Sex Addiction

[serialmonogamist]

The Tiger Woods scandal and others brought the issue of sex addiction into public light. Is sex and addiction or is it just harder from some people to achieve sexual satisfaction that others? Are some people better at going without sex than others and why? What do people think about sex addiction and how it relates to polyamory? How does sex addiction affect polyamorous relationships? Does polyamory have an effect on sex addiction?

[nycindie]

There's another thread on this topic:

thread on sex addiction (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4433)

[Ariakas]

poly is about love. Lots of people are poly without the sex addiction.... hell some people are poly without sex..

There is also a love addiction as well. So maybe that applied...

Is everyone in non-monogamy addicted to love/sex/etc... no.. but I would hazard a guess some are.

[serialmonogamist]

There's another thread on this topic:

thread on sex addiction (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4433)
Thanks for posting the link.


There is also a love addiction as well. So maybe that applied…
Love addiction? What's that?

[Ariakas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_addiction

[serialmonogamist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_addiction
That was an interesting read. I wonder if it would be worth starting a different thread on love addiction. After reading about it, I'm trying to figure out what it would be like to not be addicted to love. Love seems like food to me. You can live without sex but not without love, I think - but maybe that's just my impression because I'm addicted. When I think about food addiction, though, it involves things like comfort-eating and over-eating instead of just eating enough to be healthy. How would you figure out what amount of love you need to be health and when you are overusing it?

[Ariakas]

You can live without either. Having neither might drive you insane,but you don't need either to survive.

Well, I guess a simple example woud be. When you break up with someone do you feel the immediate urge to fill that gap of love and infatuation. Or can you take time to adjust and be on your own. If you HAVE to fill the whole, you could be addicted to love.

Thatsmy take anyways.

[serialmonogamist]

You can live without either. Having neither might drive you insane,but you don't need either to survive.

Well, I guess a simple example woud be. When you break up with someone do you feel the immediate urge to fill that gap of love and infatuation. Or can you take time to adjust and be on your own. If you HAVE to fill the whole, you could be addicted to love.

Thatsmy take anyways.
Love comes in so many different forms. If you read the wikipedia page on love addiction, it even gets into things like when you are obsessed with the love of your children or believing in finding a "true soulmate." Apparently, you only have a healthy level of interest in love if you occasionally seek companionship with others and keep a fair amount of distance from them. That seems like a cold way to live to me, so I must be a love addict.

I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that love-addiction isn't really a problem any more than health-addiction is. I.e. it's not bad to always want to be healthy - it only becomes a problem when you get obsessed with it and can't just accept common health problems and health risks, etc. I think it's good to bring love into everything you do and I can only see it becoming a problem if you become strikingly depressed or panic when you experience moments where love is lacking in your daily life. If you are able to sufficiently love yourself, you are less dependent on constant love from others, even if you're still getting a steady supply of (self) love. This is my opinion, anyway.

[River]

There is also a love addiction as well.

Actual, real love is not addictive, though it is enormously precious--precious beyond measure, and infinitely pleasurable.

Romantic attachments can be addictive, but they are not real, actual love when they are addictive. They are pseudo-love, a cheap counterfeit, a poor knock-off.

Real love is entirely liberatory, the very opposite of addiction.:):p

To the extent that a culture's people treat love as scarce, a substance to be guarded and dribbled out in teaspoonfulls, those people will be love-starved and confused about love's true nature -- and thus vulnerable to "love addiction" (which is never love).

[River]

I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that love-addiction isn't really a problem any more than health-addiction is.

The way I see it, folks labelled as "love addicts" are people with a gaping hole in their heart centers. They feel and behave like "hungry ghosts" because they are deeply wounded by not having been properly loved during some crucial moments in their human development. They do have a problem, alright. They are starved, and don't know how to nourish themselves or be nourished by others.


