Feminists want to medicalize a natural male state (the urge to have sex with many women.)
Let's look at the Tiger Woods scenario. Certainly he erred in straying from his wife. But is he guilty of "sex addiction"?
Is having the opportunity to have sex with many hot young women (and doing so) a case of "addiction"? Isn't the only thing separating a lot of normal men from Tiger Woods sexual opportunity?
quote:Feminists want to medicalize a natural male state
shut up
shut up
shut up
go away
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
YO LET'S TALK ABOUT COOKIES
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
let's talk about girl scout cookies. clive will hate us talking about that even more, because they are cookies sold by GIRLS (clive hates women)
i bought like ten boxes, mostly thin mints, samoas, and trefoils
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Samoas were my favorite as a kid. I love caramel. But I've come to appreciate some of the other kinds as I've grown older.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i bought like ten boxes, mostly thin mints, samoas, and trefoils
Wow. My best customer only bought 5!
Too bad you're out of my area.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (clive hates women)[/QB]
No I don't. I hate strident feminists who make stupid arguments.
Make an ass out of yourself all you want but please don't smear me.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
One of the women at my work put up a sign saying her daughter is selling girl scout cookies, but I dont know any good flavors other than thin mint.
WHAT KINDA COOKIE SHOULD I GET?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tagalongs are like an appetizer. Their delicousness ensures that you'll tear therough them quickly. I recommend a box of Dos-i-dos for longer lasting peanut buttery goodness.
And Clive, if you're actually curious about real sex addiction, I'd recommend checking out Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew. I've only caught a couple episodes, so I don't know much about it yet but I expect it to be every bit as fascinating as Celebrity Rehab.
Addiction, to me, seems like OCD got together with bipolar mania and had a baby. Watching an addict fixate on something or someone and become immediately convinced that they cannot live without it should convince you pretty quickly that you're dealing with an abnormal behavior, not one on a spectrum of healthy behavior.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Samoas have always been my favorite. A girl in one of my classes was giving away samoas the other day, but I didn't find out until the end of class, as I wasn't sitting at her table since it was full when I'd arrived. I learned a harsh lesson that day. Never again will I be late to class when Girl Scout cookies are in season.
By the by, I heard something about a recall of Girl Scout cookies. Hopefully my precious samoas and thin mints weren't affected.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (clive hates women)
No I don't. I hate strident feminists who make stupid arguments.
Then correct your opening statement. Instead of "Feminists want to medicalize a natural male state", say "I hate strident feminists who make stupid arguments, like those who want to medicalize a natural male state. But I don't hate them enough to ignore them, or to reject their ideas as crazy. Instead I'll create a unnecessarily caustic post."
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Saaaaaaaaamoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas.... I haven't been able to buy any cookies this year.
Lyr, the recall I heard was specifically Lemon Chalets. The fats broke down seriously prematurely in certain batches from one bakery (the one that isn't ABC) and those cookies were giving off an odor. No other cookies were affected.... At least, not that I've heard.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
I thought the simplist explanation for Tiger is that if he says it's sex addiction he gets much better publicity than if his excuse is I like sleeping with women and I didn't think I would get caught. His PR people probably told him to blame sex addiction.
I like Thin Mints and Samoas but I eat entirely too much at once.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Thin mints are the best. And like LargeTuna, I eat too many at once. If I don't take some out of the box, close the box, and go somewhere else to eat them, I'll go through a whole stack.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
THIN MINTS. ALL THE WAY.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Samoas. They are this fat man's kryptonite. If Superman thought kryptonite was delicious and couldn't stop eating it...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I bought 11 boxes. Thin mints, do-si-does, samoas, and shortbread.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Someone told me they changed Thin Mints. Say it isn't so!
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I was a girl scout in Texas so all their names for cookies are mashed in my brains. I miss my Caramel Delights! Ooh, and Peanut Butter Patties!
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Do-Si-Dos are being seriously under-represented in this thread (save kmbboots, thank you).
The only explanation I can come up with is that you people don't know the proper procedure for preparing the perfect girl scout cookie. It's actually quite simple.
