I haven't met. More importantly, I don't use the diagnosis of sex addiction. In thirty-one years as a sex therapist, marriage counselor, and psychotherapist, I've never seen sex addiction. I've heard about virtually every sexual variation, obsession, fantasy, trauma, and involvement with sex workers, but I've never seen sex addiction.

New patients tell me all the time how they can't keep from doing self-destructive sexual things; still, I see no sex addiction. Instead, I see people regretting the sexual choices they make, often denying that these are decisions. I see people wanting to change, but not wanting to give up what makes them feel alive or young or loved or adequate; wanting the advantages of changing, but not wanting to give up what makes them feel they're better or sexier or naughtier than other people. Most importantly, I see people wanting to stop doing what makes them feel powerful, attractive, or loved, but since they don't want to stop feeling powerful, attractive or loved, they can't seem to stop the repetitive sex clumsily designed to create those feelings.

ZI-1374-2012-J-A00-IDSI-30-1

The conflict over sex addiction is important to humanists for several reasons. "Sex addiction" is a special weapon now used by the religious right to combat perceived liberalism, to ignore science, and to ignite fear. It also helps legitimize anti-sex moralism and bigotry. And psychologists, judges, legislators, and the media are buying it.

When people refer to themselves or others as "sex addicts," what are they actually talking about? More than anything, simple narcissistic character structure: the familiar "I guess I thought I could get away with it." "Deep down, I don't really believe the rules apply to me." or "When I hurt, I want relief, and I don't care so much about breaking promises or hurting others."

If that sounds like normal people--if that sounds like you--it's not surprising. Narcissism is a common human condition. So here's my evaluation of almost everyone who is diagnosed as a sex addict--by themselves, their loved ones, or an addictionologist: it's someone who is unhappy with the consequences of their sexual choices, but who finds it too emotionally painful to make different choices. You know, the way some of us are with cookies, new sweaters, or watching the Kardashians on TV.

Which is to say, it's not about the sex. It's about the immature decision-making.

The rest of the people who are in pain about their sexual decision-making are generally struggling with one or more of the following: compulsivity, impulsivity, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder. An idiosyncratic response to medication can even be a factor.

So when people talk about sex addiction, they're really talking about all of these, and more. When someone says, "sexually, I'm out of control," that doesn't tell us very much. When we know someone has affair after affair; or that someone regularly masturbates to the point of pain; or that someone constantly pressures his wife for sex regardless of how unrealistic it is (she's post-partum, she has the flu, his parents are in the next room, they had a big fight just a few hours ago); or that someone is pursuing anonymous sex in public parks in a way that's begging for jail time and loss of career; or that someone watches three hours of porn per night, we simply don't know very much about the person.

On the other hand, anyone who says "sexually, I'm out of control" is automatically welcomed into the fellowship of sex addicts--without any attempt to evaluate that person's mental state. Sex therapists generally don't get distracted by the sexual part of patients' stories. Those without training in sexuality--like so-called sex addiction counselors--often do. Let's examine this cultural phenomenon in more detail.

The origin of "sex addiction": NOT in sex therapy

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the sex addiction movement--and certainly the most telling--is that it did not arise from the field of sex therapy or any other sexuality-related field. Rather, it was started in 1983 by Patrick Carnes, whose background is in counselor education and organizational development. He claims no training in human sexuality.

"Sex addiction" has been adopted enthusiastically by the addiction community, and to a lesser extent by the marriage and family profession--the latter historically undertrained and uncomfortable with sexuality. You can, for example, become a licensed marriage counselor without ever hearing the words vibrator, clitoris, spanking, tongue-kissing, or panties during your education.
 
Almost thirty years after its invention by Carnes, "sex addiction" is still not a popular concept in the fields of sex therapy, sex education, or sex research. Of course, the media loves it, decency groups love it, and those who identify as some other kind of addict (alcohol, food, drugs) love it, especially if they're fans of the Twelve Steps.

