posted
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."
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
