Tiger Woods! Why There’s No Such Thing as Sexual Addiction!
Tiger Woods
And Why It Really Matters…..
Written by Marty Klein, Ph.D.
HOW THE SEXUAL ADDICTION MOVEMENT AFFECTS PROFESSIONALS
People are now self-diagnosing as “sex addicts.”
They’re also diagnosing their partners. Non-sexologist professionals such as ministers and doctors are diagnosing some of their clientele as sex addicts, too. As a result of these trends, many people who should be seeing therapists or sexologists are not. And many who don’t need “treatment” are getting it.
The sexual addiction movement is aggressively training non-sexologists, such as marriage counselors, in the treatment of sexual problems.
Many professionals are now taking these programs instead of those offered by sexologists. Also, some professionals now feel incompetent to treat certain systemic problems without this sexual addiction “training.” It is important to note that the content of this sexual addiction training is sexologically inadequate: there is little or no discussion of systems, physiology, diagnoses, cultural aspects, etc.
The concept of sexual addiction affects the sexual climate of the society in which we work–negatively.
This negativity is reflected in anti-sex education legislation, anti-pornography ordinances, homophobic industry regulations, etc.
Sex addicts now have cachet as sex experts.
Mass murderer Ted Bundy, widely quoted as an expert on the effects of pornography, is only one example. Right-wing crusaders now routinely quote “sex addicts” to justify repressive beliefs and public policy suggestions.
DEFINING SEXUAL ADDICTION
In the literature, the sex addict is typically described as:
Someone who frequently does or fantasizes sexual things s/he doesn’t like; Someone whose sexual behavior has become unstoppable despite serious consequences (including, according to Dr. Patrick Carnes, unwanted pregnancy) Someone whose sexual behavior and thoughts have become vastly more important than their relationships, family, work, finances, and health; Someone whose sexual behavior doesn’t reflect her/his highest self, the grandest part of her/his humanness;
According to the National Association of Sexual Addiction Problems, “6% or 1 out of 17 Americans are sexual addicts.” That’s about 14 million people.
From this literature and from meetings of groups like Sexaholics Anonymous (SA), the beliefs of people committed to the sexual addiction model appear to include:
Sex is most healthy in committed, monogamous, loving, heterosexual relationships The “goal” of sex should always be intimacy and the expression of our highest self; There are limits to healthy sexual expression, which are obvious (e.g., masturbation more than once a day) Choosing to use sex to feel better about yourself or to escape from problems is unhealthy.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT
It sees powerlessness as a virtue.
Step 1 of the traditional “12 steps” of all AA-type groups is “we admitted we were powerless over X (alcohol, our sexual impulses, etc.)…”
Controlling our sexuality can be painful, not because we lack self-control or will power, but because sexual energy is powerful and demands expression. The primitive, infantile forces behind those demands often make sexuality feel like a matter of life and death–which, in the unconscious, it is.
“Sex addicts” say they are “out of control,” but this is just a metaphor–i.e., they feel out of control; controlling their impulses is very painful. We’ve all had that experience, with sex and with other things. Virtually everyone has the ability to choose how to control and express their sexual impulses (we’ll discuss the small group who can’t later). The concept of sexual addiction colludes with peoples’ desire to shirk responsibility for their sexuality. But powerlessness is far too high a price to pay.
It prevents helpful analysis by patients and therapists.
The concept of sexual addiction prevents any examination of the personality dynamics underlying sexual behavior. It prevents the assessment and treatment of sexual or personality problems, because identifying and dealing with the “addiction” is the goal.
By encouraging people to “admit” that they are powerless, the concept of sexual addiction prevents people from examine how they come to feel powerless–and what they can do about that feeling. This careful examination, ultimately, is the source of personality growth and behavior change. The expression “That’s my addiction talking” is creeping into the popular vocabulary. This translates into “don’t confront or puncture my defenses.”
It trivializes sexuality.
The concept of sexual addiction ignores the childhood passions at the source of sexual guilt. Aggression, lust for power, and greedy demands to be pleasured are all part of normal sexuality, which every adult needs to broker in some complex fashion.
People learn to feel guilty about their sexual impulses as infants. “Sex addicts” are told they have nothing to feel guilty about, that they can learn to feel better one day at a time. But people know all the “good” reasons they have for feeling sexual guilt. By denying the dark side of normal, healthy sexuality that most people know they have, the concept of sexual addiction increases guilt.
Self-identified “sex addicts” want us to remove the darkness from their sexuality, leaving only the wholesome, non-threatening part–which would, of course, also leave them as non-adults. Rather than collude with this understandable desire, competent therapists are willing to confront this darkness. Instead of snatching it away from patients, we can help them approach, understand, and ultimately feel less afraid of it.
Another way to describe this is that:
It lets people split–i.e., externalize their “bad” sexuality.
Once a person describes her/himself as a “sex addict,” s/he can say, “I don’t want that sexual feeling or behavior over there; the disease wants it.” Good therapists know how to recognize splitting, how it blocks adult functioning, and how to move patients away from it.
It makes a disease out of what is often within reasonable limits of sexual behavior.
High levels of masturbating and any patronage of prostitutes, for example, are typically condemned as “abnormal” and reflecting a “disease,” according to SA-type groups. Which experts get to make judgments about acceptable sexual behavior? Exactly where do their criteria come from?
It doesn’t teach sexual decision-making skills or how to evaluate sexual situations.
Rather, the concept uses a “just say no” approach. As experience with family planning shows, “just say no” helps people abstain from self-destructive sex about as well as “have a nice day” helps people deal with depression.
SA-type groups say that ultimately, sexual abstinence is more like abstinence from compulsive eating–that is moderation–than it is like abstinence from compulsive drinking–that is, zero participation. On what theoretical basis has this critical judgment been made? Simple expediency.
Mr. and Mrs. Tiger Woods
Where is the healthy model of sexuality?
The sexual addiction model of human sexuality is moralistic, arbitrary, misinformed, and narrow. Excluded from this model are using sex to feel good; having “bad” fantasies; and enjoying sex without being in love. Where is the theoretical justification for this moralistic position?
We’ve seen this before: the concept of sin as sickness. It has led to sincere attempts to “cure” homosexuality, nymphomania, and masturbation–by the world’s leading social scientists, within our own lifetime. It is outrageous to treat sexual problems without a model of healthy sexuality that relates to most people’s experience. The sexual addiction concept shows a dramatic ignorance of the range of typical human sexuality.
At the end of competent sex therapy or psychotherapy treatment, the patient is a grown-up, able to make conscious sexual choices. Sex addiction treatment offers a patient the chance to be a recovering sex addict. Which would you rather be?