If people are being honest their answer to the first three is "of course" and the answer to the last is "of course not." But when someone is anxious about questions that basically ask, "am I normal?" or has an angry spouse, or an interest in non-normative eroticism, and has the sex-negativity of religion or family whispering in their ear, it's easy to interpret their SAST answers ("yes, I've sometimes wondered if my sexuality is stronger than I am," "yes, I've hidden aspects of my sexuality from other," and so on) as reflecting mental illness.

So the diagnosis of sex addiction is in many ways a diagnosis of discomfort with one's own sexuality, or of being at odds with cultural definitions of normal sex, and struggling with that contrast. A sex-negative culture like America breeds that discomfort and contrast. Calling these symptoms of sex addiction entirely omits the role that sex-negative culture plays in shaping people's distress with their sexuality, which they often channel into repetitive behavior (in some cases unsatisfying, in others highly satisfying) that can be hard to fathom.

No actual diagnostic criteria

So other than a high SAST score, how does a professional decide that someone is a sex addict?

Three decades after the terms introduction, there's still no consensus on a definition. Not surprisingly, however, nonprofessionals are increasingly using the term. The phrase anal retentive is analogous; saying someone is "anal" used to have specific, technical meaning, and is now used casually to suggest anything from being well-organized to anxious to controlling. Similarly, the expression "sex addict" is now thrown around by counselors, fictional characters, prosecutors, and everyone else to mean practically anything, from high desire to obnoxiously aggressive to trapped with a fetish to kinky to ashamed to anxious. It simply has no real meaning.

ZI-1374-2012-J-A00-IDSI-31-1

And so therapists are willing to diagnose people they've never met (like Tiger Woods). Similarly, angry or frightened women are diagnosing their husbands and sending them to therapy, often saying "either get yourself diagnosed and treated for sex addiction, or don't come home, because it means you're just a selfish bastard."

Exactly how sophisticated can a psychiatric diagnosis be if (1) a professional can diagnose someone without ever meeting them, and (2) lay people with no training whatsoever can use the diagnosis?

Lacking empirical studies or an understanding of the complexity of (and cross-cultural variations in) human sexuality, addiction counselors have attempted to define a sexual "disorder" based on the chemical dependency model. And so they talk about things like:

* Being preoccupied with or persistently craving sex; wanting to cut down and unsuccessfully attempting to limit sexual activity.

* Continually engaging in the sexual behavior despite negative consequences, such as broken relationships or potential health risks.

* Feeling irritable when unable to engage in the desired behavior.

Non-criteria like these resemble the SAST itself--ambiguous, rooted in assumptions about what's "normal," and substituting subjective judgments for rigorous assessment.

Another way to conceptualize sex addiction is as a violation of society's moral standards, along with someone's distress about that violation. One should not masturbate too much, according to common norms; one should not have too much indiscriminate sex; cheat on one's spouse; be too sexually involved with porn, objects, or those with whom there's no romantic love to redeem the sex (such as casual pickups or sex workers). The sex addiction concept helps patrol these arbitrary moral boundaries.
 
How do you treat the thing?

Heroin addiction treatment programs never suggest that the addict cut down to 3 or 4 injections per week. "You're an addict, so you can never use heroin--or alcohol--ever again" is far closer to what we'd expect.

Then how about using the same model for treating sex addicts: "You'll just have to give up sex altogether" or "You can never masturbate again." No? If the model works for other "addictions," why not for sex? Two answers come to mind: (1) the whole sex addiction model doesn't have nearly that much theoretical rigor, and (2) the market for a treatment plan that aims toward complete sexual abstinence is, well, rather limited.

It's bad enough that the vague model of sexual health or sobriety encouraged by Sex Addicts Anonymous (SAA) and Sexaholics Anonymous (SA) is relentlessly heterosexual, monogamous, and intercourse-focused. It doesn't make theoretical sense, but it's obviously a more marketable product than abstinence. And both programs adapt the Alcoholics Anonymous model of asking participants to acknowledge their powerlessness over their addiction, and to ask God to remove their shortcomings.