First, put the box in the freezer overnight. Magic flavor-enhancing gnomes will somehow get into the freezer, open the box and cookie sleeve, and magically endow super-flavor to each individual cookie. They close the sleeve and box so it looks like they've never been opened.
This also makes the cookies cold.
The next day for breakfast, you open your magically enhanced cookies, pour a glass of milk, and dip each cookie in the milk for a VERY specific amount of time. Some people only like a half-dip, but there's no way to tell if the cookie has been dipped for the optimal amount of time. Therefore, I recommend a full dip (which yes, requires your fingers to get down in the milk--wash your hands).
And now, the secret. When the do-si-do is submerged in the milk, bubbles will rise from the cookie as milk fills in all of the pockets of air that were previously in the cookie. The optimal time to remove the cookie is exactly 2 seconds after the last bubble rises. The cookie will then be satiated with the perfect amount of milk. Any longer, and your cookie will be soggy and unfit for enjoyment. Any shorter, and the cookie will remain boring and crunchy.
In conclusion, the product of this procedure yields a cookie so delicious that there have been rumors that it cures cancer (but ONLY if you eat the whole box in one sitting).
Or you all can stick with your boring chocolatey cookies and leave the perfection of the do-si-do to me, but I still share the secret out of the goodness of my own heart.
*language warning
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, no, hear him out. We should not attempt to force modifications on any natural urges, it's unnatural!
Like, say, if I get the urge to have sex with other males (as happens with many, if not most men, and occurs fairly often in the animal kingdom) that's my right and no one should try to "cure" me or make me any different. Yes?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I thought the simplist explanation for Tiger is that if he says it's sex addiction he gets much better publicity than if his excuse is I like sleeping with women and I didn't think I would get caught. His PR people probably told him to blame sex addiction.
Completely agree. His problem (IMO) isn't sex addiction as much as selfishness and arrogance.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
He wouldn't be able to tell whether he was addicted to sex until he started experiencing consequences. Since the consequences came all at once, and he's still reeling, he doesn't know yet.
If he endures a lot of humiliation and hard work to get back into the good graces of his family and the public eye - and that's what he's signaling he wants to do - and then keeps dallying and bringing on more consequences, he'll meet the definition of a sex addict.
Right now he's just a guy who felt entitled and didn't think he'd get caught. (And he admitted as much, anyway. If he's trying to spin it he's doing too little, too late.)
To Clive's point: There is often something pathological about the pursuit of sexual gratification, and it manifests in ways that show the difference between "wanting to get a lot of women" and addiction. Tiger's most likely pretty normal, yes.
The concept of sexual addiction was pretty much invented by men who got sick of their own behavior, btw.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: Lyr, the recall I heard was specifically Lemon Chalets. The fats broke down seriously prematurely in certain batches from one bakery (the one that isn't ABC) and those cookies were giving off an odor. No other cookies were affected.... At least, not that I've heard.
We got boxes not affected by the recall, fortunately. Not that I sell too many of the lemon ones anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Samoas. They are this fat man's kryptonite. If Superman thought kryptonite was delicious and couldn't stop eating it...
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Make an ass out of yourself all you want but please don't smear me.
I'm smearing you, you are the worst poster here, stop posting forever. THANKS
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm addicted to girl scout cookies, can we medicalize that before I go through another pack of trefoils at teatime here?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Samprimary, you are out of line. Discuss/argue the topic, logic, or premise(s), or if you consider it fruitless, leave the thread.
In general, there has been no rule against thread drift; this isn't thread drift. It's hijacking, and you've done it before. Stop it.
Folks, kindly take the nice cookie (or cooky, in deference to OSC) discussion elsewhere.
--PJ
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Make an ass out of yourself all you want but please don't smear me.
I'm smearing you, you are the worst poster here, stop posting forever. THANKS
Am not.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
I'd like to correct a few of my previous posts defending Clive. I still think he bring up some interesting discussion questions, but he's doing so now in flagrantly inflammatory ways.
Also, Caramel Delights are my favorite.
That is all.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Interesting discussion questions I can get from a 5 year old. Quality posting, not so much.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: To Clive's point: There is often something pathological about the pursuit of sexual gratification, and it manifests in ways that show the difference between "wanting to get a lot of women" and addiction. Tiger's most likely pretty normal, yes.
