Re: THE MYTH OF SEX ADDICTION by Marty Klein PhD

[Guest guest]

Where did he come up with the magic number one?

Larry

>There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> example, masturbation more than once a day)

[Guest guest]

> From http://www.SexEd.org/newsletters/issue01.htm#myth

great article, Pete, thanks for posting it.

judith

[Guest guest]

> From http://www.SexEd.org/newsletters/issue01.htm#myth

great article, Pete, thanks for posting it.

judith

[Guest guest]

> From http://www.SexEd.org/newsletters/issue01.htm#myth

great article, Pete, thanks for posting it.

judith

[Guest guest]

I can see how this might work. Also a person could do it lots and lots

one day, knowing s/he would be very busy for a few days and therefore

unable to perform thier daily constitutional.

Larry

Nate s wrote:

>

> There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> example, masturbation more than once a day)

>  

> Could a person miss a few days, collecting " credits "   he could save

> for a rainy day?  I hope somebody's writing down these rules.  They're

> so difficult to keep track of.

[Guest guest]

I can see how this might work. Also a person could do it lots and lots

one day, knowing s/he would be very busy for a few days and therefore

unable to perform thier daily constitutional.

Larry

Nate s wrote:

>

> There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> example, masturbation more than once a day)

>  

> Could a person miss a few days, collecting " credits "   he could save

> for a rainy day?  I hope somebody's writing down these rules.  They're

> so difficult to keep track of.

[Guest guest]

I can see how this might work. Also a person could do it lots and lots

one day, knowing s/he would be very busy for a few days and therefore

unable to perform thier daily constitutional.

Larry

Nate s wrote:

>

> There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> example, masturbation more than once a day)

>  

> Could a person miss a few days, collecting " credits "   he could save

> for a rainy day?  I hope somebody's writing down these rules.  They're

> so difficult to keep track of.

[Guest guest]

seriously, how is it " obvious " that is unhealthy to go beyond that

limit? do my teeth go bad? blind? if i ahev sex witha girlfriend

twice in day, are we somehow unhealthy in sexual expression for

eachother?

> Where did he come up with the magic number one?

> Larry

>

>

> >There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> > example, masturbation more than once a day)

[Guest guest]

seriously, how is it " obvious " that is unhealthy to go beyond that

limit? do my teeth go bad? blind? if i ahev sex witha girlfriend

twice in day, are we somehow unhealthy in sexual expression for

eachother?

> Where did he come up with the magic number one?

> Larry

>

>

> >There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> > example, masturbation more than once a day)

[Guest guest]

Saturday, January 06, 2001, 2:12:40 PM, you wrote:

> From http://www.SexEd.org/newsletters/issue01.htm#myth

> Two points: His attack on the powerlessness concept can apply to any

> addictive process, and his account of ideas favored by Sexaholics Anonymous

> are less extreme than SA's stance on supposed " sexaholics " - only

> exclusively marital, heterosexual sex can be achieved non-addictively and

> *all* masturbation should be avoided.

Looking at this, it does seem to be a remarkably good critique of the

sex addiction club/cult/industry. Let's hope there is more to come.

Joe B.

> THE MYTH OF SEX ADDICTION by Marty Klein PhD

> The diagnosis of " sex addiction " has become popular with both lay

> people and professionals in recent years. But it

> is a destructive and irresponsible one that should be discontinued. In

> 21 years as a marriage counselor & sex

> therapist, I've never seen a single case in which the label " sex

> addiction " was clinically useful. That's because there

> is no such thing. What we clinicians do frequently see includes:

> * Poor decision-making: Even the healthiest people occasionally behave

> sexually in ways which later they regret.

> * Poor impulse control: This, too, we all experience to one degree or

> another with money, food, TV, gossip, etc.

> Most of the time it is simply inconvenient; sometimes it gets out of

> hand.

> * Obsessive-compulsive behavior: A small number of people think, feel,

> and do things that they don't want to do.

> Whether it's exhibitionism or hand washing, they are driven: the more

> they try to stop, the worse they feel, and the

> more they have to do it.

