|
|
| Author |
Message |
jaklumen
|
|
Anything For Love
| 
Jun 18 03:49 UTC 2003 |
Usually I'll pass on reality type TV shows, but on Fox's latest
offering I made an exception. Julie seems to turn on a lot of stinker
shows but at this was fun disseminating, that is, commenting on what
we thought was good and what seemed rather insane.
The first couple was comprised of man who liked to frequent the strip
clubs and a woman who felt it was straining their marriage. She
decided to perform a striptease for him at the club he liked to go
to. It was hard for her as she was much more reserved and somewhat
conservative, but she figured he wanted her to come out of her shell
somewhat. We looked at it with a somewhat wary eye because of what we
know of sex addiction, but he responded pretty favorably once she
removed the mask she wore to conceal her identity.
Quite a few other stories were a lot of kick-it-to-the-curb scenarios
where we figured the man or the woman (yeah, there were instances of
both cases) was just getting dramatic closure. Both had a similar
formula where the cheating or straying partner was baited by an actor
or actress and was watched by the other on concealed cameras.
Usually, the player was caught giving away a phone number or something
like that and played down their existing relationship. They would
always be greeted at the end by their significant other and dumped,
and in both instances, neither seemed to think they were doing
anything wrong.
The really scary story was a woman who decided she needed to get back
her ex-boyfriend. She was determined that the woman he'd been living
with for two years was making him unhappy, so she plastered her face
and the phrase, "Marry me, not her" on a moving billboard which she
had carted over to his office. One of the hosts brought him down and
coaxed him to tell her the reasons why he wouldn't be with her (as he
was very polite but made motions to quickly leave). It was pathetic,
as she all but begged him on hands and knees. Julie asked what I
would do, and I would say I would have run if I were him. Politeness
was a nice touch, but I would have made it clear to America-- "Holly,
you're freaky. Bye!"
Another girl was brought on the show from Salt Lake by a young man who
felt she was his soulmate-- they had met three times over the course
of about three years or so. This was the only one I thought was
innocent and not at all scary, because both parties were honest, real,
and not over the top. It didn't work out romantically, but both
handled the situation extremely well.
The last couple decided to 'marry' on the show but took a polygraph
test to determine some questions about the strength of their
fidelity. It was administered by a seasoned professional but I was
surprised (perhaps it was due to time concerns) that it was limited to
three questions. The man was a rocker in a band and the woman had
concerns about temptation with the other women he'd meet on the road.
He didn't pass a related question, but he assured her that he was
merely nervous during that question and was angry and upset about that
test result... apparently, it was enough.
A little strange all in all but thankfully "Mr. Personality"
nor "Temptation Island" or "Paradise Hotel" it was not.
|
| 24 responses total. |
michaela
|
|
response 1 of 24:
|
Jun 18 06:27 UTC 2003 |
Those shows make me sick. Keep the drama at home.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 2 of 24:
|
Jun 18 14:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 3 of 24:
|
Jun 18 14:37 UTC 2003 |
Hmmmm. I don't buy the concept of sex addiction. It certainly isn't
an addiction in the most formal sense:
2 : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin,
nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined
physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use
of a substance known by the user to be harmful
(Merriam-Webster online)
Actually, I don't buy the concept of an addictive pattern of
behavior. Most assuredly there are patterns of behavior that are difficult
to change, but the origins and treatment are so different from how you'd
deal with an addiction to a habit-forming substance as to really make the
term counterproductive.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 4 of 24:
|
Jun 18 18:59 UTC 2003 |
re resp:1 and resp:2 telling-- no offense, but I'd expect that from
you, Sapna. I don't think I'll watch the show again. Not enough
sweet stories and yep, too much sick.
resp:3 I disagree. Different, but it is still an addiction-- just not
in the physiological sense that goes with substance abuse. If you
don't want to call it addiction, call it some other stripe of self-
destructive behavior, because there are some people who do indulge in
stuff like this and can't seem to stop.
|
jazz
|
|
response 5 of 24:
|
Jun 18 19:48 UTC 2003 |
I've had a reasonable exposure to the field over the last decade and
a half, and I don't think I've seen anything I could characterize that way.