Without question, there are many helpful things about twelve-step groups for some people. The advantage of these features is amplified in the case of sex, where there's so much shame, cultural judgment, and self-imposed isolation. When you go to SA or SAA, they welcome you no matter what. Of course people love going there--imagine that you're struggling, you have secrets or your spouse is angry or you feel bad about yourself or you wonder if you're normal. Suddenly, here's a group that says, "We're so glad to see you! We've been waiting just for YOU!" It must feel like such a relief; one almost feels like a scrooge critiquing it.

But the charm of the twelve-step experience doesn't mean that these groups actually cure (or even treat) an actual problem.

Obviously, there are legitimate problems out there regarding sexual behavior. There are people having affair after affair, seemingly unable to keep from hurting those they love. There are people for whom sex without danger has no excitement whatsoever. There are people spending hours every night on the Internet, typing with one hand, clicking on one exciting babe after another. And there are people who can't seem to keep away from massage parlors, escorts, strip clubs, and lap dances. They try, but they can't.

As a psychotherapist, sex therapist, and couples counselor, I see it first-hand. I pick up the pieces and help people put their lives back together.

I just don't find the sex addict label clinically valuable, nor do I find it helpful to lump sexually troubled people together in this way. I also resent the repeated statement that if I don't conceptualize these people as sex addicts, I'm either ignorant or I lack compassion. When some progressive Colonial physicians refused to diagnose patients as possessed by the devil, that didn't mean they lacked compassion. They just didn't believe in the diagnosis.

By the way, it's fair to ask how I treat these people clinically. I do it with psychotherapy and occasionally with sex therapy; medication can also play a valuable role with some patients. Generally, my approach works pretty well.

New junk science

You may have observed that this is the decade of the brain, involving attempts to find neurological explanations for every facet of human emotion, motivation, and behavior.

Fortunately, "sex addiction" is not going to be in the upcoming fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which describes mental illnesses for clinicians, the criminal justice system, the insurance industry, and graduate students. The primary reason for the exclusion is that there's no consensus on what this "disease" is, and there are no rigorous scientific studies that determine the features or trajectory of its pathology.

But sure enough, various clinicians and researchers are trying to establish the scientific basis for sex addiction--by referring to neurology and hormones, as measured by brain scans. Such researchers have discovered that when so-called sex addicts are involved in sex (for example, when watching pornography), the part of their brain that lights up (the mesolimbic pathway) is the same part that lights up when a heroin addict has injected heroin.

Compelling proof of sex addiction? Not even close. That's the same part of the brain that lights up when we see a sunset, the Golden Gate Bridge, the perfect donut, a gorgeous touchdown pass, or our grandchild's smile. Our brain, our blood, and our hormones always react to pleasure--including sexual pleasure. The last 150,000 years of evolution at least accomplished that much with us poor humans.

The latest entry into the sex addiction/brain chemistry sweepstakes is the new junk science of "porn addiction." One primary proponent, Judith Reisman (who also claims that Alfred Kinsey was a pedophilic fraud), refers to poisonous "erototoxins" released into the bloodstream during the viewing of pornographic material. Another proponent, Marnia Robinson, claims that teens' brains are so plastic that boys easily become addicted to porn, which then damages their ability to function sexually with actual partners. Not a shred of evidence clouds Reisman's or Robinson's judgment about how people become addicted to their own body chemicals when those chemicals are related to sex rather than, say, a walk through the park or a production of King Lear.

Sex addiction and porn addiction crusaders complain that porn is terrible sex education. I agree, just as watching a car chase in an action movie is a terrible way to learn to drive.
 
Last edited:
Why it matters what you call it

In response to questions such as: "Is there such a thing as sex addiction?" and "How should we conceptualize sexual behavior that appears or feels like it's out of control?" I'm astounded by the number of professionals who collapse into responding, "What does it matter what we call it? The goal is to help these poor people."

When homosexuality was called a mental illness, it mattered. When women were called frigid or nymphomaniacs or hysterics, it mattered. When a patient is diagnosed as possessed by the devil instead of schizophrenic it clearly matters: it determines the treatment to be used, and who is qualified to administer the treatment. How can people who make their living using words say that it doesn't matter what you call it?