> * Psychotic or sociopathic personalities: This small group of people

> has impaired reality-testing, and typically

> behaves with complete disregard for even the most basic social

> conventions.

> Addictionologists now call all of these behaviors, when sexuality is

> the vehicle, symptoms of the same

> poorly-defined disease-- " sex addiction. " Supposedly, " sex addicts "

> can't control themselves; they cannot be

> cured, they can only " recover. "

> But I say that, except for a handful of truly disturbed people, all of

> us have the ability to control our sexual energy.

> For the vast majority of people, " being out of control " sexually is a

> metaphor, a metaphor we clinicians see every

> day in countless non-sexual forms. It's more accurate to say, instead,

> that for many people, controlling sexual

> urges is difficult or emotionally painful. Relinquishing our

> power--FEELING out of control--is a classic defense to

> reduce this pain. By encouraging people to admit that they ARE

> powerless, they are prevented from examining

> how they've come to FEEL powerless--and what they can do about that

> feeling.

> Saying that people are powerless over sex, the fundamental definition

> of " sex addiction, " undermines them. It robs

> people of the tools they need to understand or (if they wish) change

> their lives. And it relieves people of the

> responsibility for developing an adult sexuality, one that involves

> subtleties, choices, and strong feelings such as

> fear, anxiety, anger, joy, and passion.

> The concept of " sex addiction " is a set of moral beliefs disguised as

> science, as reflected in these fundamental

> concepts of " sex addiction " training programs and Sexaholics Anonymous:

> Sex is most healthy in committed, monogamous, heterosexual

> relationships

> There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> example, masturbation more than once a day)

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

> from problems is unhealthy.

> The concept of " sex addiction " really rests upon the assumption that

> sex is dangerous. There's the sense that we

> frail humans are vulnerable to the Devil's temptations of pornography,

> masturbation, " promiscuity, " and

> extramarital affairs, and that if we yield, we become " addicted. "

> The " sex addiction " movement is also dangerous in the way it supports

> the anti-sexuality forces in this country.

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

> education, birth control clinics, gay/lesbian

> rights, and books like " The Color Purple " from school libraries. We

> should not be colluding with this destructive,

> life-denying force.

> If mass murderer Ted Bundy had announced that watching Bill Cosby

> reruns had motivated his awful crimes, he would have been dismissed as a

> deranged sociopath. Instead, Bundy proclaimed that his " pornography

> addiction "

> made him do it, and many Right-wing feminists and conservatives treated

> this as the conclusion of a thoughtful

> social scientist. Why?

> Virtually no one in the field of sexology believes in the concept of

> " sex addiction. " All clinicians and thoughtful

> people should reject any model suggesting that men and women must spend

> their lives 1) fearing sexuality's

> destructive power; 2) being powerless about sexuality; 3) lacking the

> tools to relax and let sex take over when

> appropriate. In these terrible anti-sex times, one of our most

> important tasks is to reaffirm that sex, though

> complex, is precious, not dangerous.

> _________________________________________________________________________

> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

Saturday, January 06, 2001, 2:12:40 PM, you wrote:

> From http://www.SexEd.org/newsletters/issue01.htm#myth

> Two points: His attack on the powerlessness concept can apply to any

> addictive process, and his account of ideas favored by Sexaholics Anonymous

> are less extreme than SA's stance on supposed " sexaholics " - only

> exclusively marital, heterosexual sex can be achieved non-addictively and

> *all* masturbation should be avoided.

Looking at this, it does seem to be a remarkably good critique of the

sex addiction club/cult/industry. Let's hope there is more to come.

Joe B.

> THE MYTH OF SEX ADDICTION by Marty Klein PhD

> The diagnosis of " sex addiction " has become popular with both lay

> people and professionals in recent years. But it

> is a destructive and irresponsible one that should be discontinued. In

> 21 years as a marriage counselor & sex

> therapist, I've never seen a single case in which the label " sex

> addiction " was clinically useful. That's because there

> is no such thing. What we clinicians do frequently see includes:

> * Poor decision-making: Even the healthiest people occasionally behave

> sexually in ways which later they regret.

