(Globe and Mail) Russell Smith–Shame on us: The invention of sex addiction

(Please note–the content of this article may not be suitable for some blog readers–KSH).

The invention of sex addiction reflects the culture’s deep-rooted fear that too much sex without commitment is bad for you.

Interestingly, there’s no proof of that. In fact, sex addiction isn’t even an accepted disease among most psychiatric and psychological organizations in the world. The American Psychiatric Association no longer includes it as a pathology in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. This is largely because there is no consensus even among researchers of exactly what an addiction is ”“ there are as many definitions of addiction as there are treatment centres….

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, * Religion News & Commentary, Canada, Ethics / Moral Theology, Movies & Television, Other Faiths, Psychology, Secularism, Sexuality, Theology

3 comments on “(Globe and Mail) Russell Smith–Shame on us: The invention of sex addiction

  1. Br. Michael says:

    The comments are as fascinating to read as the article itself. Here we see a culture based on self-gratification and the self granted entitlement to have sex whenever and wherever and to do so without any consequences whatsoever.

    Any human consequences; betrayal of “loved ones”, transmission of disease, children(aborted or consigned to be brought up in single parent homes), burdens on others to raise these children etc, is simply ignored or treated as non-existent.

    Notice the constant refrain in the comments: “How dare anyone tells me what to do or impose their morality on me! I must be free to do what I want when I want to do it!”

    This is a society in rapid decline and one that won’t be missed when it is gone. All that will be left is the human misery in the wreckage.

  2. Aargh says:

    I wonder, did the author actually talk to anyone who claims to stuffer from sex addiction, or did he just pass judgment for the sake of furthering his own view?

    Before dismissing it as puritanical nonsense, ask the guy who honestly cannot control his sexual complicity even though he musters all his willpower, character, prayers, etc, but still cannot stop. Ask the guy who knows he does what he does and knows it’s even against his own will that he does it.

    Articles like this only increase the stigma of sex addiction and make it less likely that the sufferer will seek help before it escalates to where he victimizes others or it kills him.

    Thanks, Russell Smith, how many sex addicts did you kill today with this bit of well-written contempt?

    If there are any readers who actually are sex addicts and cannot stop, there is hope. Go to http://www.sa.org and see what you think.

  3. David Fischler says:

    [blockquote]There are quite a few scientists who still hold that the disease model of addiction applies only to the use of psychoactive substances that cause increasing tolerance and then uncomfortable withdrawal. Sex does not qualify. Psychiatrists do use the term “hypersexuality” to describe compulsive promiscuity, but it’s considered a symptom of a variety of psychological disturbances, not a disease in itself.[/blockquote]

    So I guess in Russell Smith’s world, there’s no such thing as “mental illness.”

    This is the modern world’s fixation with playing with words at its worst. As Brother Michael and Aargh note, there are damaging real-world consequences to the kind of behavior that [i]Shame[/i] depicts, and that the term “sexual addiction” is meant to signify. To those who are trapped in it, and those who are victimized by sexual addicts, it doesn’t matter whether you call it a “disease” or an “addiction” or a “pomegranate.” The behavior is what it is, and we ignore or dismiss it at our peril.