===


In his book Thoughts Without a Thinker, Mark Epstein paints a picture connecting these two viewpoints:

The Hungry Ghosts are probably the most vividly drawn metaphors in the Wheel of Life. Phantomlike creatures with withered limbs, grossly bloated bellies, and long thin necks, the Hungry Ghosts in many ways represent a fusion of rage and desire. Tormented by unfulfilled cravings and insatiably demanding of impossible satisfactions, the Hungry Ghosts are searching for gratification for old unfulfilled needs whose time has passed. They are beings who have uncovered a terrible emptiness within themselves, who cannot see the impossibility of correcting something that has already happened. Their ghostlike state represents their attachment to the past.[1]

He goes on to illustrate with a modern example:

A recent patient of mine, for example, an accomplished teacher of French literature named Tara, personified the predicament of a Hungry Ghost. Describing a long succession of relationships with other academics at the top of their fields, Tara repeatedly developed an impassioned relationship with one such man, while involved with another. Invariably, she kept the man she was actually living with at bay. She would quickly and critically uncover all of his faults, lose interest in him sexually, and essentially prevent him from touching her, either physically or emotionally. At the same time, she would begin to fantasize about the next luminary to enter her life...She remembered an unhappy and critical mother who had rarely touched her as a child...was searching insatiably for the kind of nourishment she had once needed, but that was now inappropriate to who she was as an adult woman.[2]

From the Wikipedia article on "Hungry Ghost": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_ghost

[serialmonogamist]

Actual, real love is not addictive, though it is enormously precious--precious beyond measure, and infinitely pleasurable.

Romantic attachments can be addictive, but they are not real, actual love when they are addictive. They are pseudo-love, a cheap counterfeit, a poor knock-off.

Real love is entirely liberatory, the very opposite of addiction.:):p

To the extent that a culture's people treat love as scarce, a substance to be guarded and dribbled out in teaspoonfulls, those people will be love-starved and confused about love's true nature -- and thus vulnerable to "love addiction" (which is never love).
I liked this post very much, especially the comment that love is entirely liberatory and thus the opposite of addiction. It's a really good point, considering how many addictions are probably fueled by a deep longing for love that goes unfulfilled.

Your second post about the hungry ghosts went a bit far, however, imo. I feel that there is something good about feeling desire and the challenge to solve the problem it poses. Someone told me recently that what people ultimately long for is to merge with God, the ultimate source of love. Whether you believe this or want to call it "God" or something else, I think the point is that we're always hungry for more love, to go further with love, etc. It is just the nature of life-energy, I think, to want to keep progressing toward greater goodness and love. Certainly you can be grateful and joyful for the love you have and have had, but surely it's also good to go forth and multiply it (to use a cliched expression) and to feel a hunger/desire to do that.

[River]

Your second post about the hungry ghosts went a bit far, however, imo. I feel that there is something good about feeling desire and the challenge to solve the problem it poses.

As do I! Although I'm a "Buddhist" (of some sort)..., a practitioner of the Way of Buddha Dharma, I'm the first to insist that desire is not our enemy. It is our friend on the Way -- provided we're practicing the Way, which celebrates all wholesome desires while warning of the unwholesome ones -- and providing a practice path to transform all desires into wholesomeness.:)


Someone told me recently that what people ultimately long for is to merge with God, the ultimate source of love. Whether you believe this or want to call it "God" or something else, I think the point is that we're always hungry for more love, to go further with love, etc. It is just the nature of life-energy, I think, to want to keep progressing toward greater goodness and love. Certainly you can be grateful and joyful for the love you have and have had, but surely it's also good to go forth and multiply it (to use a cliched expression) and to feel a hunger/desire to do that.

I'm a naturalistic and non-theistic mystic. "God," to me, is a problematic concept and word -- because I know that, ultimately, the entire Cosmos is the body of ... well, the unspeakable (about which love is its essence). If there is nothing which is not "God" (ech!) -- the Divine -- then "God" becomes quite a confusing and confused word.

That said, my spiritual life is much influenced by Sufi poetry: Rumi, Kabir, Hafiz.... God, to me, is a sort of concealing metaphor. I'd rather surrender to and awaken into the real world than to fall for God.:D:p

Buddhist author, Mark Epstein, has written a delighful and wise book called "Open To Desire,"
http://www.amazon.com/Open-Desire-Embracing-LifeInsights-Psychotherapy/dp/1592401082
in which he shows that desire is, indeed, the friend of the practitioner of Dharma--, and any authentic spiritual path. One should never attempt to crush or run from desire. That would be running from or crushing our precious humanity.

Our already whole hearts want to realize their own true nature, as and/or within unselfish desire. If our desires are generous and kind desires, toward ourselves and all others, all of existence, then we can celebrate these desires as the infinite and unending path of neverending awakening. (I don't believe there is an endpoint. "Enlightenment" is what the universe does, unendingly. And each of us are continuous with that, not separate from it.)

[serialmonogamist]

I'm a naturalistic and non-theistic mystic. "God," to me, is a problematic concept and word -- because I know that, ultimately, the entire Cosmos is the body of ... well, the unspeakable (about which love is its essence). If there is nothing which is not "God" (ech!) -- the Divine -- then "God" becomes quite a confusing and confused word.