The concept of sexual addiction was pretty much invented by men who got sick of their own behavior, btw.
A, number one, no. Sexual addiction is related to the same class of motivational disorders and syndromes evident in alcoholism and drug addiction. Don't minimize that point just because you don't understand it, or don't intuitively appreciate what addiction is for some people.
Second, you don't know anything much about Woods' problem, whatever it may be, so you are not equipped to judge whether his behavior could be considered well adjusted. Considering that his behavior has led to a major deterioration of his career and family life, assuming it is normal is a fairly long stretch. That he has been exposed to more sexual opportunity in life than the average male is a given, but there are plenty of bartenders who don't get drunk every night, and surely plenty of drug dealers who don't use their own drugs. Abundant opportunity is not an excuse for actions that ruin your family life and career- someone interested in keeping a career and family life finds ways of making that happen, even if it means scaling back his exposure, and not making that extra 50 million a year. For it to reach crisis proportions, you have to be doing something wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: To Clive's point: There is often something pathological about the pursuit of sexual gratification, and it manifests in ways that show the difference between "wanting to get a lot of women" and addiction. Tiger's most likely pretty normal, yes.
The concept of sexual addiction was pretty much invented by men who got sick of their own behavior, btw.
A, number one, no. Sexual addiction is related to the same class of motivational disorders and syndromes evident in alcoholism and drug addiction. Don't minimize that point just because you don't understand it, or don't intuitively appreciate what addiction is for some people.
That's not clear at all. There's an important distinction between biologically-based addictions, like alcoholism or drug addiction and non-biologically-based addictions.
The line on non-biological addiction is a hard one to define, but one of the major criteria that is largely agreed on could be stated as "person with the addiction is sick of their behavior".
I don't know much about the classification of sexual addiction, so this could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it has not been shown to be a biologically based addiction. If that is the case, scifi's description of it isn't off-base, but your equating it to alcoholism in response to this is.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Actually I find many of Clive's posts bordering on clinically paranoid and egocentric. Here he claims Sex Addiction is not a legitimate illness, it is not a construct to deflect the guilt of a philandering fella. Instead it is part of a conspiracy by "Feminists" to attack him personally.
It seems that Clive is worried that feminists are out to condemn adulterous behavior as some plot to stop men in general and Clive in particular, from sluttish behavior. Add this to Clive's earlier rant about woman who claim to get pregnant or who do get pregnant on purpose, and then chose the best paid man to claim patrimony and we have the image of a liberal libertine who is trying hard to justify a lifestyle that is far more dangerous to the sanctity of Marriage than any homosexual liaison.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Can someone please explain the sociological (or psychological, but from the description, it appears to be more of a sociological thing) definition of an addiction? Because, from scifi's description, it appears that any activity that I partake in on a regular basis suddenly becomes an addiction if it results in negative general consequences, distinct from the intrinsic consequences of the action, and I still wish to continue. If this is the definition of an addiction, then it does not appear to be a very useful one. If I decide that the intrinsic positive effects of the action outweigh the negative effects that result, then it appears that I am addicted--yet being addicted is a rational decision.
Clearly there must be something to the definition that I am missing. Someone please explain.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: Samprimary, you are out of line. Discuss/argue the topic, logic, or premise(s), or if you consider it fruitless, leave the thread.
In general, there has been no rule against thread drift; this isn't thread drift. It's hijacking, and you've done it before. Stop it.
Ok, so now thread subject hijacking is officially against the rules?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Make an ass out of yourself all you want but please don't smear me.
I'm smearing you, you are the worst poster here, stop posting forever. THANKS
And seriously, Clive, when Sam thinks you're worse than me, that means you're BAAAAAAAAAD.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: Samprimary, you are out of line. Discuss/argue the topic, logic, or premise(s), or if you consider it fruitless, leave the thread.
In general, there has been no rule against thread drift; this isn't thread drift. It's hijacking, and you've done it before. Stop it.
Ok, so now thread subject hijacking is officially against the rules?
Maybe it's just hijacking with cookies. If you hijack the thread with a discussion of OSC's writing, it might be permissible.