But it might just be the way I label things internally. I'm thinking what
you're talking about might be related to the way that people who are very
socially adept - sometimes because of their social skills, but often because
of their appearance - tend to disregard the feelings of others when it comes
to their own actions. But that's not complete, either. Can you elaborate,
or provide a (no names) example?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 6 of 24:
|
Jun 20 00:57 UTC 2003 |
I'm talking about people that chase sex for the rush, that seem to
prefer hardcore pornography and identifiable smut to real
relationships-- or seem to let them creep in a drive a wedge in their
relationships. Compulsions, obsessions that don't seem to be
conducive to communication, sharing, et cetera-- that they are
secretive of, lie about, try to cover up. People that believe sex is
their most important need and that orgasm is the most important need,
sometimes almost a fix.
This has been discussed a little bit in the recovery cf, and the thing
that it seems to be marginalized somewhat by the fact that religious
groups most often advocate therapy and help. But I still think SA and
SAA exist for a reason-- apparently it's a problem to some people.
|
jazz
|
|
response 7 of 24:
|
Jun 20 04:30 UTC 2003 |
I've gone through some of the SA literature on the web, and the only
difference between this and what I was talking about earlier is that SA says
that the person "no longer has the power of choice."
I'm not sure what to think about SA. It seems, to me, that they're
trying to lump together a number of possibly coincidental but different
problems under the same framework that Alcoholics Anonymous uses to to treat
alcohol abuse, and which has been successfully adapted to a couple of other
ailments, but failed at others. It seems to complicated an undertaking to
handle with such an approach.
For instance, one thing they discuss a great deal on associations'
pages seems to be a common sort of depression and low self-esteem combined
with using sex as both a release and a means of validation. That's quite
different from a developed fetish for pornography, where prepared sexual media
replaces human sexual interaction. And it's quite different from
exhibitionism and social anxiety disorder in a sexual situation. I don't see
a single coherent syndrome.
|
vidar
|
|
response 8 of 24:
|
Jun 20 13:22 UTC 2003 |
I avoid "reality" TV shows like the plague they are. There's hardly
any reality to them.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 9 of 24:
|
Jun 20 22:47 UTC 2003 |
resp:7 well, the difference could be a matter of psychology vs.
neurology. There has been at least one study that I have heard of
that would suggest sex addiction can be as powerful as cocaine
addiction-- that the hormones released during orgasm could be
addictive. Yes, I agree that fetishes, exhibitionism, and voyeurism
probably occupy complex facets of psychological behavior and can't
easily be lumped together.
I would suppose SA and the like are an approach to modifying what are
seen as insufficient mechanisms of coping. I'll take something my
psychiatrist believes: some of it could be identity issues, that is,
someone isn't really secure with their sense of self, isn't sure of
who they are, and various aspects of addiction, carrying anything to
excess that 'feels good,' may enter the picture.
Take what is currently known as co-dependency. Such a person puts the
needs of another before themself, may be vulnerable to manipulation,
may be prone to enmeshment, because self-identity is insecure. Self
decisions are scary and it is much easier to feel worth in someone in
trying to help someone who may not be mentally well themselves.
Even dominance and submission cannot be drawn under clear lines of
sanity; one has clearly forfeited control. Some have theorized this
enables such individuals to relieve guilt about sex (as they do not
have the control). It should be admitted that there are at least deep
psychological assumptions in such roles.
I have never been comfortable with using any aspect of sexuality as a
label; it seems to confine and constrict. I do have fairly
established views that it can be shaped and modified; and sometimes I
am curious why it is sometimes so much a part of people's identities.
resp:8 "Reality" TV is a bit of a misnomer, and I think it's really a
part of its marketing. Perhaps a better word would
be "improvisational". It's not totally freeform, but rather, certain
parameters are set, and then the cast is set to move on those
parameters. It's not scripted.
There is a certain premise in the theme, and the producers are pretty
free to control the cast members as they choose (change the lineup,
occasionally make plot decisions, etc.) This was pretty apparent in
MTV's offerings (and you could see producers pretty much admit it), so
there shouldn't be much surprise in hearing that Joe Millionaire
wasn't really interested in any of the ladies and that the producers
decided to pick for him for the most part.
