April 3, 2010

There's a big epidemic, no, not of sex addiction...

... but of wives deciding their husbands are sex addicts who must get treatment.
I’ve been a Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist and Certified Sex Therapist for 30 years.... But until about three years ago no one ever came in claiming to be a sex addict, or saying that his partner told him he was one....

I don’t treat sex addiction. The concept is superficial. It isn’t clearly defined or clinically validated, and it’s completely pathology-oriented. It presents no healthy model of non-monogamy, pornography use, or stuff like S/M. Some programs eliminate masturbation, which is inhumane, na├»ve, and crazy....
Oh, I observe people with obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and a few other exotic states. That accounts for some of what laypeople call “sex addiction.”

What I mostly see instead of “sex addicts” is people who are neurotic or narcissistic....
Thanks to regular commenter Julius Ray Hoffman, for sending me that link.

Read the whole post by Dr. Marty Klein. It's pretty funny, these men sent in by their wives to get treatment, after learning from their wives that "either I’m a sex addict and I couldn’t help it and I need treatment, or I’m just a selfish bastard and she wants a divorce."

How come so many women have gotten the idea they can diagnose this ailment? It's easy to figure out that wives grasp at the idea of addiction instead of facing the pain of rejection and betrayal, but why the big change in the last 3 years? There are people — not Dr. Klein — who make money in the addiction treatment racket, and they've managed to get their pitch out to the public, but how and why now? Some "Oprah" show?

I looked back into my blog archives to see what relevant things started 3 years ago. In 2007, there was the Larry Craig story. That got processed as "sex addiction" to some extent. In 2008, there was the Eliot Spitzer thing. Hmm. I wonder why something so inherently unbelievable gained traction when politicians were using it. It's testimony to the strong appeal of the sex addiction theory of marital infidelity that women bought it when they heard it from such low-credibility sources.

***

Is "sex addiction" one of these things that's going to be treated under the new health care regime, even as Medicare patients are given pain pills in lieu of hip replacements and heart valves?

ADDED: Why aren't wives more worried about treatment for sex addiction? You want the man to be "sexually addicted" to you. How would health workers remove the part of his sexuality that's goes toward other women and leave the part that goes to you? Even assuming this is a disease, the cure seems dangerous, unless you want a desexualized husband.

67 comments:

AllenS said...

I don't understand the concept, is something I've said before.

Galvanized said...

In most cases of cheating men, there are ready and willing females, sometimes married as well. So shouldn't there also be a rising number of women also presenting for this treatment -- maybe not to the same degree, but somewhat? Maybe it would upset society's view of men being exploiters and women the damsels who fell for them. It's easier for society to handle it in this way.

wombat said...

I say stay with the non-clinical take. "Your pathologically narcissistic fear of commitment heart" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Der Hahn said...

It's testimony to the strong appeal of the sex addiction theory of marital infidelity that women bought it when they heard it from such low-credibility sources.

I think they are buying it because accepting the alternative theory, that women are in competition with each other for the attention of high-status males, brings up a host of issues.

Better to keep blaming the guy.

Quayle said...

This guy seems right. The claim of addiction seems to really be an attempt to make two claims: "I'm a victim" and "therefore, it's not my fault."

Let's look at this from a cost/benefit perspective.

If you want to have sex partners at will, then learn to be satisfied with the kind of selfish, shallow, pathalogical men or women that are going to allow you to be with and around them.

But if you want a self-adjusted, stable, giving, nurturing partner: that comes at the price of not screwing every person your libido jumps at.

Most people want both - lots of sex partners, and an intimate, forgiving, caring partner in the off-hours, to heal them from the enmity and pain of the world.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I don't get it.

Maybe the wives need to be diagnosed as having the opposite syndrome from addiction. Sex aversion.

Unless your spouse is insisting on weird sex on demand in inconvenient places 5 times a day every day, what is the big deal.