It's good to hear someone struggling with divinity because they believe that there is some truth to be achieved in not simply going along with what someone else(s) have established. Personally, I can embrace atheism, buddhism, and "God" at the same time because they are all parts of the same integrated creative power to me, albeit with different forms of consciousness. I think people get so caught up in the conflict of competing truths that they ignore that truth moves a little further with each moment of enlightenment gained by understanding something new. "God" may be a confusing word because it ultimately refers to the creative power that everything evolves from and through, but creative power itself is a simple core concept, imo. Anyway, I think this is getting off topic maybe, but I have enjoyed the theological exchange.

[River]

Personally, I think adherence to the three historically connected primary monotheistic traditions, with its punative and authoritarian "God," makes authentic spirituality extremely difficult to maneuver. That's why I'm a non-theist, and prefer direct mystical practice and inquiry.

And that's as theological as I will ever get! I'm quite done with it beyond that point.

[nycindie]

The way I see it, folks labelled as "love addicts" are people with a gaping hole in their heart centers. They feel and behave like "hungry ghosts" because they are deeply wounded by not having been properly loved during some crucial moments in their human development. They do have a problem, alright. They are starved, and don't know how to nourish themselves or be nourished by others.

It occurs to me that they are really addicted to their idea of what love is, not love itself.

[River]

It occurs to me that they are really addicted to their idea of what love is, not love itself.

Well, shit... Who among us are not overly attached to our ideas about love? Let these cast the first stone.:p

Love is an ocean.

Bla, bla, blah....:eek:

... Anyway, I suppose us little babies in such vastness require our training wheels. And that's okay. Who wants to drown in "the ocean"?

How tender the Ocean? we ask.

More tender than you can imagine, She replies.




====


Kabir:


I talk to my inner lover,
and I say, why such rush?

We sense that there is some sort of spirit
that loves birds and animals and the ants -
perhaps the same one who gave a radiance to you in your mother's womb.

Is it logical you would be walking around entirely orphaned now?
The truth is you turned away yourself,
And decided to go into the dark alone.

Now you are tangled up in others, and have forgotten what you once knew,
and that's why everything you do has some weird failure in it.

Kabir says:

Friend, hope for the Guest while you are alive.
Jump into experience while you are alive!
Think...and think... while you are alive.
If you don't break your ropes while you're alive,
do you think ghosts will do it after?
The idea that the soul will join with the ecstatic
just because the body is rotten --that is all fantasy.
What is found now is found then.
If you find nothing now,
you will simply end up with an apartment in the City of Death.
If you make love with the divine now, in the next life
you will have the face of satisfied desire.

So plunge into the truth, find out who the Teacher is,
Believe in the Great Sound!

Kabir says this: When the Guest is being searched for,
it is the intensity of the longing for the Guest that does all the work.
Look at me, and you will see a slave of that intensity.

[serialmonogamist]

Personally, I think adherence to the three historically connected primary monotheistic traditions, with its punative and authoritarian "God," makes authentic spirituality extremely difficult to maneuver. That's why I'm a non-theist, and prefer direct mystical practice and inquiry.

And that's as theological as I will ever get! I'm quite done with it beyond that point.
I seem to be unique among people who have rejected monotheism in that I have been able to re-discover it as a source of insight more meaningful than before I rejected it. Of course it was never pushed on me the way it seems to have been pushed on many people who vehemently reject and resent it.

[redpepper]

There's another thread on this topic:

thread on sex addiction (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4433)Did I ever tell you how much I love you? :D Thanks for this and the many other threads you find that lead people to other versions of the same topic. Warms my heart *sniff* *tear* :p

[Minxxa]

On the topic of sex addiction I agree with Marty Klein:

http://www.sexed.org/archive/article08.html

Let us not mix up addictions and compulsive behavior. It doesn't do justice to either of the issues or anybody suffering from either of them.

