Quote:
Originally Posted by LaborIntensive
“Sex addiction” is a newfangled category that was invented in 1986 by prison addictionologist Patrick Carnes. The criteria for this disease are either hopelessly vague, moralistically specific, or subjectively applied—typically by anguished spouses, decency crusaders, or “addicts” themselves who are in genuine pain. The subjectivity and moralism around the diagnosis are one reason it isn't included in the DSM-V
As a psychotherapist and sex therapist for over thirty years, I just don’t see the value of the “sex addiction” diagnosis. It assumes that people who FEEL out of control ARE out of control. It assumes that the only kind of healthy sex is wholesome and intimate sex. It assumes that any self-destructive use of sexuality is pathological—while ignoring the fact that most of us periodically abuse every activity we really value, whether it’s working, eating, playing golf, reading romance novels, surfing the web, or volunteering at our Church.
And the sex addiction “treatment” can be a nightmare. Again, like the diagnosis, the standards and rationale are all over the map. Some programs insist that “sobriety” means no casual sex, while others ban pornography or even masturbation. Some sex addiction counselors are ignorant or judgmental about non-traditional activities like S/M, non-monogamy, internet role-play, swing clubs, even sex toys. Most sex addiction programs and counselors see no legitimate value whatsoever in massage parlors, escorts, or other commercial venues.
Millions of men and women are in real pain about sexuality out there: I’ve seen them in my office every single week since 1980, before “sex addiction” was even invented. I get hate mail whenever I write about this subject, and it always includes 'you've obviously never spoken to people in pain about their compulsive or destructive sexual behavior.' In response, I can only sigh: I’ve spent tens of thousands of hours working with people who could be (or are) labelled sex addicts. I don’t deny their suffering at all.
I just know there are better ways to conceptualize these peoples’ problems. That leads to better ways to treat them—because it aims toward more positive, more adult outcomes.
When sex addicts complete their treatment, they’re still addicts, facing a lifetime of recovery. When someone completes high-quality sex therapy, psychotherapy, or couples counseling—really completes it—they’ve changed. They still have their biography and vulnerabilities, but they’ve resolved the problems that brought them into therapy. They know that sex is not dangerous—it’s a grand opportunity for self-expression and celebration.
Later this week I’ll describe the specifics of an approach to sexual compulsivity and self-destructiveness that doesn’t depend on lifelong recovery.
Meanwhile, if you’re wondering about whether sex addiction exists, take the Sexual Addiction Screening Test. You’ll discover that you’re either a sex addict, or at risk of becoming one. The test primarily measures guilt, shame, secrecy, and experimentation—that is, standard American sexuality. |
This is all helpful information.
To accept that the woman in question has what
could be dx'd as an addiction is assuming that this is the legitimate situation she finds herself in, and has been given input on that from someone who might have professional training in such a thing.
Disregarding whether the label of "sexual addiction" is helpful, the actual issues that you describe surrounding the problem may or may not be present. When a person says they identify with a certain label, it's difficult to tell by what criteria they are going by- particularly, as you point out- one as vague and ill defined as sexual addiction. It is unclear from the OPs post whether this is a label she has embraced strictly on her own or been given.
Given that, it might be most beneficial to actually address the issue of cheating. As the OP presented it, this is not a one-time thing for their SO, but a pretty consistent pattern or at the very least a many time occurrence.
I personally feel the label is not very useful because of the inconsistency in its application- as you said, but not because of the suggestion by the label that something good can have mildly negative consequences occasionally.
Aren't diagnoses to be made on the basis that it interferes with a person's functioning? So occasionally drinking too much, going through a couple weeks where all you do is strictly adhere to scripture, or occasionally having The Laziest Day Ever because you glue yourself in front of the television and eat ice cream are not necessarily addictions nor are they necessarily worth of diagnosis or any structured treatment.
When someone says they want to change, it doesn' t mean there is something pathological. The pathology comes in when it is consistently destructive to their life as a whole and the various relationships and endeavors within that life.
I kind of find a lot of diagnoses [in individual situations] to be unnecessary based on your statement of assumption of pathology.
In any case, there is no way to actually know whether the behaviors described in the original post are actually pathological [rooted from impulse control problems, personality disorder, attachment issues, any number of things], label or no label, because none of us know this person.
But dude, I'm a professional nothing, so obviously it's all opinion ha.