Originally Posted by 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.
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.