Sex Addiction Article

[Guest guest]

Why There's No Such Thing as Sexual

Addiction-- And Why It Really Matters

by MartyKlein, Ph.D

If convicted mass murderer Ted Bundy had said that watching Bill Cosby

reruns motivated his

awful crimes, he would have been dismissed as a deranged sociopath.

Instead, Bundy has

said his pornography addiction made him do it--which many people treated as

the conclusion

of a thoughtful social scientist. Why?

There's a phenomenon emerging in America today that affects everyone,

particularly those in

the helping professions. Not caring about it, or having no opinion about

it, is no longer an

option.

I am not interested in trashing 12-step programs. AA performs a great

service every year in

helping people handle their addiction to alcohol and other drugs. The

question that has been

put to us is, is the addiction model a good one for diagnosing sexual

problems, and is the

12-step model a good one for treating sexual problems?

And if it is, is it as appropriate for treating rapists as it is for people

who masturbate more than

they think they should?

HOW THE SEXUAL ADDICTION MOVEMENT AFFECTS PROFESSIONALS

People are now self-diagnosing as " sex addicts. "

They're also diagnosing their partners. Non-sexologist professionals such

as ministers and

doctors are diagnosing some of their clientele as sex addicts, too. As a

result of these trends,

many people who should be seeing therapists or sexologists are not. And

many who don't

need " treatment " are getting it.

The sexual addiction movement is aggressively training non-sexologists,

such as marriage

counselors, in the treatment of sexual problems.

Many professionals are now taking these programs instead of those offered

by sexologists.

Also, some professionals now feel incompetent to treat certain systemic

problems without this

sexual addiction " training. " It is important to note that the content of

this sexual addiction

training is sexologically inadequate: there is little or no discussion of

systems, physiology,

diagnoses, cultural aspects, etc.

The concept of sexual addiction affects the sexual climate of the society

in which we

work--negatively.

This negativity is reflected in anti-sex education legislation,

anti-pornography ordinances,

homophobic industry regulations, etc.

Sex addicts now have cachet as sex experts.

Mass murderer Ted Bundy, widely quoted as an expert on the effects of

pornography, is only

one example. Right-wing crusaders now routinely quote " sex addicts " to

justify repressive

beliefs and public policy suggestions.

DEFINING SEXUAL ADDICTION

In the literature, the sex addict is typically described as:

Someone who frequently does or fantasizes sexual things s/he doesn't like;

Someone whose

sexual behavior has become unstoppable despite serious consequences

(including, according

to Dr. Carnes, unwanted pregnancy) Someone whose sexual behavior

and thoughts

have become vastly more important than their relationships, family, work,

finances, and health;

Someone whose sexual behavior doesn't reflect her/his highest self, the

grandest part of

her/his humanness;

According to the National Association of Sexual Addiction Problems, " 6% or

1 out of 17

Americans are sexual addicts. " That's about 14 million people.

From this literature and from meetings of groups like Sexaholics Anonymous

(SA), the beliefs

of people committed to the sexual addiction model appear to include:

Sex is most healthy in committed, monogamous, loving, heterosexual

relationships The " goal "

of sex should always be intimacy and the expression of our highest self;

There are limits to

healthy sexual expression, which are obvious (e.g., masturbation more than

once a day)

Choosing to use sex to feel better about yourself or to escape from

problems is unhealthy.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT

It sees powerlessness as a virtue.

Step 1 of the traditional " 12 steps " of all AA-type groups is " we admitted

we were powerless

over X (alcohol, our sexual impulses, etc.)... "

Controlling our sexuality can be painful, not because we lack self-control

or will power, but

because sexual energy is powerful and demands expression. The primitive,

infantile forces

behind those demands often make sexuality feel like a matter of life and

death--which, in the

unconscious, it is.

" Sex addicts " say they are " out of control, " but this is just a

metaphor--i.e., they feel out of

control; controlling their impulses is very painful. We've all had that

experience, with sex and

with other things. Virtually everyone has the ability to choose how to

control and express their

sexual impulses (we'll discuss the small group who can't later). The

concept of sexual

addiction colludes with peoples' desire to shirk responsibility for their

sexuality. But

powerlessness is far too high a price to pay.