[nycindie]

Did I ever tell you how much I love you? :D Thanks for this and the many other threads you find that lead people to other versions of the same topic. Warms my heart *sniff* *tear* :p

Awww, thanks! <runs for tissues> :')

[serialmonogamist]

On the topic of sex addiction I agree with Marty Klein:

http://www.sexed.org/archive/article08.html
That article is hard to deal with because it is very reactionary toward the idea of sex addiction without really discussing alternative perspectives on the types of behavior that might be labelled as "addiction." Likewise, he says that a 12-step type approach might not be the best way to deal with sex addiction but he doesn't really say why or what would work better, etc. In other words, the whole article seems more concerned with the idea of sex addiction as a problem than with addressing why or why not certain sexual behaviors might be(come) problematic or addictive. I am very interested in various reasoning why sex can't be an addiction and, if not, what is good about the behaviors that are getting it labelled as "addiction." I just wish the discussion would be on that level instead of accusations & defensiveness about addiction as a buzz-concept.

Let us not mix up addictions and compulsive behavior. It doesn't do justice to either of the issues or anybody suffering from either of them.
Ok, what is the difference? Can someone who feels a compulsive desire to engage in various sexual activities still not be addicted? I think you could develop this into an interesting discussion, but it seems more like you're just saying not to mix things up to make the discussion harder and more strained. If this isn't your intent, sorry that I got that impression. Do you actually want to discuss this issue of compulsion vs. addiction with regards to sex?

[Minxxa]

Yes. When u are addicted to a substance you suffer physical withdrawal symptoms. You may also have emotional and mental withdrawal but it's not a physical thing. When you act compulsively you want to do that thing for many mental emotional and varied reasons. Bumif you do not you will not get sick throw up or have any truly physical symptoms.

Treating compulsive symptoms is more like treating OCD than addictions. But I am coming from a therapeutic point of view not that of a laypersons. I feel that people use the word addictions in lieu of compulsions for many reasons but they are not the same.

I will answer more when I am not on my phone and on vacation. ;-)

[serialmonogamist]

Yes. When u are addicted to a substance you suffer physical withdrawal symptoms. You may also have emotional and mental withdrawal but it's not a physical thing. When you act compulsively you want to do that thing for many mental emotional and varied reasons. Bumif you do not you will not get sick throw up or have any truly physical symptoms.

Treating compulsive symptoms is more like treating OCD than addictions. But I am coming from a therapeutic point of view not that of a laypersons. I feel that people use the word addictions in lieu of compulsions for many reasons but they are not the same.

I will answer more when I am not on my phone and on vacation. ;-)

It's good you have clinical experience to share. It feels like you are pulling rank by mentioning it, so allow me to just say that my interest is in discussing the topic and not in establishing who has the right to make legitimate claims and who doesn't.

Not all "addictions" are chemical and withdrawal can take many forms. I would call anything addictive that involves habit-forming, but that includes practically everything people do. Just because almost everything is addictive and addiction is much broader than people usually like to think of it doesn't mean it ceases to be a relevant concept or that it's not a good idea to address the addictive aspects of whatever to become that much more empowered over your choices of how to live.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing more from you when you post. I hope you won't just try to define addiction in a narrow way that excludes the possibility that sex can be addictive. I think sexual pleasure can be as therapeutic as a drug (sexual healing?) and so like any drug that doesn't require a prescription, users can fall into the habit of overusing/abusing it as a crutch or otherwise become dependent. Since sex is a natural biological function as well, I'm more interested in discussing what differentiates healthy use from addictive abuse instead of just asserting or denying that it can be an addiction in the first place. Of course, if you really find that these reasons don't make sex addictive, I'd like to understand your reasoning.

[nycindie]

I think of a compulsion as more about an act or behavior; basically you feel compelled to do something. I see an addiction as more about a substance or thing one is drawn to, perhaps mostly as an escape (but obviously other reasons come into play). It is something an addict feels he or she cannot live without or will make everything better.


This is from About.com, of all places:

The Difference Between an Addiction and a Compulsion
By Elizabeth Hartney, About.com Guide
Updated July 30, 2010
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board

Some Simple Definitions

Addiction is a broad term, which is used to describe an entire process by which people (or animals) become dependent on a particular substance or behavior in order to cope with life. This dependence becomes so important to the individual that they will persist in using the substance, or engaging in the behavior, even when it is harmful to themself, their family, and other important areas of their life.

In contrast, compulsion is a quite narrow term, which is used to describe the intense urge to do something. Compulsions are a small but important part of the addictive process, and are also a major part of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

So you can see that an addiction involves the compulsion to take an addictive substance (such as alcohol or heroin) or to carry out an addictive behavior (such as gambling or sex), but it also involves other processes.

Key Differences
Pleasure

One major distinction between an addiction and a compulsion (as it is experienced in obsessive-compulsive disorder) is the experience of pleasure. While people who have addictions suffer all manner of discomforts, the desire to use the substance or engage in the behavior is based on the expectation that it will be pleasurable.