And honestly, PJ, Clive is toxic. Wouldn't you rather have some sociable talk about cookies than an inflammatory thread about one of Clive's pet manias?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I don't think it's that black and white, because the difference between drift/derailment and hijacking can be subtle, and revolves around intent. I don't think it was subtle in this case -- there was no doubt to give the benefit of.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean I can always drop the cookies talk. I could just NOT mention cookies and ONLY harangue clive.
Because at this point he is posting blatantly and obnoxiously offensive trollslum threads.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I agree. And honestly, Papa, how often do you see me and Sam agreeing about anything?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Clive is entertaining.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I agree. And honestly, Papa, how often do you see me and Sam agreeing about anything?
sheesh lady we agree about things all the time and it's not like you're ever filling the role of Forum's Current Slumlord
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Samprimary, actually there's another obvious course of action, regardless of whether or not I agree with your premise.
Lisa, yours is a false dichotomy, too. But importantly, what I would "rather have" doesn't always correspond with what I believe my role as moderator to be, nor necessarily with what I believe the intentions of the Cards are for this place. And who agrees with whom on an issue isn't what determines whether or not it's allowable conversation (with a couple exceptions from TPTB).
To paraphrase MrSquicky from earlier this month, why do you (who disagree so vehemently with Clive) insist on playing into his narrative?
[Switch to Moose rather than Janitor, or perhaps a combination -- but nothing below is janitorially binding]
I'm far from agreeing with Clive on a number of things. Certainly my being a stay-at-home dad whose wife is the primary financial provider for the family makes that clear. That doesn't mean he has no right to believe what he does, or to try to convince others of it -- within limits here, which are admittedly vague. I don't think he has crossed those limits. I think the response to him is far more toxic/inflammatory than what he says in most cases. I just think he's wrong, and willfully misinformed (and I should be clear that I don't think "willfully misinformed" applies to anyone who disagrees with me, or even the majority thereof). But I think "willfully misinformed" could be applied to the opinions of many Jatraqueros toward many others on any number of topics -- and so many controversial topics could be dropped there, since those topics tend to stop having new information introduced, and rather recycle the same points over and over.
[back to Janitor]
Stop the personal attacks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary, actually there's another obvious course of action, regardless of whether or not I agree with your premise.
I'm not saying there isn't. But as long as Clive feels like putting terrible threads on the front page and trolling up FO with blatantly offensive misogyny, I will feel like criticizing him and telling him that he should stop and leave.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, his blatant silly misogyny is really aggravating and unacceptable. I think I'd rather talk about cookies. Especially the peanut butter chocolate ones I can't buy than so-called feminist conspiracies that do not exist.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I really think it'd be more effective if nobody ever replied to his threads than talked extensively about cookies in them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yo and I'm also not saying "TA HELL WIT YOU I DO WHAT I WANT" so much as I am noting that what I know by now and what needs to be known is that passive non-response is not a feasible compromise for people who spam trollslum threads. The idea is that they get 'starved out' but it never
ever
ever
works that way
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:* Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior. * Increasing sense of tension immediately prior to initiating the behavior. * Pleasure or relief at the time of engaging in the behavior. * At least five of the following: o Frequent preoccupation with the behavior or with activity that is preparatory to the behavior. o Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended. o Repeated efforts to reduce, control, or stop the behavior. o A great deal of time spent in activities necessary for the behavior, engaging in the behavior, or recovering from its effects. o Frequent engaging in the behavior when expected to fulfill occupational, academic, domestic or social obligations. o Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of the behavior. o Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior. o Tolerance: need to increase the intensity or frequency of the behavior in order to achieve the desired effect, or diminished effect with continued behavior of the same intensity. o Restlessness or irritability if unable to engage in the behavior. * Some symptoms of the disturbance have persisted for at least one month, or have occurred repeatedly over a longer period of time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Yeah, his blatant silly misogyny is really aggravating and unacceptable.
^
this
look at this
women on this forum should not have to put up with his crap, it helps make it a hostile environment against them.
Action needs to be taken against this guy
cookie talk is not the problem
Clive is the problem
don't cater to it with crippling non-action
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Sam, you write so poetically. ^.^
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
MrSquicky, thanks, that is a good definition of addiction. It's far more explicit than the very high level and vague description that I offered, but it's exactly what I was trying to get at (I obviously didn't put in enough effort). It's the desire, the mindset, the inability to stop despite wanting to and despite mounting consequences.