It prevents helpful analysis by patients and therapists.

The concept of sexual addiction prevents any examination of the personality

dynamics

underlying sexual behavior. It prevents the assessment and treatment of

sexual or personality

problems, because identifying and dealing with the " addiction " is the goal.

By encouraging people to " admit " that they are powerless, the concept of

sexual addiction

prevents people from examine how they come to feel powerless--and what they

can do about

that feeling. This careful examination, ultimately, is the source of

personality growth and

behavior change. The expression " That's my addiction talking " is creeping

into the popular

vocabulary. This translates into " don't confront or puncture my defenses. "

It trivializes sexuality.

The concept of sexual addiction ignores the childhood passions at the

source of sexual guilt.

Aggression, lust for power, and greedy demands to be pleasured are all part

of normal

sexuality, which every adult needs to broker in some complex fashion.

People learn to feel guilty about their sexual impulses as infants. " Sex

addicts " are told they

have nothing to feel guilty about, that they can learn to feel better one

day at a time. But

people know all the " good " reasons they have for feeling sexual guilt. By

denying the dark side

of normal, healthy sexuality that most people know they have, the concept

of sexual addiction

increases guilt.

Self-identified " sex addicts " want us to remove the darkness from their

sexuality, leaving only

the wholesome, non-threatening part--which would, of course, also leave

them as non-adults.

Rather than collude with this understandable desire, competent therapists

are willing to

confront this darkness. Instead of snatching it away from patients, we can

help them

approach, understand, and ultimately feel less afraid of it.

Another way to describe this is that:

It lets people split--i.e., externalize their " bad " sexuality.

Once a person describes her/himself as a " sex addict, " s/he can say, " I

don't want that sexual

feeling or behavior over there; the disease wants it. " Good therapists know

how to recognize

splitting, how it blocks adult functioning, and how to move patients away

from it.

It makes a disease out of what is often within reasonable limits of sexual

behavior.

High levels of masturbating and any patronage of prostitutes, for example,

are typically

condemned as " abnormal " and reflecting a " disease, " according to SA-type

groups. Which

experts get to make judgments about acceptable sexual behavior? Exactly

where do their

criteria come from?

It doesn't teach sexual decision-making skills or how to evaluate sexual

situations.

Rather, the concept uses a " just say no " approach. As experience with

family planning shows,

" just say no " helps people abstain from self-destructive sex about as well

as " have a nice day "

helps people deal with depression.

SA-type groups say that ultimately, sexual abstinence is more like

abstinence from compulsive

eating--that is moderation--than it is like abstinence from compulsive

drinking--that is, zero

participation. On what theoretical basis has this critical judgment been

made? Simple

expediency.

Where is the healthy model of sexuality?

The sexual addiction model of human sexuality is moralistic, arbitrary,

misinformed, and

narrow. Excluded from this model are using sex to feel good; having " bad "

fantasies; and

enjoying sex without being in love. Where is the theoretical justification

for this moralistic

position?

We've seen this before: the concept of sin as sickness. It has led to

sincere attempts to " cure "

homosexuality, nymphomania, and masturbation--by the world's leading social

scientists,

within our own lifetime. It is outrageous to treat sexual problems without

a model of healthy

sexuality that relates to most people's experience. The sexual addiction

concept shows a

dramatic ignorance of the range of typical human sexuality.

At the end of competent sex therapy or psychotherapy treatment, the patient

is a grown-up,

able to make conscious sexual choices. Sex addiction treatment offers a

patient the chance to

be a recovering sex addict. Which would you rather be?

PROFESSIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT

It reduces the credibility of sexologists.

Prospective patients are now asking therapists a new set of questions: " Are

you in recovery

yourself? " " Have you treated sex addicts before? " What if a therapist is

emotionally/sexually

healthy and therefore not " in recovery? " Is s/he then disqualified as a

professional?