In contrast, someone who experiences a compulsion as part of obsessive-compulsive disorder may not get any pleasure from the behavior he carries out. Often, it is a way of dealing with the obsessive part of the disorder, resulting in a feeling of relief.

This can get a little confusing because there often comes a point for people with addictions where they don’t really enjoy the addictive behavior, and they are just seeking relief from the urge to use or engage in the behavior. This is compounded by the experience of withdrawal that often happens when they stop taking the substance or engaging in the behavior. Although this can look like obsessive-compulsive behavior because the pleasure is gone, the original motivation to engage in the behavior was to feel good.

Reality

Another major distinction between an addiction and a compulsion has to do with the individual’s awareness of reality. When people have obsessive-compulsive disorder, they are usually aware that their obsession is not real. They are often disturbed by feeling the need to carry out a behavior that defies logic, yet they do it anyway to relieve their anxiety.

In contrast, people with addictions are often quite detached from the senselessness of their actions, feeling that they are just having a good time, and that other concerns aren’t that important. This is often known as denial because the addicted person denies that his use or behavior is a problem. Often it is not until a major consequence such as a spouse leaving, a drunk-driving accident, or a job loss, that they are faced with the reality of their addiction.

Why All the Confusion?

Addiction and compulsion are both terms that have entered our everyday language. And like many words that are in common use, they may be misused and misunderstood. This causes confusion for everyone, especially those suffering from addictions and compulsions, but also for professionals trying to help. Often, people use these terms interchangeably without thinking about the distinctions between them.

There are several reasons that the word “compulsion” started to be used in relation to addictive behaviors. Originally, the term compulsion stemmed from the idea of addicts accessing the erotic pleasure centers of the brain. Later, the term “compulsion” was used in place of “addiction” in the hope that it would add legitimacy to the treatment of addiction, and make it more likely that treatment would be covered by insurers.

These days, the biggest controversy in the field of addictions is whether behavioral addictions are legitimate addictions like substance addictions. Another term, dependence, is used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to refer to alcohol and drug addictions, and compulsive gambling is the only behavioral addiction specifically included in the manual. As we near the publication of the next edition, expected in May 2012, work is being done to consider inclusion and unification of the various addictions.

Sources:

American Psychiatric Association. "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., text revision" 2000 Washington, DC: APA.

Carnes, P. "Addiction or Compulsion? Politics or Illness?" Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity 3:127-150. 1996.

Kelly, O. "Symptoms of OCD? OCD is an Anxiety Disorder." About.com 19 Jan 2009.

That came from http://addictions.about.com/od/howaddictionhappens/a/addcompulsion.htm

If I look at that and then compare it with how I see the two, I would say that I kind of see a compulsion as being about doing, and an addiction as being about having. Even if it's sex, it's something an addict feels they must have. Whereas a compulsion is more about the mechanics of the activity. This is all just coming from rummaging around my noggin, so I hope I'm making sense.

[serialmonogamist]

That is a really useful contribution to this thread, nycindie. Thanks. I wonder if it is necessary to treat addiction as mutually exclusive with obsession/compulsion. Why can't addiction sometimes involve compulsive behavior and cause obsession, for example? I don't think it would make as much sense to say that compulsions become addictive because they're not a pleasurable experience that you would seek out. I think obsession could lead to addiction, but only because someone became obsessed with something to the point it became very pleasurable to them to get it, e.g. if you were obsessed with prostitution to the point you began indulging in sex with prostitutes, you could become that much more addicted to prostitution-sex because of the pleasure you derive from it based on being obsessed with it. Does that make sense?

[nycindie]

Compel, compulsion, compulsive = all describe actions, coming from that doing state, a verb.

Addict, addiction, addictive = nouns and an adjective, describing a state of being.

Different energies to these distinctions.

Now, you mentioned being obsessed. Obsession is something else again. Another active state - to obsess and have an obsession, an object of intense focus and/or objectification, etc. Interesting how they all relate.

Oh, and indulgence - something else again!

[serialmonogamist]

Compel, compulsion, compulsive = all describe actions, coming from that doing state, a verb.

Addict, addiction, addictive = nouns and an adjective, describing a state of being.

Different energies to these distinctions.

Now, you mentioned being obsessed. Obsession is something else again. Another active state - to obsess and have an obsession, an object of intense focus and/or objectification, etc. Interesting how they all relate.

Oh, and indulgence - something else again!

