Your problem is with the way you are trying to make a point. I understood your point. I cannot comment on your point not being an addict or a professional who treats them, but, I assume, that it can be correct in some ways and incorrect in other ways. To the extent that addiction is a portion control problem (it probably partially is that), I can easily see how someone would be able to portion control wine but not beer or vice versa. I can portion control oatmeal or meat but not berries - I can eat a big clamshell of berries while standing in the checkout line at Costco and then hand the checkout lady my empty clamshell just to have her smile at me and say "Really? You have eaten them all?". So, to that extent, your point is probably incorrect. But I am willing to concede it because the issue was not with your point but with how you attempted to illustrate it with examples. If you are trying to make a point, part of making a good point is providing relevant examples to bolster it. You failed to do it. You provided a completely outrageous example that suggested that the relationship status of one's partner has anything to do with addiction. I explained to you that addiction must have something to do with functioning, and gave you an example sentence from an authoritative dictionary emphasizing the word "ruined". Ruined lives - severely impaired functioning. You confirmed that I was right in pointing out that "ruined" was indeed the operative word and that sex addiction indeed ruined your life to the point of your feeling its repercussions even now. That was good. Your next step should have been to say "Oops. The example about married guys or guys having girlfriends was completely irrelevant because the RELATIONSHIP STATUS OF ONE'S SEXUAL PARTNER(S) is not in any way correlated with one's functioning level". That is what I expected. Instead, you said that you would not retract the point. I was not expecting you to retract the point, I expected you to retract the example that you used hoping to illustrate the point, because the example was absurd and ridiculous. Moreover, I provided you with examples to help you understand how irrelevant the relationship status is - I gave you that hypothetical example of a high functioning company founder. I thought I was exhaustive in my explanations but apparently I was not...

But is it at least clear now that I have taken you step by step through this whole discussion???

I also do not understand why you are asking why the example is such a big deal to me because I already, proactively, explained why - I told you that I do recognize that it is OT to the thread but when things are SO OFF, I comment. So I informed you that I was reacting to your example's being absurd to an outrageous degree. After I proactively informed you about that, why are you still asking the question? What was not clear? What else could have I said in advance to make it crystal clear?

And as a last expression of my being totally, utterly surprised by this conversation and how it is unfolding, if you now claim that you were not in any way concerned with "whether morality plays into the DSMor not!" then please explain how on Earth you came up with this example while later claiming that you are taking a morality-neutral stance? I cannot reconcile your statements. They are mutually exclusive. And I point it out to you having warned you, proactively, that I comment on such things: when I see serious lapses in logic, I comment. I did not make a secret out of it.