March 11, 2010

Binging and purging.



EDH said...

I'm sure the proprietors of would appreciate the "bingeing" spelling.

wv-"reapi" = what I sow

Lem said...

Dr Drew.. I want my MTV.

kentuckyliz said...

The comments there are really funny.

Sex is optional. You don't need it to survive (personally).

I spose Dr Drew thinks I should get over my anorexia by just going out and boinking any random available person...and in this small town that would result in serious harm to my reputation and my profession to the point where I'd probably lose my job.

No thanks.

I don't live in the big zipless anonymous f*ck city.

sonicfrog said...

I'll wait for Titus to chime in. I'm sure he'll have some valuable insight.

VerWord: Conesser

Penny said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Penny said...

Sorry folks, I seem to be stuck in some double posting issues today. Hope it's garbage day at Althouse!

raf said...

From the article: Um. Sorry. But yeah, it's not you, it's your mental disease. Don't worry. Dr. Drew told us so. Don't worry. Don't worry.

Isn't it funny how the mental disease is the preferred state?

Isn't it?

traditionalguy said...

I bet Congressman Massa wishes he was sexually anorexic about now. The ability to restrain your weakness is called strength. Whatever your weak areas are...overeating food...over lusting for sex...TV watching...internet surfing...pornography and mastubation...You have to restrain it or a force like an NFL lineman will push you into a self destroying compulsion (a/k/a, an addiction). Christianity claims to have answers here, but you have to agree that it is a sin first.

edutcher said...

I smell somebody inventing a new disease for which he has the only treatment.

Kind of like carbon offsets.

Penny said...

Sorry folks, I seem to be stuck in some double posting issues today. Hope it's garbage day at Althouse!

It would appear blogger is having some connection issues.

Sofa King said...

I might be motivated to support Obamacare if it covers physical therapy for this condition.

Shawn Levasseur said...

I haven't followed the link yet, but this sounds like an innvovative answer to the age old question of, "spit or swallow?"

The answer being "why not both?".. Bulemic B.J.s.

Big Mike said...

@Sofa King, don't worry. Once the decisions about healthcare treatments are made politically instead of medically, this will be covered. I promise you.

Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, and Wild Bill Clinton will lead the charge.

jimbino said...

Yeah, that's what we need: compulsory universal sexcare insurance that ignores pre-existing conditions!

ironrailsironweights said...

So ladies, not getting enough sex? Don't fret about "sexual anorexia" or other psychobabble. Just let it grow back.


david7134 said...

I have wondered if those who are repulsed by sex and feel that it is a moral issue, are actually sick. Sex is very natural, yet we go out of our way to put up obsturctions to satisfy our needs. Namely the laws against prostitution that result in illness and injury to women, only to ease the moral consciousness of a few.

rocketeer67 said...

I have wondered if those who are repulsed by sex and feel that it is a moral issue, are actually sick.

I see what you did there - you built a nifty little strawman using "and" for glue.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

david, there's a big difference between being "repulsed by sex" and seeing it as a "moral issue." They don't necessarily go together.

- Lyssa

WV: "dehips" de hips, dey can be very sexy.

Synova said...

It seems were supposed to assume that sexual gluttony is the preferred normal state but obesity from too much food is a national horror.

Could it be the same attitude of self indulgence and valuing self indulgence as some sort of virtue brings us to the same place?

Both sex and eating are pleasurable because they are biologically necessary (and we're more likely to do things we enjoy than do things we don't enjoy in order to keep the species going) and both tend to go past what is necessary to either reproduce or obtain sufficient food well into surplus.

Which is fine and dandy when a person has the opportunity, but not so fine and dandy if, say, your partner is ill or deployed, or if (yes) eating too much becomes a health issue.

david7134 said...

Actually form a moral aspect, I feel that those who establish moral grounds on sexuality do it to maintain power. If you notice, many religions make sex a very prominent part of their message. It seems the purpose of one of control.

Synova said...

I think that's short sighted, David, and rather naive.

Not that there are not elements of arbitrary control involved in any cultural taboos, but for the most part what is being controlled?

The Bible, I think in the OT, says that sexual sins are sins against your own body.

Lets look at that, shall we?

Rules restricting sex do several important things. They establish paternity. This is vastly important. They bolster the family unit. They restrict the spread of disease. Sometimes elaborate rules dictate sexual pleasure on a schedule (someone cited Koran and Torah rules about how a man is not supposed to neglect his wife) which is a pro-sex thing rather than anti-sex. There are "leave her alone" rules associated with menstruation and child-birth and I believe some Native American cultures had similar "unclean" times which ritualistically excused women from their normal labors and relationships.

Anyone can find problems with individual instances that seem unfair, but in general the prevalence of rules about sex in nearly all cultures, no matter how they differ, are there for good reason. Who's your Daddy and rather than who are you supposed to submit to... who are you protected from?

These are sex rules; all rules prohibiting incest; all rules about ages of consent; all rules that there must *be* consent.

Those are no different than any other rules about who or about when.

Paternity may be less of an issue than it was Historically... but I'd be willing to bet that the spread of disease is as much of an issue, if not more, than it ever was.