I started to indulge your exploration of the vocabulary by looking up the etymology of the Latin roots, but I decided they don't shed that much light on the discussion.

I like your application of the active/passive distiction, though, and the sensitivity that the words carry different energies. Compulsion is abrupt and occurs as an instance of urgency. Addiction is a pattern, a habit, something that sneaks up on you and you don't realize it until you attempt to break the habit or someone else notices that you are out of control. Obsession doesn't seem abrupt, imo, but it could occur quickly and possibly fade as quickly, idk. You could also be addicted to obsessing about something, I think. You could also compulsively obsess, I think. The common theme with it all is that you're not able to calmly choose whether you want something or not. You are driven against your conscious will, although I think in the case of addiction you choose consciously to pursue something you're unconsciously drawn to by your addiction. Maybe you could obsess about something because you're addicted to it. They all overlap, don't they?

[Minxxa]

I had no intention of pulling rank. I was trying to clarify the difference in usage between say my daughter telling me she's addicted to Ben & Jerrys and someone who has compulsive sexual behavior due to meth usage.

Thanks for that article NYC. There definitely is lots of debate about the topic mostly because so many people hear "sex addiction" and put a label on themselves or their spouse and then go to the sex therapist to get "fixed". The problem with that is they then expect a quick easy fix and most likely there is a lot going on in the person and the relationship causing issues. Actual work has to be done.

As far as I know there won be an addition in the new DSM. (last I heard) there is just too much disagreement in the community. It seems a shamed that after finally removing homosexuality from the DSM in the 1970s we now want to put in hypersexuality so we can make too much sex diagnosable. And how much would too much be?

I did want to also mention that sometimes with OCD they don't do the behavior to get pleasure. They experience high levels of anxiety which build until they do the behavior so it's more of an anxiety reducing issue.

And like drugs and alcohol people can use sex to numb out from the bad feelings or anxiety or also because that is how they feel connected and without it they feel completely disconnected.

Many different issues!

A lot of people see it differently of course.

[MonoVCPHG]

Proposed revision:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=415

Hypersexual Disorder [14]

A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent and intense sexual fantasies, sexual urges, and sexual behavior in association with four or more of the following five criteria:

(1) Excessive time is consumed by sexual fantasies and urges, and by planning for and engaging in sexual behavior. [15]

(2) Repetitively engaging in these sexual fantasies, urges, and behavior in response to dysphoric mood states (e.g., anxiety, depression, boredom, irritability). [16]

(3) Repetitively engaging in sexual fantasies, urges, and behavior in response to stressful life events. [17]

(4) Repetitive but unsuccessful efforts to control or significantly reduce these sexual fantasies, urges, and behavior. [18]

(5) Repetitively engaging in sexual behavior while disregarding the risk for physical or emotional harm to self or others. [19]

B. There is clinically significant personal distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning associated with the frequency and intensity of these sexual fantasies, urges, and behavior. [20]

C. These sexual fantasies, urges, and behavior are not due to direct physiological effects of exogenous substances (e.g., drugs of abuse or medications) or to Manic Episodes. [21]

D. The person is at least 18 years of age.

Specify if: [22]

Masturbation

Pornography

Sexual Behavior With Consenting Adults

Cybersex

Telephone Sex

Strip Clubs

[serialmonogamist]

It seems like the responses in this thread are geared toward defining the issue in a way that demonizes some people as fitting the criteria and absolves others because they don't. I don't see what is so important about differentiating a teenager "addicted" to ice cream from a meth addict addicted to sex. Sure, one seems more extreme from a cultural perspective, but the interesting thing to me about analyzing such things in a scientific way is that you can cut through the bias and look straight at the issues. E.g. can a person walk away from ice cream without withdrawal symptoms and can they walk away from sexual habits as easily, and if not why and is that a problem? If it is a problem, what can and/or should be done about it? I'm sorry if I don't care as much about the DSM as some other people might. To me, it is a resource for institutional behavioral police. I am more interested in the fundamental philosophy of it with the ultimate goal of people thinking for themselves and policing themselves. I'm not saying there's nothing beneficial about DSM-based interventions. There may indeed be. I'm just not thinking on that level. I'm more interested in getting beyond the buzz of the buzzwords to think about the depth of these issues.