The public, I'm afraid, is now getting a picture of us as being ivory tower

types out of the

touch with the real--i.e., destructive-- sexuality out on the street.

They're feeling, " You want to

waste time discussing systems, regression, defenses, and meanwhile there

are kids buying

Playboy out there! "

It replaces professional sexologists as relevant sex experts.

There are two groups of people behind this:

a) Addictionologists, often in recovery themselves (i.e., they have

unresolved sexual and

impulse control issues). They typically have little or not training in

sexuality; and

12-steppers themselves, lay people who love being in recovery. Their

missionary zeal has

nothing to do with science or clinical expertise. They freely generalize

their own experience

with sexual problems and " recovery " to all people and to human sexuality.

Both groups of people are now being quoted--and are actively portraying

themselves--as sex

experts.

By offering training from people with little or no sexological background,

the concept suggests

that all sex therapists offer is just another " theory " about sexual

functioning. Just as creationists

now want (and frequently get) " equal time " when scientists teach or discuss

evolution,

addictionologists now want--and are beginning to get-- " equal time "

regarding sexual

functioning.

Graduates of such training programs believe that they have learned

something about sexuality,

when they haven't. They have learned something about addiction. And they

are taught that

they are competent to treat addiction in any form, whether its vehicle is

alcohol, food,

gambling, love, or sex.

Most addictionologists admit they lack skills in differential diagnosis.

They and their 12-step

programs let anyone define him/herself as a " sex addict " . How many

personality disorders,

how much depression, how many adjustment reactions are being treated as

" sex addiction? "

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT

It strengthens society's anti-sex forces.

" Sexual addiction " is the Right's newest justification for eliminating sex

education, adult

bookstores, and birth control clinics. They are using the same arguments to

eliminate books

like The Color Purple from school libraries, even in supposedly liberal

California.

Businessman Enrico, whose group Citizens Against Pornography takes

credit for

eliminating the sale of Playboy magazine from all 1,800 7-11 stores, did

so, he says, " because

smut causes sex addiction. " And he was able to convince one of America's

largest

corporations of this complete fiction. We should not be colluding with this

destructive force.

It emphasizes negative aspects of sex.

Sex addiction treatment is essentially creating a special interest group of

people who feel

victimized by their own sexuality. Not others' sexuality, like rape

victims--their own sexuality.

This lobby/interest group is growing as increasing numbers of people are

recruited into

identifying themselves as sex addicts. With the agenda of protecting people

from their own

sexuality, they are a dangerous group, easily exploited by the Right and

other sex-negative

points of view.

It frightens people about the role of sexuality in social problems.

Increasingly, " sex addicts " and trainers are talking in public about how

sexual impulses took

over their lives and made them do things like steal money, take drugs, and

see prostitutes.

This frightens people about their ability to control their own

sexuality--as if they're vulnerable

to being taken over. * It supports public ignorance about sexuality.

" Sex addicts " and trainers spread stories about how childhood masturbating

to Playboy leads

to porn addiction, and about how prostitutes become so alluring that people

destroy their

marriages. The public, of course, takes the additional step that this could

happen to

anyone--even though there is no data to support this idea.

The movement continues to spread dangerous lies about sex, even though, for

example, the

ultra-conservative Meese Commission was unable to find any evidence that

pornography

leads to child molestation, and even though no medical society in the world

has ever proven

that masturbate of any kind is harmful.

It focusses on the " dignified " " purpose " of sex.

These words always seem to mean a rigid sex role system, with sex needing

love to give it

meaning. Sweating and moaning never seem dignified to people concerned with

the dignity of

sex. Ultimately, the " purpose of sex " can only be a political, rather than

a scientific, concept.

It obscures the role of society in distorting our sexuality.

Sexologists understand that our moralistic American society constricts

healthy sexual

expression. We all know the sexual and intimacy problems this creates; in

fact, we are now

beginning to understand how such distortion even helps create sex

offenders. But the sexual

addiction movement only sees society as encouraging " promiscuity, " instead

of discouraging

pleasure and healthy sexuality. This simplistic analysis cannot see how the

media and other

institutions make gilt-free sex almost impossible.