Sex is part of a healthy relationship. Not everyone wants it at the same levels or at the same level all the time, but that doesn't make one person an addict.

Oligonicella said...

Althouse --

"How come so many women have gotten the idea they can diagnose this ailment?"

Same way so many come to the decision that men are all bad all the time. It's easier than introspection.

"It's easy to figure out that wives grasp at the idea of addiction instead of facing the pain of rejection and betrayal, but why the big change in the last 3 years?"

Or facing inward to figure out what they themselves lack in the relationship perhaps. Their own lack of intimacy could be the first betrayal.

"Why aren't wives more worried about treatment for sex addiction? You want the man to be "sexually addicted" to you."

Being sexually receptive and active goes a long way towards doing that.

wv: billy -- You forgot to mention Billy.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

However, choosing to have sex either with random strangers or have multiple affairs is not addiction. It's just a distinct lack of morals.

I don't think you can 'cure' that. Without the use of weapons of mass destruction, that is.

chuck b. said...

Everyone is using the Internet to diagnose *something*.

I am deeply disturbed that the Larry Craig story happened three years ago. I would have guessed, like, nine months ago.

VW: bette. E.g., Larry Craig, bette noire of the men's room.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

In 2007, there was the Larry Craig story. That got processed as "sex addiction" to some extent.

Bullshit. I don't know how it was "processed" in conservative circles, but everyone else knows that Craig was obviously a closeted homosexual or bisexual male who got off on the incidentally kinky, yet not-so-incidentally gay sex that ran contrary to everything he proposed to stand for on the "morals" front.

This kind of hypocrisy is called repression, and it stems from your/his own faked "stance" on these issues. What you guys don't realize about human nature could fill a book. Read up!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The occasionally unhinged DBQ proposes nuclear war to rid us of the "moral" plague of one-night-stands

LOL. Silly boy.

Actually I was thinking on a more personal level of a 45 automatic, not nuclear war. That'll learn em.**



** You are so serious all the time and don't seem to understand sarcasm or humor. Now...... I guess I have to painfully explain that I'm not really suggesting women or men kill their cheating spouses otherwise Ritmo will flip out some more. So tiresome.

traditionalguy said...

The gist of this observer's addition to the debate is that selfish narcissists are being outed by their uncontrolled use of sex in place of choosing a healthy relationship with a woman. That is true, and has been since sailors and traveling salesmen on trains discovered hotels that rent by the hour. But the culture's acceptance of free sex with any target of opportunity for an evening is letting many borderline narcissists ruin themselves without restraint. Nobody is perfect, but observation and cultural mores do restrain the damages being done. Just wait until "Red Light Cameras" are in the "Clubs" and the government guys smell money.

edutcher said...

The guy they talk about originally is a geek (so am I). Most of them can barely talk to each other about anything other than technology and now he's swinging in massage parlors?
Now I know there's something weird here.

Just the latest excuse for people acting like slobs.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I don't get it.

Maybe the wives need to be diagnosed as having the opposite syndrome from addiction. Sex aversion.

Unless your spouse is insisting on weird sex on demand in inconvenient places 5 times a day every day, what is the big deal.

Sex is part of a healthy relationship. Not everyone wants it at the same levels or at the same level all the time, but that doesn't make one person an addict.


...

However, choosing to have sex either with random strangers or have multiple affairs is not addiction. It's just a distinct lack of morals.

I don't think you can 'cure' that. Without the use of weapons of mass destruction, that is.


Right on both counts, although WMDs are rarely required. One bullet, 45 caliber, appropriately implanted, has always done the job.

PS I see Ritmo's off his meds.

Quayle said...

This kind of hypocrisy is called repression, and it stems from your/his own faked "stance" on these issues.

The Mormon's semi-annual general world conference is this weekend. Care to watch and tell me from the feeling you get, which of their stances are faked?

Just because a phony hypocrite blows himself up, doesn't mean everyone is a phony hypocrite.

mariner said...