There seems to be a trend to deconstruct the mass media. People love
watching behind the scenes documentaries about movies, to the point
that they often want to know about the movie magic at about the same
time the movie is released. Perhaps the commentary on the Gong Show
is true: "Reality" TV is media entertainment turned on its head,
inspired by the old show. We see E! Hollywood Story and VH1 Behind
The Music and revel in celebrities that burnt out on fortune and
fame. We see Anna Nicole Smith, the anti-Marilyn Monroe-- real
silicone, real self-destruction, real pathetic. We want to see
celebrities and average joes switch places somehow-- I could have
sworn "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here" was almost a game show,
and we want to see everyday folks play out the Hollywood love story
and life of a pop star, but with less script and more spontaneity.
The formulas are about the same.
This so oddly seems like a "Gee, I wonder what my life would be like
as a television show?" and "What if celebrities were more like me?"
(i.e. I wanna see them without the glitz and glamour) An odd trading
places, as it were. But it seems to be like life imitating art, and
of course, in the case of love, it's got a plastic feel to it.
|
michaela
|
|
response 10 of 24:
|
Jun 21 04:14 UTC 2003 |
I can't stand any of the above. I rarely turn on the TV anymore. All of
these "reality" shows and E! Insider things seem to pander to the people whose
lives are so empty and boring that they have to talk about what Demi Moore
wore the other day or which money-grabbing bimbo some frat-boy loser will
pick. I can almost feel my brain leaking out my ears.
|
jazz
|
|
response 11 of 24:
|
Jun 23 05:47 UTC 2003 |
Demi Moore isn't a whore. I've heard that before, and I think that
people are confusing her persona for the personas she's played in movies.
The whole sex addiction thing just seems like it's too much glossing
over of too many different and unrelated things, to me. I don't think you
could seriously treat, say, ADD and Asperger's if you lumped them together,
and I don't think you can treat codependency and masochistic tendencies if
you lump them together.
One of the best yardsticks I've seen in terms of whether something is
a mental illness or not is the social functioning of the person in question.
Most BDSM enthusiasts I know are perfectly well adapted, and have partners
with compatible interests. It's present at some level in all sexuality, too,
and in all relationships, the idea of control and gaining or relinquishing
it.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 12 of 24:
|
Jun 23 05:53 UTC 2003 |
In other words:
"It's not that people who talk about 'sex addiction' are lying, or that
they're delusional. It's just that 'sex addiction' is a big vague
category. It probably makes sense to split it up into a few smaller, more
specific categories before you try to come to any conclusions."
Would that be a fair way to put it?
|
jazz
|
|
response 13 of 24:
|
Jun 23 13:34 UTC 2003 |
It goes a little further than that. It's enough to say that the
diagnosis of "sex addiction" is like "ADD" used to be a couple of years ago,
fluffy and an overly popular diagnosis.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 14 of 24:
|
Jun 23 15:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 15 of 24:
|
Jun 23 18:15 UTC 2003 |
Kutchner, I think?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 16 of 24:
|
Jun 23 18:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 17 of 24:
|
Jun 23 18:55 UTC 2003 |
And with his work in MTV's "Punk'd", "Dude, Where's My Car?" and "Just
Married", I would guess they would reinforce that impression. They surely
reinforce mine.
Or he's a really good actor. One has to wonder. He was majoring in
biochemical engineering at U of Iowa before he switched to modeling.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 18 of 24:
|
Jun 23 19:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 19 of 24:
|
Jun 23 20:48 UTC 2003 |
I think "doofus" was more accurate anyway.
Re #13: Ah... but do you think that there is such a thing as legitimate ADD?
|
phenix
|
|
response 20 of 24:
|
Jun 24 12:39 UTC 2003 |
dude. it's demi moore.
he's a 25 year old male, she's 40
women drool; over him, he prolly spent most of his life wacking to
her generation.
c'mon, what's the issue. let us all ho pe that our sex symbols look
that good at 40
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 21 of 24:
|
Jun 24 14:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
michaela
|
|
response 22 of 24:
|
Jun 26 17:21 UTC 2003 |
Um, I never said Demi Moore was a whore. I said I don't care what she
*wore* the other day.
:)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 23 of 24:
|
Jun 26 18:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
phenix
|
|
response 24 of 24:
|
Jun 28 14:17 UTC 2003 |
no, ashton most likely wore her, unless he's into being fisted
|