[BrigidsDaughter]

It seems like the responses in this thread are geared toward defining the issue in a way that demonizes some people as fitting the criteria and absolves others because they don't. I don't see what is so important about differentiating a teenager "addicted" to ice cream from a meth addict addicted to sex. Sure, one seems more extreme from a cultural perspective, but the interesting thing to me about analyzing such things in a scientific way is that you can cut through the bias and look straight at the issues. E.g. can a person walk away from ice cream without withdrawal symptoms and can they walk away from sexual habits as easily, and if not why and is that a problem? If it is a problem, what can and/or should be done about it? I'm sorry if I don't care as much about the DSM as some other people might. To me, it is a resource for institutional behavioral police. I am more interested in the fundamental philosophy of it with the ultimate goal of people thinking for themselves and policing themselves. I'm not saying there's nothing beneficial about DSM-based interventions. There may indeed be. I'm just not thinking on that level. I'm more interested in getting beyond the buzz of the buzzwords to think about the depth of these issues.

That's the problem. You are trying to discuss what amounts to buzzwords w/o out the buzz. That won't work because things like addiction and compulsion are made up buzzwords to cover a set definition. I'm not saying that the discussion you want to have is invalid. I'm just not sure how you would approach it in away that doesn't use buzzwords in the first place.

[serialmonogamist]

That's the problem. You are trying to discuss what amounts to buzzwords w/o out the buzz. That won't work because things like addiction and compulsion are made up buzzwords to cover a set definition. I'm not saying that the discussion you want to have is invalid. I'm just not sure how you would approach it in away that doesn't use buzzwords in the first place.
I don't know if it's that important to avoid buzzwords. The challenge is to keep it relevant and constructive. If addiction is a relevant issue in people's lives, it shouldn't matter if it's popular to 'buzz' about it or not, should it? I think the big problem with 'buzz' and sensationalism is that the only point is to obfuscate everything instead of addressing it constructively. People are uncomfortable with directly confronting issues so they hide behind buzz, I think.

[nycindie]

It seems like the responses in this thread are geared toward defining the issue in a way that demonizes some people as fitting the criteria and absolves others because they don't.
I did not perceive any demonizing in this thread.

[BlackUnicorn]

I know a few guys who secretly fantasize about a 'real nympho' coming along. I have been accused of nymphomania too :rolleyes:. Is this by know an old-fashioned, defunct term? I'm bothered with it mainly because in common usage, it seems to refer to any woman who has larger than average interest in sex. When I was called a nympho I pointed out that from my reading, nymphomaniacs are not so much interested in sex itself as in sex with steadily changing flow of partners, meaning that they rarely seek out the same person twice.

I read one woman's story who had lost count of her sexual partners after she hit 5 000 something in her early thirties. She regularly dragged home men from under the bridge with serious hygiene and cognitive coherence issues, and got into commercial sex, not for the money but for the feeling of being desired and wanted she got out of it. She had been raped and mugged multiple times, had every STD in the book and a handful of abortions. She hit her own personal rock bottom when she became involved in the BDSM scene and started out an erotic relationship with another woman. I figured she no longer could justify that behaviour to herself as pleasurable because she had no interest in either, just a compelling need to widen her pool of available partners.

She noted that she got very little out of her contacts when it came to sexual pleasure, since more often the guys were unable to follow through. It was more the feeling of being powerful, of being able to get whom she wanted, just point a finger and say 'You're coming home with me'. In her past she had been sexually abused so for a while, that probably was healing in itself, but I think she got addicted to the feeling and could not figure any alternative ways to achieve the same sense of self-mastery.

[serialmonogamist]

I did not perceive any demonizing in this thread.
Maybe too much of an assumption on my part. Usually when people start defining addiction in a way that excludes some and labels others, it's because they see it as little more than a stigmatizing label. I find it very liberating to know that practically everyone experiences addiction in some way(s) or other; so there's really no reason to engage in denial vs. labeling/accusation.

[nycindie]

Maybe too much of an assumption on my part. Usually when people start defining addiction in a way that excludes some and labels others, it's because they see it as little more than a stigmatizing label. I find it very liberating to know that practically everyone experiences addiction in some way(s) or other; so there's really no reason to engage in denial vs. labeling/accusation.Yes, I think you did make a quick assumption. There is a difference between sharing definitions and pondering them in a conversation, and pontificating. Everyone here has simply contributed different viewpoints for consideration, from what I've seen. No demonizing, no denying, no accusing. People here are simply conversing and sharing ideas.

[Minxxa]

Yes, I think you did make a quick assumption. There is a difference between sharing definitions and pondering them in a conversation, and pontificating. Everyone here has simply contributed different viewpoints for consideration, from what I've seen. No demonizing, no denying, no accusing. People here are simply conversing and sharing ideas.

