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.

Those shows make me sick.  Keep the drama at home.

This response has been erased.

        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.

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.

        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?

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.

        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.

I avoid "reality" TV shows like the plague they are.  There's hardly 
any reality to them.

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.

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.

        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.

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?

        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.

This response has been erased.

        Kutchner, I think?

This response has been erased.

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.

This response has been erased.

I think "doofus" was more accurate anyway.  

Re #13: Ah... but do you think that there is such a thing as legitimate ADD?

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

This response has been erased.

Um, I never said Demi Moore was a whore.  I said I don't care what she 
*wore* the other day.

:)

This response has been erased.

no, ashton most likely wore her, unless he's into being fisted

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss