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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

response 15 of 24:

Jun 23 18:15 UTC 2003

        Kutchner, I think?

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.

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?