You want the man to be "sexually addicted" to you.

No Ann, they don't.

They're just addicted to their husbands' wallets.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

You are so serious all the time and don't seem to understand sarcasm or humor. Now...... I guess I have to painfully explain that I'm not really suggesting women or men kill their cheating spouses otherwise Ritmo will flip out some more. So tiresome.

Why not just blame my lack of understanding of the English language? It's not like I realized that "weapons of mass destruction" had a place in this conversation, or anything to do with cheating spouses, or even semi-automatic weapons, for that matter. But I give leeway for humor and apologize profusely for annoying you by not getting your highly unusual linguistic application of it.

Continue!

Roman said...

I think that a "sex addict" is the same as a "nymphomaniac": someone who is hornier than you.

It is a make work for so called "mental health professionals".

mariner said...

For decades now we've been told that it's OK for anyone to have sex with anyone else, anywhere, anytime in any way.

Now that traditional moral restraints on sexual behavior are disappearing, this nonsense is exactly what we should expect.

Joe M. said...

oh dear.
Victimhood &c.
cf. JAC's recent post on addiction.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I cannot address this with the expertise of a clinician or psychologist, but as a pastor...

The origin of this notion of sex-addiction is, I think, by application of the insights developed in Alcoholics Anonymous. Just as some people have wrecked their lives through addiction (in some fashion) to alcohol, so others have found themselves with similar problems related to narcotics, food, work, gambling, and sex.

That people do terribly destructive things out of "addiction" (I use quotes to denote I'm not making a clinical claim--just that it sure seems like addiction to those involved) to all these things is clear. People do things, in pursuit of sexual activity--I was going to say pleasure except it's very often anything but--that defy explanation.

Example: what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office and what Larry Craig did in a men's bathroom. What bizarre choices! Explicable by addiction in some analogous sense of the word.

Also clear is that people who engage in this destructive behavior, find help through the Twelve Steps.

Meade said...

Baby, I got sick this mornin'
A sea was stormin' inside of me
Baby, I think I'm capsizin'
The waves are risin' and risin'

rhhardin said...

nag v. "annoy by scolding," 1828, originally a dialectal word, probably ultimately from a Scand. source (cf. O.N. gnaga "to complain," lit. "to bite, gnaw," dial. Swed. and Norw. nagga "to gnaw") related to O.E. gnagan "to gnaw" (see gnaw).

It's just a further step in scolding.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

"the cure seems dangerous, unless you want a desexualized husband"

Bingo!

Also, the traditional role of religion is once again being taken up by the "therapy" industry.

William said...

If one finds a co-dependent, can the relationship be described as a happpy marriage?

traditionalguy said...

Will the I-Pad become another tool for porno addicts? There is only so much time in a day. The wife that wants to have a husband's attention needs to wrestle with his use of free time. There may be a time for addictions, but they always go over and steal the time that belongs to others. So the loser should get angry enough to get out.

Robert Cook said...

"For decades now we've been told that it's OK for anyone to have sex with anyone else, anywhere, anytime in any way."

This is wildly overstated: the so-called sexual revolution was about casting off culturally-inculcated shame about sex, with the attendant labeling of oneself and others as "dirty" or "immoral" and suchlike merely for acting on--or even having--sexual desire.

This was a right and good thing.

It does not follow that everyone should strive to behave selfishly or dishonorably in one's sex life. If one wants to be promiscuous, fine...just don't get married and be honest with one's partners. If one wants to marry, either forswear sex with others or arrange with one's spouse-to-be for an agreement to an "open" relationship." Such relationships can and do work for those temperamentally suited for them, (not most of us), but one must be honest above all.

The shame and puritanism that demanded a "sexual revolution" still has power over us, and many are still unable to be honest about their true sexual natures, with themselves or others, and thus seeds of destructive behavior may germinate.