I think it's been an interesting discussion. The only reason at all I would mention the DSM or anything like it is because when it comes to my field, to qualify someone as being substance addicted, there are actual criteria that must be met.

Someone can also have life issues involving a substance, such as alcohol, and not be addicted to it. And someone else can use a substance, like alcohol and not have any life issues because of it. There is a continuum (isn't there always?), and it's not on or off, black or white, bad or good. And how the person deals with it won't be the same from one person to the next either.

I myself have many compulsive behaviors. Some have gotten in the way of my life at one time or another, some not so much. I'm not addicted to anything. Though I do like sex a whole big bunch. :D

[Minxxa]

I know a few guys who secretly fantasize about a 'real nympho' coming along. I have been accused of nymphomania too :rolleyes:. Is this by know an old-fashioned, defunct term? I'm bothered with it mainly because in common usage, it seems to refer to any woman who has larger than average interest in sex. When I was called a nympho I pointed out that from my reading, nymphomaniacs are not so much interested in sex itself as in sex with steadily changing flow of partners, meaning that they rarely seek out the same person twice.

I read one woman's story who had lost count of her sexual partners after she hit 5 000 something in her early thirties. She regularly dragged home men from under the bridge with serious hygiene and cognitive coherence issues, and got into commercial sex, not for the money but for the feeling of being desired and wanted she got out of it. She had been raped and mugged multiple times, had every STD in the book and a handful of abortions. She hit her own personal rock bottom when she became involved in the BDSM scene and started out an erotic relationship with another woman. I figured she no longer could justify that behaviour to herself as pleasurable because she had no interest in either, just a compelling need to widen her pool of available partners.

She noted that she got very little out of her contacts when it came to sexual pleasure, since more often the guys were unable to follow through. It was more the feeling of being powerful, of being able to get whom she wanted, just point a finger and say 'You're coming home with me'. In her past she had been sexually abused so for a while, that probably was healing in itself, but I think she got addicted to the feeling and could not figure any alternative ways to achieve the same sense of self-mastery.

And that was kind of my point. It doesn't seem like (from the story you've told) that it was the sex itself she was addicted to, or the "feelings" of orgasms. The fact that she was sexually abused isn't a minor part of this story, it might be the main factor. For her, there could definitely be a usage of sex as either a "connection" with someone, or more likely a way to "control". Especially since she most likely felt so out of control when it came to sex during her formative years. Her way of dealing with that feeling could have been to control others through sex.

Just some thoughts, I don't know this person. My earlier point was that she might have been labeled a "sex addict" when she most likely is a very troubled sexual abuse survivor who needs some help so that she can learn to deal with the sexual abuse without hurting herself. She's not addicted to sex. She compulsively uses sex to feel in control. Again, underlying issues that need to be brought forth and dealth with.

[serialmonogamist]

She's not addicted to sex. She compulsively uses sex to feel in control. Again, underlying issues that need to be brought forth and dealth with.
When you mention control disorders, the first thing that comes to mind is anorexia. However, since we're talking about sex addiction, sexual anorexia comes to mind as an anorexia parallel having to do with sex. Why is this parallel association relevant? Well, I'm thinking about someone like Tiger Woods as maybe not so much having sex-addiction as his main problem as being addicted to monogamy and all the perks of a happy marriage and high public regard that come with it. So you could maybe say that he was simply experiencing exploratory sexual desire but his deceit was a symptom of his monogamy-addiction. What he actually did was not so much sexual anorexia as sexual bulimia, with the characteristic "binging and purging" only instead of food being binged and purged, it was sexual affairs. I may be assuming too much since I only know this case superficially, but I just saw it as an interesting parallel for this topic. I think addiction is occurring whenever there is a significant reward/pleasure that someone can't comfortably go without, regardless of when it reaches a level that meets DSM standards. Probably most addictions occur at relatively harmless levels and are really just something the (potential) addict should pay attention to so as to avoid things getting worse. Also, it's just interesting to see how addiction plays a role in so many ways people are unaware of. I would never thought of monogamy as being addictive, for example, until just now.

[nycindie]

There's another thread on this topic:

thread on sex addiction (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4433)

Did I ever tell you how much I love you? :D Thanks for this and the many other threads you find that lead people to other versions of the same topic. Warms my heart *sniff* *tear* :p

Wondering why they haven't been merged. I keep going back and forth, getting cross-eyed!