> * Poor impulse control: This, too, we all experience to one degree or

> another with money, food, TV, gossip, etc.

> Most of the time it is simply inconvenient; sometimes it gets out of

> hand.

> * Obsessive-compulsive behavior: A small number of people think, feel,

> and do things that they don't want to do.

> Whether it's exhibitionism or hand washing, they are driven: the more

> they try to stop, the worse they feel, and the

> more they have to do it.

> * Psychotic or sociopathic personalities: This small group of people

> has impaired reality-testing, and typically

> behaves with complete disregard for even the most basic social

> conventions.

> Addictionologists now call all of these behaviors, when sexuality is

> the vehicle, symptoms of the same

> poorly-defined disease-- " sex addiction. " Supposedly, " sex addicts "

> can't control themselves; they cannot be

> cured, they can only " recover. "

> But I say that, except for a handful of truly disturbed people, all of

> us have the ability to control our sexual energy.

> For the vast majority of people, " being out of control " sexually is a

> metaphor, a metaphor we clinicians see every

> day in countless non-sexual forms. It's more accurate to say, instead,

> that for many people, controlling sexual

> urges is difficult or emotionally painful. Relinquishing our

> power--FEELING out of control--is a classic defense to

> reduce this pain. By encouraging people to admit that they ARE

> powerless, they are prevented from examining

> how they've come to FEEL powerless--and what they can do about that

> feeling.

> Saying that people are powerless over sex, the fundamental definition

> of " sex addiction, " undermines them. It robs

> people of the tools they need to understand or (if they wish) change

> their lives. And it relieves people of the

> responsibility for developing an adult sexuality, one that involves

> subtleties, choices, and strong feelings such as

> fear, anxiety, anger, joy, and passion.

> The concept of " sex addiction " is a set of moral beliefs disguised as

> science, as reflected in these fundamental

> concepts of " sex addiction " training programs and Sexaholics Anonymous:

> Sex is most healthy in committed, monogamous, heterosexual

> relationships

> There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> example, masturbation more than once a day)

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

> from problems is unhealthy.

> The concept of " sex addiction " really rests upon the assumption that

> sex is dangerous. There's the sense that we

> frail humans are vulnerable to the Devil's temptations of pornography,

> masturbation, " promiscuity, " and

> extramarital affairs, and that if we yield, we become " addicted. "

> The " sex addiction " movement is also dangerous in the way it supports

> the anti-sexuality forces in this country.

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

> education, birth control clinics, gay/lesbian

> rights, and books like " The Color Purple " from school libraries. We

> should not be colluding with this destructive,

> life-denying force.

> If mass murderer Ted Bundy had announced that watching Bill Cosby

> reruns had motivated his awful crimes, he would have been dismissed as a

> deranged sociopath. Instead, Bundy proclaimed that his " pornography

> addiction "

> made him do it, and many Right-wing feminists and conservatives treated

> this as the conclusion of a thoughtful

> social scientist. Why?

> Virtually no one in the field of sexology believes in the concept of

> " sex addiction. " All clinicians and thoughtful

> people should reject any model suggesting that men and women must spend

> their lives 1) fearing sexuality's

> destructive power; 2) being powerless about sexuality; 3) lacking the

> tools to relax and let sex take over when

> appropriate. In these terrible anti-sex times, one of our most

> important tasks is to reaffirm that sex, though

> complex, is precious, not dangerous.

> _________________________________________________________________________

> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

Saturday, January 06, 2001, 2:12:40 PM, you wrote:

> From http://www.SexEd.org/newsletters/issue01.htm#myth

> Two points: His attack on the powerlessness concept can apply to any

> addictive process, and his account of ideas favored by Sexaholics Anonymous

> are less extreme than SA's stance on supposed " sexaholics " - only

> exclusively marital, heterosexual sex can be achieved non-addictively and

> *all* masturbation should be avoided.