As for women who diagnose their men as "sex addicts" for having an interest in other women, I suppose it can be true in some cases, but mostly I think it's women who have never faced up to the true sexual nature of men. My father brought home PLAYBOY (and later) PENTHOUSE every month, and my mother never expressed any dismay or sign of upset; his interest in these magazines was of no greater moment to her than his subscription to NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. When I hear--still, today--of women who are shocked or outraged to discover their boyfriends or husbands look at pornography, I think: Where do these women come from? How (emotionally) old are they? What fairy tales about human beings have they been beguiled into believing as true?

Will said...

I had a friend who was married to a woman with sexual issues. Sometimes she was hot, most times she was frigid. Like any normal male, he turned to the internet for relief. Not often, not obsessively, but every once in a while. For a time, their marriage became a battle about whether or not she could catch him looking at porn on the internet. He told her again and again: Make love with me, and I won't do it. I want you, not the internet. She refused, saying that she would only give it up on her terms.

Fast forward a year or two later, and she has him so turned around, he became convinced by her that he was a sex addict. Because he wanted sex with his wife. Because he masturbated to pornography. He actually went to a therapist once, and was told "Uh, no, not even."

So, in this case, her lack of desire to put out, coupled with a normal male sex drive, created a "sex addict". Nice.

I wonder if this will grow, due to the increasing number of sexless marriages...

WV: Goram. Isn't that a chinese curse word from Firefly?

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Robert Cook said: the so-called sexual revolution was about casting off culturally-inculcated shame about sex, with the attendant labeling of oneself and others as "dirty" or "immoral" and suchlike merely for acting on--or even having--sexual desire.

Instapundit had a link to a really interesting article about a woman who studied sexuality in Victorian times; although her research methods are questionable, it suggests that they were not nearly as repressed as we tend to believe even at that time.

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2010/marapr/features/mosher.html

TheCrankyProfessor said...

Back in Bill and Monica days I used to tell people that the metric for addiction is "if I tie you to a telephone pole and you don't start to display withdrawal symptoms in a few hours - you're not ADDICTED. You just like it."

Mondo said...

"Sex addiction" might be about control, but it's much more about evading responsibility.

If it's a condition instead of choice, how can someone be blamed for it?

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Ann Althouse, et al.
RE: 'Addiction'?

Or something 'else'?

I suspect that it's the latter. Something along the lines of mutual dissatisfaction.

How so?

Something along the lines of a number of women being incapable of being 'happy' with sexual relations and, as a result, wanting to avoid being complicit in the matter, accusing their partners of being 'addicted'.

I've been married several times. And, interestingly enough one ONE of them was able to be 'happy'. And then there are the 'others', before this marriage.

Why is that? Why is it that so MANY were never REALLY 'happy'? But this one, perfect one, IS?

Did I change? Or is she 'the one'? Or is there something else at play?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You think intercourse is a private act; it's not, it's a social act. Men are sexually predatory in life and women are sexually manipulative. When two individuals come together and leave their gender outside the bedroom door, then they make love. - Andrea Dworkin]

Almost Ali said...

Halle Berry made a similar claim about her ex, David Justice - that he was a sex addict.

Hard to believe any man wouldn't get "addicted" to... Halle Berry.

Jeff Younger said...

If a husband loves his wife, he'll want to do her. And do her often.

That's why the article is more revealing about the wives. To me, it seems that these husbands are normal and their wives are frigid. Or more likely the wives don't really like, much less love, their husbands.

It's time men just listen to how women talk of men and treat men. They really hate us. You just have to believe what women say and do.

Andy in Ephrata said...

I don't get how women think. If there is one thing a man has a right to expect from now on it is sex. Regular sex. If women don't know that sex is a regular, vital, integral, normal part of any and all marriage, then they need to get with the program. Perhaps sexual commitments should be woven into the marriage vows in not-too-graphic terms. Ladies, at some point no one but you gives a damn what your mood is, you promissed, so give it up. It won't take that long and it'll keep your husband from resenting you (over time).