The sexual addiction concept attempts to heal society's sexual pain while

keeping its

economic, political, and social foundations intact. This is not only naive

and ineffective, it is

dangerous.

WHY IS THE SEXUAL ADDICTION CONCEPT SO POPULAR?

It distances personal responsibility for sexual choices.

As Loyola University's Dr. Domeena Renshaw says, " my illness makes me have

affairs " is a

very popular concept. The concept seems to allow sexual expression without

the punishment

our infantile side fears. This is a great childhood fantasy. But the price

is too high.

It provides fellowship.

SA-type meetings provide structure and relaxed human contact for people who

have trouble

finding these in other ways. The program also allows alcoholics in AA to

work the steps

again. This is one of the single biggest sources of self-described " sex

addicts. " In fact,

Carnes claims that 83% of all sex addicts have some other kind of

addiction.

It provides pseudo-scientific support for the intuitive belief that sex is

dangerous.

In doing so it legitimizes sex-negative attitudes and supports sexual

guilt.

It lets people self-diagnose.

This is very American, very democratic. People like to feel they are taking

charge of their

lives, and self-diagnosing gives them the illusion that they are.

It encourage people to split.

When people are troubled by their sexuality, it is comforting to imagine

the problem " out

there " rather than " in here. " A striking example is Jimmy Swaggart, who

railed against

immorality out in the world, while behaving in the very ways he was

condemning.

It also encourages a kind of splitting among non- " sex addicts. " In

answering the defensive

question " how can people be sexual like that? " It makes people who behave

in certain ways

essentially different from us " normal " folk. Basically, people use the

concept of sexual

addiction as a projection of their fear about their own sexuality. Its very

existence is sort of an

exorcism of sexuality on a societal level.

It helps people get distance from their sexual shame.

Most of us have deep shame about our sexuality--either our overt behavior,

or the more

primitive urges and images left over from childhood that we've never

accepted. This profound

sense of shame is what people would really like to get rid of; the

behavioral symptoms they're

supposedly addicted to are just a symbol of that shame.

SA-type groups reframe this same into a positive thing. It is a badge for

membership; it lets

" addicts " know they're heading toward a solution; it affirms that a

sex-crazed society is

victimizing them; and it suggests they're being too hard on themselves.

Good therapy does the

opposite: it helps people feel their shame, relate it to an even deeper

pain, and temporarily feel

worse--before helping them resolve it.

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE CLAIM TO GET RELIEF FROM SEXUAL

ADDICTION PROGRAMS?

First, we should keep in mind that simply because people claim that

something gives them

emotional relief doesn't mean it works in the way they claim. Astrology

apparently helped

reduce Reagan's anxiety about husband Ron's career, but that doesn't

mean it actually

helped either of them make better decisions.

The recovery process can be emotionally reassuring for many people.

It offers structure, goals, fellowship, and an accepting social

environment. In fact, since most

of the talk at SA-type groups is about sex and relationships, it's a

relatively easy place to meet

people for dating. And that does go on.

Conversation at SA-type meetings is exclusively about material that each

individual is already

focussing on. Thus, all conversation feels like it's about the individual

" addict, " and so

participants can feel connected with others without having to abandon their

own narcissistic

focus. This feels intimate, and gives the illusion that an individual is

making progress. And, of

course, virtually everyone gets to hear stories of people who are worse off

than they are, and

so they feel better.

People enjoy feeling like they're heading somewhere.

While " addicts " learn to enjoy the process of recovery, they also learn

they're never going to

fully get there. So they set their sights lower--and do accomplish never

being cured.

Because the sexual addiction movement is not interested in personality

change, it can offer

symptom relief without any ethical conflicts. In many cases people do get

that relief--although

it's at the expense of the rest of their character structure. Finally, as

" addicts " continue learning

how to distance themselves from their " bad " sexuality, they feel an

increasing sense of

direction and relief.

Addicts transfer some of their compulsivity to the SA-type group meeting

itself.