Jon, I'm curious if that answers your question. I didn't mean to suggest it's such a simplistic thing.
Orincoro, perhaps I didn't come across clearly, but I am not defending Mr. Woods, nor trying to class sexual addiction in a way that is (necessarily) fundamentally different from addiction to drugs.
What I meant is that sexual addiction was first recognized and described, in terms that parallel the way that alcoholism is described, by people who suffer from it. The "concept" was thereby "invented." I realize that was a poor way to describe it. I don't think the phenomenon is a made up story. And I may have been mistaken - the diagnosis might have been initially crafted by Patrick Carnes, who AFAIK is not a sex addict - but the group Sexaholics Anonymous, which consists only of people who consider themselves sex addicts, was instrumental in the first years of recognizing the condition. I believe it is real.
I hope that helps, Orincoro, since I managed to convey an impression to you that is apparently opposite of what I intended.
ETA: OK I forgot something. I meant to point out to Clive that it's not a stigma imposed by feminists on normal male behavior. People who wanted to get control of their own behavior, and were failing, people who were devastated by their compulsive acting out...they are the ones who embraced the label "addiction", and if you have read their stories - the SA manual offers many - you realize that Clive's initial assertions don't make a bit of sense. It's certainly conceivable (I might think even likely) that a society that didn't forbid unrestrained sexual behavior wouldn't produce any sex addicts of the sort SA describes, but the differences between our society and that hypothetical society are definitely not even close to contained in the category "feminism."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's not clear at all. There's an important distinction between biologically-based addictions, like alcoholism or drug addiction and non-biologically-based addictions.
No, there is not. Addiction is not strictly a biological disorder. You are thinking of drug and alcohol dependence. They are not the same things. Regardless, sexual addiction is also biological. Addiction is based in biology- all addiction. I have explained this too many times to do it again, please read about it on your own.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
It's an interesting definition, and probably the best one can get at. I can, of course, think of several counterfactuals in which we have cases where the sufficient criterion are met, yet it seems that we do not have a case of addiction, or vice versa, but these are counterfeit cases that aren't likely to often arise.
So as far as we can get beyond looking at a case by case basis, that's fine. Which is why, by the by, I do not feel comfortable when people say "diagnosably x" or "clinically x" (say, paranoid). For it appears to me that the definitions of psychological illnesses are so incredibly vague, and are required to be so by practical necessity, in a way such that the term is practically meaningless--much less meaningful, at least, than simply saying that the person *is* x.
Sorry for that mini-rant.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
It might sound stupid but... what are those cookies you are writing about? Are they made buy girl scouts? Are they unbelivably tasty? Or is it a way of giving them money not for free? Do they walk from door to door and knock, like in the movies? Im from Europe, wouldnt know.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
They are fund raising cookies available exclusively through the Girl Scouts of the USA. No. YMMV. Yeah. Yes, some of them.
I do alot more lurking than posting, but when I respond to a topic I do my best to ensure that I am engaging in a real discussion and not feeding the troll's. No, inaction is not a solution but its better than spending any of your own sweet time placating a sad little man laughing at his own screen.
Just dont respond.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
DISCLAIMER: I am not a psychologist. Studying to be one, yes. But I'm not yet. What I'm posting is what I've learned from my textbooks and professors in the psych department here at my school, but don't take it as absolutely correct or a professional opinion.
"Psychological disorder: a psychological dysfunction within an individual associated with distress or impairment in functioning and a response that is not typically or culturally expected." (Barlow, D.H. & Durand, V.M., Abnormal Psychology: an Integrative Approach, fifth edition. Wadsworth Cengage learning, 2009.) This from page 2.
The glossary of this particular textbook (I'm taking this class at the moment) lists "addiction" as an "informal term for substance dependence." Substance dependence, then, is defined as "Maladaptive pattern of substance use characterized by the need for increased amounts to achieve the desired effect, negative physical effects when the substance is withdrawn, unsuccessful efforts to control its use, and substantial effort expended to seek it or recover from its effects." So... yes, noticing you have it is a defining criterion for having it.