Eric said...

If women don't know that sex is a regular, vital, integral, normal part of any and all marriage, then they need to get with the program.

That's not what this is about. This is about infidelity. This is about women who've been cheated on not wanting to face the fact that hubby, of his own free will, had sex with another woman.

If she accepts the betrayal and forgives him, then she's open to feeling like a fool when he does it again. On the other hand, if everyone can pretend it's like a bad case of hemorrhoids then she saves face. And if the hemorrhoids come back after surgury? Well, you know, these things happen.

Fat Man said...

"I wonder why something so inherently unbelievable gained traction when politicians were using it."

Insert "liberal" before politician

"Even assuming this is a disease, the cure seems dangerous, unless you want a desexualized husband."

Most women will put saltpeter in the soup, if given a chance.

Andy in Ephrata said...

Eric-

Cheating is a seperate matter altogether. I don't think cheating is necessarily a sign of addiction. (Though counsellors will tell you that when a man is caught doing something it is usually the tip of the iceberg.) If a man has sex outside of the marriage, he has violated the very foundation of the agreement. A marriage which is not exclusive is no marriage at all. In my view, he has breached the entire agreement and she is free from further obligation. If she wishes to remain in the marriage, it is entirely her choice.

My comments were in response to a sentiment generally held by woman after, say, the 3rd year of marriage where they think that their husbands want sex "too much", they are "dogs", "perverts" etc and use other means to manipulate or shame a man into dropping sex out of the marriage. Women seem to think that they should control sex from beginning to end. It is when they want, where they want, to what extent, etc.

These things are doubly bad in Christian marriage where the Bible clearly states that a woman does not have authority over her own body but the husband does. And vice versa.

El Presidente said...

I just find it amazing that "sex addicts" always seem to find "frigid bitches" to marry. And yes, I do feel qualified to diagnose the frigid bitch.

Eric said...

Andy, I suppose it has to happen somewhere, but generally a woman who isn't having sex with her husband isn't going to be able to convince him he has some kind of sex addiction.

Guys go to these therapy sessions because they've been caught cheating and are feeling guilty or just don't want a divorce.

Milwaukee said...

I must wonder: "Why do some people marry?" Physical intimacy is a big part of a marriage relationship. True, if other parts of the relationship are out of whack, that part will be as well. But intimacy can help build a relationship, when the other parts are working. And work it is. Husbands and wives need to respect each other, nurture each other, and respond to each other. Refusing sex regularly is about controlling the relationship. And if one partner feels the need to be in that much control, pity the other partner. This just seems to be one more way women control the discussion, and reveal the man to be inadequate.

A friend told me that "A bachelor is a man who hasn't made the same mistake once." Men and women look for different things in a marriage, and sometimes they each need to give a little in one arena to get what they want in another arena. Men wanting a "reasonable" amount of intimacy are being reasonable.

Did y'all catch the movie "The Hangover"? The character, the dentist, had a very controlling girlfriend. Very painful to watch. But then, once again, one of the reasons for writing poetry is: It's cold and lonely here, a) without you, or b) with you.

Aloysius said...

I don't think that an obsessive interest in pornography is healthy for any man or his marriage. I don't think that it is wise to trivialize this.

Robin said...

Hmmm..

Well, I can speak from experience. I've been the frigid bitch, and I've been the nympho. The man that bitched incessantly about everything in life, from daylight to dusk, got the frigid bitch. Who wants to have sex with a hateful ass who can never be pleased in any way? The man who smiled and laughed with me, showed me respect, affection, and truly was interested in me as a person? THAT man got LAID. Frequently. Horny happens, and it happens to nearly everyone. But if you treat me like crap, I can put horny on the back burner.

Just my 2 cents.

ironrailsironweights said...

Fewer men would be sex addicts if fewer women shaved themselves as bald as pre-pubescent little girls.

Okay, that's probably not true, but I have to seize every possible opportunity to promote my fet- er, interest.