Looking at this, it does seem to be a remarkably good critique of the

sex addiction club/cult/industry. Let's hope there is more to come.

Joe B.

> THE MYTH OF SEX ADDICTION by Marty Klein PhD

> The diagnosis of " sex addiction " has become popular with both lay

> people and professionals in recent years. But it

> is a destructive and irresponsible one that should be discontinued. In

> 21 years as a marriage counselor & sex

> therapist, I've never seen a single case in which the label " sex

> addiction " was clinically useful. That's because there

> is no such thing. What we clinicians do frequently see includes:

> * Poor decision-making: Even the healthiest people occasionally behave

> sexually in ways which later they regret.

> * Poor impulse control: This, too, we all experience to one degree or

> another with money, food, TV, gossip, etc.

> Most of the time it is simply inconvenient; sometimes it gets out of

> hand.

> * Obsessive-compulsive behavior: A small number of people think, feel,

> and do things that they don't want to do.

> Whether it's exhibitionism or hand washing, they are driven: the more

> they try to stop, the worse they feel, and the

> more they have to do it.

> * Psychotic or sociopathic personalities: This small group of people

> has impaired reality-testing, and typically

> behaves with complete disregard for even the most basic social

> conventions.

> Addictionologists now call all of these behaviors, when sexuality is

> the vehicle, symptoms of the same

> poorly-defined disease-- " sex addiction. " Supposedly, " sex addicts "

> can't control themselves; they cannot be

> cured, they can only " recover. "

> But I say that, except for a handful of truly disturbed people, all of

> us have the ability to control our sexual energy.

> For the vast majority of people, " being out of control " sexually is a

> metaphor, a metaphor we clinicians see every

> day in countless non-sexual forms. It's more accurate to say, instead,

> that for many people, controlling sexual

> urges is difficult or emotionally painful. Relinquishing our

> power--FEELING out of control--is a classic defense to

> reduce this pain. By encouraging people to admit that they ARE

> powerless, they are prevented from examining

> how they've come to FEEL powerless--and what they can do about that

> feeling.

> Saying that people are powerless over sex, the fundamental definition

> of " sex addiction, " undermines them. It robs

> people of the tools they need to understand or (if they wish) change

> their lives. And it relieves people of the

> responsibility for developing an adult sexuality, one that involves

> subtleties, choices, and strong feelings such as

> fear, anxiety, anger, joy, and passion.

> The concept of " sex addiction " is a set of moral beliefs disguised as

> science, as reflected in these fundamental

> concepts of " sex addiction " training programs and Sexaholics Anonymous:

> Sex is most healthy in committed, monogamous, heterosexual

> relationships

> There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> example, masturbation more than once a day)

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

> from problems is unhealthy.

> The concept of " sex addiction " really rests upon the assumption that

> sex is dangerous. There's the sense that we

> frail humans are vulnerable to the Devil's temptations of pornography,

> masturbation, " promiscuity, " and

> extramarital affairs, and that if we yield, we become " addicted. "

> The " sex addiction " movement is also dangerous in the way it supports

> the anti-sexuality forces in this country.

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

> education, birth control clinics, gay/lesbian

> rights, and books like " The Color Purple " from school libraries. We

> should not be colluding with this destructive,

> life-denying force.

> If mass murderer Ted Bundy had announced that watching Bill Cosby

> reruns had motivated his awful crimes, he would have been dismissed as a

> deranged sociopath. Instead, Bundy proclaimed that his " pornography

> addiction "

> made him do it, and many Right-wing feminists and conservatives treated

> this as the conclusion of a thoughtful

> social scientist. Why?

> Virtually no one in the field of sexology believes in the concept of

> " sex addiction. " All clinicians and thoughtful

> people should reject any model suggesting that men and women must spend

> their lives 1) fearing sexuality's

> destructive power; 2) being powerless about sexuality; 3) lacking the

> tools to relax and let sex take over when

> appropriate. In these terrible anti-sex times, one of our most

> important tasks is to reaffirm that sex, though

> complex, is precious, not dangerous.