Generally speaking, genetics accounts for less that 30% of the cause of any given disorder. That happens to be higher in Schizophrenoform disorders (around 40%), and lower in others. It's never the only cause of any psychological disorder. As far as sex addiction is concerned, the DSM-IV-TR doesn't list it as a disorder. It's also not slated to be included in the DSM V, to be released in 2013. That doesn't mean no such thing exists, it just means there aren't definitive diagnostic criteria for it. Hypersexuality isn't listed either. If someone came into a clinic displaying those sorts of symptoms, and they didn't meet the criteria for Obsessive-Compulsive disorder (which is currently listed as an anxiety disorder, but will probably change) or a Somatoform disorder (dealing with bodily sensations that aren't there or are misrepresented), it would probably be listed as "Sexual disorder not otherwise specified."
Certainly, if you broaden the definition of substance abuse to include things that aren't necessarily substances (alcohol, drugs, etc.), then that could include a sexual addiction. More likely, though, sexual addiction is more a compulsion disorder, somewhere on the OCD spectrum.
What is obvious, at least to me, is that while sexual addiction and hypersexuality (which are more common in women, if I recall correctly) are not listed in any particular category of disorders, they are definitely disorders by the definition stated above. They just don't have a category yet, and there isn't consensus on what defines a sexual addiction as opposed to a substance addiction.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
While I know sex addiction is real, I believe it is self diagnosed to the extreme.
Every single time a celebrity is caught cheating on his or her spouse, sex addiction is to blame. I say to this "YEAH RIGHT." Apparently when you become a celebrity a genetic mutation occurs that makes you addicted to sex.
Tiger is on the road a lot. Because he is such a big celebrity, there are women throwing themselves at him. Most women have more self respect than that, but there are some that look at it as a badge of honor. You see this with musicians as well. Bret Michaels (who on his best day wouldn't be able to get a decent looking woman to give him her phone number)has slept with all sorts of women simply because he is a musician.
I understand that Tiger is in this type of situation on an almost daily basis. Over time he could have finally given in and cheated on his wife. After the first time it got easier and easier until he lost sight of whether it was right or wrong.
This doesn't excuse his actions though. He still had a choice whether to commit adultery or not. Going to rehab for sex addiction, unless he actually has it, is just an excuse to circumvent responsibility for his actions.
On a side note, I heard Tiger is changing his name.....To Cheetah. (Bad joke, sorry)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think I have known some people with sex addiction. Like, it's an addiction in the same sense that people can have a gambling addiction. They're both very real things.
The issue is that it should be something that is qualified by a psychological expert as an actual, certifiable dysfunction. A celebrity going 'yo i am self-diagnosing myself, don't judge me, it's an ADDICTION, i just need to find help and/or jesus' while providing a lot of visceral fodder, is no way of actually knowing what a sex addiction is; it'll only show you how people will self-diagnose and use it as an excuse.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Yeah, his blatant silly misogyny is really aggravating and unacceptable.
^
this
look at this
women on this forum should not have to put up with his crap, it helps make it a hostile environment against them.
Action needs to be taken against this guy
cookie talk is not the problem
Clive is the problem
don't cater to it with crippling non-action
Yes yes yes this. You know, its not like its the first time I've been exposed to misogyny like this, and as blatant as Clive is its almost cartoonishly funny at times. However it still makes Hatrack a more hostile environment to those of my gender, and if you replaced Clive's assertions about "women" to "blacks" he'd have been banned a long time ago. Enough already. Get rid of him.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's not clear at all. There's an important distinction between biologically-based addictions, like alcoholism or drug addiction and non-biologically-based addictions.
No, there is not. Addiction is not strictly a biological disorder. You are thinking of drug and alcohol dependence. They are not the same things. Regardless, sexual addiction is also biological. Addiction is based in biology- all addiction. I have explained this too many times to do it again, please read about it on your own.
I did a search on your name an addiction, but I didn't really find where you've explained this. If you could link to it or maybe explain it here or at least your source for it, I'd find it interesting. I have a pretty thorough grasp of the scientific understanding of addiction and what you posted doesn't match up well at all with what I know.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jon, I'm curious, what counter factuals can you think of?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Every single time a celebrity is caught cheating on his or her spouse, sex addiction is to blame. I say to this "YEAH RIGHT." Apparently when you become a celebrity a genetic mutation occurs that makes you addicted to sex.