Peter

Milwaukee said...

Peter: I'm not sure why we would want pre-pubescent girls to be bald. Then they would look like cancer patients, and that would be sad. Besides, if they shaved themselves bald when they were pre-pubescent, wouldn't they have full heads of hair by the time they were women? I think you need to be a little more explicit, you're not making any sense at all.

But women being the cause of men's sex addiction, that does make sense. You must be a liberal leftist, refusing to accept responsibility for your own degeneration. Good luck with that. And with the other thing, what ever it was.

Robin said...

What the other Robin said up above is important.

Many women don't realize how much men crave sex: if the sex isn't happening, the man feels there's something deeply wrong in the relationship -- and he won't feel any emotional closeness with her. And many men don't realize how much women crave emotional closeness: the emotional/relational intimacy isn't happening, she feels there's something deeply wrong and doesn't (usually) want sex.

This results all too often in a vicious circle of two lonely people craving what they aren't getting, and lashing out at each other for failing to give it. She nags all the time, he's a selfish bastard who only uses me for sex, whatever.

Basically, the line about "men give love to get sex, and women give sex to get love" has a lot of truth in it. Mix in large quantities of selfishness, and you get a recipe for disaster.

But mix in large amounts of selflessness by both people, and you can turn that vicious cycle into a "virtuous cycle". She may not feel all that interested in sex right now, but she loves him and wants to do something nice for him, so she says "Sure, honey" when he asks. (And pretty soon she'll be feeling a lot more interested in sex). Result: one very happy guy, who wants to do nice things for this wonderful woman he's got, to show her how much he appreciates her. Or he may not be feeling all that close to her right now, but he knows how much emotional closeness means to her, so he takes the time to ask her about her day and really listen to her feelings. Result: one very happy woman, who wants to jump into bed with this wonderful man she's got.

Now, if one or the other repays that selflessness with selfishness (he doesn't give her the emotional closeness she craves, she refuses his normal sexual desires no matter how nice he is), you get betrayal, hurt, and eventually breakup or divorce. But if both people keep a fundamental selfless view and try to meet each other's needs, they'll usually find their own needs being met, too.

I wish more people understood this; it would put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business.

traditionalguy said...

Robin...As a lawyer, I can assure you that the people we see in a divorce situation are way past a little selfishness and are into getting all that they can get as a debt owed to them...for what reason is unclear...but they will not ever blame themselves. The lawyers and courts give them an ending so that a new beginning can happen later.

Robin said...

traditionalguy: Yeah, by the time it reaches divorce court it's gone way past "a little selfishness." But self-centeredness, rather than selflessly loving the other person, is all too often where it starts.

And that's another reason why marriage is risky: because all too few people will return selflessness for selflessness. Too many will take advantage of you instead. It's a classic Prisoner's Dilemma: the best result is obtained when both are selfless, if both are selfish then both lose, but if only one is selfish then he/she "wins" while the other "loses". (With a perverse, twisted definition of "winning", of course).

Which is why the most important thing to look for in considering whether you'd marry someone is not their sexual desirability, but rather their character. If he's a stud but he's the kind of man who would cheat on you, you're better off marrying someone else. If she's gorgeous but she's going to turn into a frigid nag after a couple years (or even a couple months), of marriage, she'll probably clean you out in divorce court as well. Far better to find a wife who's trustworthy.

Of course, actually finding such a person is the problem. In the dating game, selfish people have every incentive to hide their true character. But if you can learn to spot signs of self-centeredness and run away when you find them, you'll greatly increase your chances of finding a trustworthy, willing-to-be-selfless spouse, and maybe make this marriage actually last a lifetime.

rhhardin said...

Serpent.

Adam cheating on Eve, if I remember the MSM coverage right.

traditionalguy said...