For many " sex addicts, " meetings (sometimes many times per week) are the

most important

part of the week. In a predictable setting and way, with comforting

regularity, they get to listen

to and talk about sexual feelings and behavior they dislike.

This feeling is perfectly conveyed by a " sex addict " quoted in a recent

Contemporary

Sexuality. He notes that, " Every Thursday night for the past year and a

half I have repeated

that statement [about his so-called addiction] to my 12-step support

group. " By itself this is a

trivial point; in the context of a program supposed to heal compulsive

behavior, it is troubling.

WHAT ABOUT SEXUAL COMPULSIVITY?

Most self-described sex addicts aren't out of control; they are relatively

" normal " neurotics for

whom being in control is painful. In fact, as the National Association of

Sexual Addiction

Problems says, " most addicts do not break the law, nor do they satisfy

their need by forcing

themselves upon others. "

Those who are really sexually compulsive are typically psychotic,

sociopathic,

character-disordered, etc. Some of these people have impaired reality

testing. Others have

absolutely no concern about the consequences of their behavior. Dr. Renshaw

states that

" undifferentiated sexual urgency is a symptom of manic-depression. " These

people don't need

help laying off one day at a time. They need deep therapy, medication,

structured behavioral

interventions, or other intensive modalities. The University of Minnesota's

Dr. Eli , for

example, reports treatment success with lithium, comparable to the clinical

results lithium

produces with other compulsives. It is absolutely indefensible to suggest

that the same

mechanism is operating in the rapist and in the guy who masturbates " too

often. " The concept

of sexual addiction does nothing to diagnose serious problems, assess

danger, discuss beliefs

about sex, take a history, or change personality. There are no treatment

statistics on true

obsessive- compulsives using the sexual addiction model. We must also, and

this is much

harder, continue to resist and interpret society's demand for simple

answers and easy solutions

about true sex offenders.

Sexual energy scares people; distorted expressions of that energy terrify

people. We need to

continually educate policy-makers and the public as to why the treatment of

sex offenders is

so complex and difficult, and why quick-fix solutions are worse than

partial solutions. We

must find a way to say " I don't know " or " We're still working on it "

without apologizing.

Cancer researchers, for example, have done a good job of making partial

answers--like early

detection and quitting smoking--acceptable.

SUMMARY

The concept of " sex addiction " really rests on the assumption that sex is

dangerous. There's

the sense that we frail humans are vulnerable to the Devil's temptations of

pornography,

masturbation, and extramarital affairs, and that if we yield, we become

" addicted. " Without

question, being a sexual person is complex, and we are vulnerable--to our

sex-negative

heritage, shame about our bodies, and conflict about the exciting sexual

feelings we can't

express without risking rejection. Sexuality per se, however, is not

dangerous--no matter how

angry or frightened people are.

Professional sexologists should reject any model suggesting that people

must spend their lives

1) in fear of sexuality's destructive power; 2) being powerless about

sexuality; 3) lacking the

tools to relax and let sex take over when it's appropriate.

Addictionologists have cynically misled the public into thinking that

" sexual addiction " is a

concept respected and used by sex therapists and educators. Even a brief

look at our

literature, conferences, and popular writing shows how rarely this is true.

But addictionologists

don't care about sexual truth or expertise--only about addiction. The

sexual addiction

movement is not harmless. These people are missionaries who want to put

everyone in the

missionary position.

In these terrible anti-sex times, one of our most important jobs is to

reaffirm that

sexuality--though complicated--is precious, not dangerous. Now more than

ever, our job is to

help people just say yes.

P.

----------------------

Pumpkin Eater

" Facts are stubborn things "

-- Judge Zobel, from Alain Rene Lesage

[no, I didnt know who he was either]

PERSONALITY-DISORDERS LIST:

http://rdz.stjohns.edu/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

_____________________

" At the Master's table,

They gather for the Feast;

They stab It with their steely knives

But they just cant kill The Beast. "

-- The Eagles

----

Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/12-step-free/

To unsubscribe, email to 12-step-free-unsubscribe@...

To subscribe, email to 12-step-free-subscribe@...

--

Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com !