It also matters what you call it because the model of sexuality is built into the model of disease. In obsessive-compulsive disorder, we don't say the problem is hand washing, and we don't send people to hand-washing clinics. But in sex addiction, the problem is sex, and people are sent to sex addiction clinics.

Finally, it matters because calling this behavior an "addiction" validates the idea that these people are out of control. Instead, we need to say that feeling out of control isn't the same as being out of control. Most "sex addicts" don't like the consequences of their sexual choices, but they keep making those choices. We have a word for this behavioral pattern--neurosis; and we have a treatment for it--psychotherapy (sometimes supported by pharmaceuticals). The addiction model starts with "we admitted we were powerless." The therapy model starts with "you're responsible for your choices; I wonder why you keep doing what gives you what you say you don't want?"

What this means for humanists

* The sex addiction movement exploits people's fear of their own sexuality. As humanists we oppose anything that exploits fear.

* Recalling that sex addiction is a fairly new concept, we can observe the historical and cultural context from which the movement emerged--not a sexological context as much as a narrative about fear, danger, powerlessness, and victimization.

* The sex addiction model inevitably tells us that eroticism needs to be controlled, and that erotica and commercial sex are dangerous and problematic. This means that the sex addiction movement, with the help of the religious right, supports public policy focused on controlling sexuality. Unfortunately it has been very successful in that regard.

* The sex addiction model tells us that imagination has no healthy role to play in sexuality. This fundamental misunderstanding of human nature is very much our business.

The issue of what to call sexual behavior that is described as out of control is important not just for society in general, but for humanists in particular. To the extent that the sex addiction movement trivializes science as just one of many different perspectives, it affects us. To the extent that it tries to squeeze people into a small normative box of sexual behavior, it's relevant to our cause. And to the extent that it pathologizes behavior that doesn't hurt other people, it's a prime example of what a humanist public policy would replace.
 
The SAST

So, again, what is "sex addiction"? The key evaluation tool (and just about everything you need to know about the concept) is the Sexual Addiction Screening Test (SAST). I encourage everyone to take the SAST (it's easy to find online at www.sexhelp.com--just click on the "Am I a sex addict?" link). Most non-sex addicts are quite surprised at how high they rate on this instrument.

An enormous percentage of the test asks about non normative behavior, as well as ambivalence about or rejection of one's sexuality--feelings like guilt, shame, and remorse. Sample questions inquire if:

* You regularly purchase porn or romance novels

* You have multiple romantic involvements

* You use sex or romantic fantasies for escape

* You're a regular participant in S/M behavior

* You're worried your sexual behavior will be discovered

* You feel preoccupied with sexual or romantic thoughts

* You're concerned that your sexual behavior isn't normal

* Your partner complains about your sexual behavior

For most Americans, the answer to at least some of these questions is, "sure--isn't this normal?" And this is part of the problem with diagnosing "sex addiction"--too much common sexual behavior and experience gets pathologized.

So what the SAST really measures is:

* Did you grow up in a sex negative culture?

* Does your sexuality have any dark side to it?

* Do you have questions about sex or your sexuality?

* Do you feel 100% comfortable with your sexuality?

Dr. Marty Klein is a licensed marriage and family therapist and certified sex therapist in Palo Alto, California. He is on the editorial advisory board of the Humanist, and he recently spoke at the AHA annual conference.

Klein, Marty

Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Klein, Marty. "You're addicted to what? Challenging the myth of sex addiction." The Humanist, July-Aug. 2012, p. 31+. Expanded Academic ASAP, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A296952110/EAIM?u=csunorthridge&sid=EAIM&xid=af3554de. Accessed 24 Apr. 2018.
 
My final comment on the subject. I totally agree that there can be a tendency to over-pathologize natural and normal behavior. I also know there are cases where natural and normal behavior goes beyond control and becomes detrimental to the wellbeing of some people. Then they need help to get their life back under control. I really feel that we agree on this.
 
Peen Simmons said:
Nice work, rickenvox. You’ve proven that your addiction to breathing does have negative consequences...for us.
Click to expand...

I know, the mind is a terrible thing. Was challenged to demonstrate my "unsupported diatribe" is actually supported. It's not as if I took away any space from really important posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top