Robin...I really like everything you say. However,the catch 22 in life is that the accomodating givers do not seek out and find each other. They over and over seek out selfish takers who then take them for granted and leave them broken up and blaming themselves. The studies show that these people try to recreate their dysfunctional families of origin bacause it is so familiar to them, and they will falsely hope to fix it this time. These folks not only need a divorce , they also need a complete personality type make over from professional counselors or from church teaching programs to learn how to quit taking care of their ideal jerk man and start to take care of themselves.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

"the so-called sexual revolution was about casting off culturally-inculcated shame about sex, with the attendant labeling of oneself and others as "dirty" or "immoral" and suchlike merely for acting on--or even having--sexual desire."

Robert Cook must not have gone to the same schools I did in the 60's and 70's. Oh we said things like that, but it was mostly to look smart and modern so we could get laid.

Stosh2 said...

Feminists would have you believe men fear female sexuality. It seems all of the bitching and laws sort of prove the opposite.

kmg said...

That hardest thing in the world is to get a woman to accept responsibility for her actions.

Read 'The Misandry Bubble' for more.

kmg said...

Aren't women addicted to freeloading and mooching?

Milwaukee said...

The Robin of 4/3/10 8:33 PM said it very well, as did traditionalguy: the problem is giving people finding takers and then giving too much. The takers don't feel the least bit guilty about being takers, and are sore when the givers say "enough".

There are worse things than being alone.

Joseph said...

A great many women believe that their only responsibility is to strip off, fall on their backs with their legs spread, and submit to it. BUT, sex is a participation sport. That’s what makes humans different from chimpanzees.

No man will long be satisfied f**king a “potato sack.”

Ralph L said...

Aren't women addicted to freeloading and mooching?
Oh, you've met my step-mother? She made my dad put his parents' house in her name and then mortgaged it to pay off the credit card balances she'd run up.

Victor Erimita said...

I think a lot of the "sex addiction" stuff is simply more pathologizing all these masculine. At the same time, I wonder how many men, caught cheating or watching porn, claim to be "addicted" as a way of turning what would be a relationship conflict, or a moral failing into an "addiction, complete with victim status.

Blue@9 said...

How can we not be sex addicts? We're mammals that don't go into heat nor are we limited to mating at specific times of the year. The human species is built to proliferate like gangbusters and accordingly we--compared to other species--have voracious sexual appetites.

The bit where we don't go about humping everything in sight is because of society and civilization and rules and whatnot. We've been modestly successful at taming the sex drive, but let's not call it an addiction.

M. Simon said...

There is only one known treatment for sex addiction. You give the man so much sex that he is incapable of any more. For a while.

Once that is the recognized treatment I can see men lining up for a chance at the diagnosis.

M. Simon said...

The Mormon's semi-annual general world conference is this weekend. Care to watch and tell me from the feeling you get, which of their stances are faked?

They wanted me to install a plugin.

You can see they have gone wrong from the gitgo. Anonymous plugins indeed.

WV: copin - as in barely

M. Simon said...

There are two ways to define the selfish partner.

1. The one who takes too much
2. The one who gives to little

Proving once and for all that there is no basis for a happy relationship for the vast majority.

Generally biology says once every three days or oftener to stay bonded.

If the partner says "not this week dear I'm going to have a headache" the relationship is in trouble.

M. Simon said...

I don't think that an obsessive interest in pornography is healthy for any man or his marriage. I don't think that it is wise to trivialize this.

Depends on whether or not you are making money from it.

BTW any one is this discussion ever hear of natural variation?

kentuckyliz said...

I think most guys aren't addicts, but chippers.

kentuckyliz said...

The down low is distinctly different than straight men who are only interested in women.

Nuclear said...

There's "Celebrity Sex Rehab With Dr. Drew" :

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

=darwin

Methadras said...

Misandry says what?

Sokmnkee said...

Okay, I really just wanted to comment to get the # of comments off "69". LOL I WANT my husband to be addicted to sex with me. It's pretty much an indicator that I'm doing something right.