Or the same thrill seeking behavior and distorted self-perception that drives an individual to become a celebrity or to work in a field that exposes them to public scrutiny is tied to the same dysfunction as that which drives sex addiction. Point of fact- (link) according to studies celebrities are often more narcissistic and more likely to have addictive personalities than the average person. This is part of what makes these people famous, and what makes them crave fame.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jon, I'm curious, what counter factuals can you think of?
Hmm, say someone who has the following:
* Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior. * Increasing sense of tension immediately prior to initiating the behavior. * Pleasure or relief at the time of engaging in the behavior. o Frequent preoccupation with the behavior or with activity that is preparatory to the behavior. o Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended. o Repeated efforts to reduce, control, or stop the behavior. o A great deal of time spent in activities necessary for the behavior, engaging in the behavior, or recovering from its effects. and WOULD meet o Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of the behavior. but does not *have* any social, occupational, or recreational activities to give up or reduce.
By the technical definition, the criterion for addiction are not satisfied, but I doubt anybody would say that the person is not addicted.
Just stuff like that; alternatively, situations where the person would have failed in attempts to stop the behavior, but has not made an attempt yet, etc. Or the person, indeed, meets none of the symptoms, but would meet all of them if the opportunity to do so simply arose. It is odd to say that one is not addicted to something until it visibly manifests itself. And that is all this is; an attempt to account for the visible manifestation of symptoms of addiction, but there can be cases where these would manifest if not for the situation, yet we would not say that the person is suddenly an addict once we can see that she is an addict.
Just things like that. This is not a criticism of the criteria--just a note.
Edit: I just realized that it is possible that I confused how many of the parts (with the exception of the one denoted as at least 5) are necessary and/or sufficient conditions for addiction. Even so, the latter point I made still stands, and one can make a counterfactual at will based on the general principles I pointed out.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I am sorry for the bump, but I am curious if that satisfied you MrSquicky. I am not sure if you just haven't had a chance to read it and I am being rude, or read it and felt satisfied and thus did not feel the need to reply. In any case, I hope you will provide me with an objection if you deem it appropriate.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:It is odd to say that one is not addicted to something until it visibly manifests itself.
Hopefully MrSquicky will also respond, but I wanted to react to this:
quote:It is odd to say that one is not addicted to something until it visibly manifests itself.
I don't think that's odd. The criteria for identification - the detectable manifestations of addiction - are what actually distinguish addiction from anything else. "Addiction" is a particular set of behaviors.
quote:...there can be cases where these would manifest if not for the situation, yet we would not say that the person is suddenly an addict once we can see that she is an addict.
To me, this is like looking at undergraduates. Some of them will be baccalaureates. Some of them won't. But until they graduate, you won't know who they are. If you know enough about them, you can predict with a relatively high level of confidence, but that's about it. They aren't baccalaureates until they graduate. Addicts aren't addicts until they meet the behavioral description of an addict, as unsatisfying as that is.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I think that the analogy you provide us false, but only because we think of addiction (and I imagine all disorders) in different ways. I tend to think of it as having the appropriate mental or brain states. But I am ardently opposed to psychological behaviorism. While I think that behavior may be a test for mental states, I do not think either: a) There are no mental states or b) Behavioral states are mental states (this is logical behaviorism). This, I suspect, is the basis of our disagreement.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jon, I'm sure if I'm understanding you here, but here's my take on what you said. You believe that people who would be considered addicted to something if they tried to quit it, but are not because they have not tried to quit it are still addicted.
Is that correct?
If so, no, that's not the case. Addiction, in this context, definitionaly includes the trying to quit and being unable to do so. If a person has no desire to quit something, they are not addicted. They may have a dependence on something, but an addiction contains both this dependence and a desire to break the dependence.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Defending the definition in terms of the definition is a tad circular. I am claiming that the definition does not align with our intuitions about what addiction is. Perhaps I am wrong--this is merely how it seems to me. I am just a layman who was not satisfied.