> _________________________________________________________________________

> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> seriously, how is it " obvious " that is unhealthy to go beyond that

> limit? do my teeth go bad? blind? if i ahev sex witha girlfriend

> twice in day, are we somehow unhealthy in sexual expression for

> eachother?

Again, this is the point Klein wishes to make.

P.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> seriously, how is it " obvious " that is unhealthy to go beyond that

> limit? do my teeth go bad? blind? if i ahev sex witha girlfriend

> twice in day, are we somehow unhealthy in sexual expression for

> eachother?

Again, this is the point Klein wishes to make.

P.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> seriously, how is it " obvious " that is unhealthy to go beyond that

> limit? do my teeth go bad? blind? if i ahev sex witha girlfriend

> twice in day, are we somehow unhealthy in sexual expression for

> eachother?

Again, this is the point Klein wishes to make.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Where did he come up with the magic number one?

> Larry

>

>

> >There are " obvious " limits to healthy sexual expression (for

> > example, masturbation more than once a day)

I believe he is being ironic Larry, hence the quotes. He doesnt

believe that there is a limit to one, but these are the views of some

of the sex addiction advocates that he decries. As I pointed out, in

the case of Sexaholics Anonymous, for a " sexaholic " the magic number

is zero!

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> Looking at this, it does seem to be a remarkably good critique of

the

> sex addiction club/cult/industry. Let's hope there is more to come.

Alas not from this source Joe - the guy is only interested in

sexuality issues.

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> Looking at this, it does seem to be a remarkably good critique of

the

> sex addiction club/cult/industry. Let's hope there is more to come.

Alas not from this source Joe - the guy is only interested in

sexuality issues.

P.

[Guest guest]

There are "obvious" limits to healthy sexual expression (forexample, masturbation more than once a day)

Could a person miss a few days, collecting "credits" he could save for a rainy day? I hope somebody's writing down these rules. They're so difficult to keep track of.

Nate

[Guest guest]

There are "obvious" limits to healthy sexual expression (forexample, masturbation more than once a day)

Could a person miss a few days, collecting "credits" he could save for a rainy day? I hope somebody's writing down these rules. They're so difficult to keep track of.

Nate

[Guest guest]

There are "obvious" limits to healthy sexual expression (forexample, masturbation more than once a day)

Could a person miss a few days, collecting "credits" he could save for a rainy day? I hope somebody's writing down these rules. They're so difficult to keep track of.

Nate

[Guest guest]

At 07:25 PM 1/6/01 +0000, you wrote:

>I can see how this might work. Also a person could do it lots and lots

>one day, knowing s/he would be very busy for a few days and therefore

>unable to perform thier daily constitutional.

>Larry

So that is what those SA chips are for! They're not time

markers at all -- they're credits!

[Guest guest]

At 07:25 PM 1/6/01 +0000, you wrote:

>I can see how this might work. Also a person could do it lots and lots

>one day, knowing s/he would be very busy for a few days and therefore

>unable to perform thier daily constitutional.

>Larry

So that is what those SA chips are for! They're not time

markers at all -- they're credits!

[Guest guest]

At 07:25 PM 1/6/01 +0000, you wrote:

>I can see how this might work. Also a person could do it lots and lots

>one day, knowing s/he would be very busy for a few days and therefore

>unable to perform thier daily constitutional.

>Larry

So that is what those SA chips are for! They're not time

markers at all -- they're credits!

[Guest guest]

Honestly, though, I can't imagine an idea that makes less sense than SA. Compared to SA, AA is the best thing since sliced bread. We have an individual who cannot, or believes he cannot control his sex drive needs to solve his problem. What's the solution? Yeah, let's put him in a roomful of people who control their own sex drive, either.

There was a "Cheers" episode during its final season where Sam went to an SA meeting. The beautiful woman next to him told the group her story. She told about how she needed sex night and day, how it was all she could think about. Next it's Sam's turn. He says, "Hi. My name's Sam...Do you like Chinese food?"

Nate