What is Sexual Addiction?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » What is Sexual Addiction? » What is Sexual Addiction?

What is Sexual Addiction?
Question About Addictions.

Page: 1 2 3 4

What is Sexual Addiction?

ooUttE
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/15/09 - 01:23 AM:	#21
aquietguy wrote: a person with a sexual addiction will only be able to see a potential sex partner So do You think that looking at the person from narrowed spectrum of interests is carrying the stigma of addiction? For example if you are on business meeting with lovely lady You need to think about cumming on her ass otherwise You are workaholic?

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/16/09 - 12:39 AM:	#22
forbid wrote: You seem to be affirming the consequent for the sake of your argument. Just because we have evolved to enjoy sex so that we will procreate does not mean sex for procreation is the only truth. What does the result of it all equate to? That's the 'reason'. If you consider it to be for, say, other means, why not suggest why so? forbid wrote: And this is a false dilemma. We have the capacity to accept knowledge and emotional gratification without having to choose one over the other. To seek and accept knowledge is its self an emotional gratification, so they are not mutually exclusive. Knowledge is not to gratify your senses. In fact, it is the vital mechanism that enables survival. A living organism cannot survive without knowing, and thus it is beyond the impulsive nature of the senses. You cannot know because you have a certain impulsive need, you just know because you function. As such, I argue against your case of intellectual sense gratification. forbid wrote: While a piece of maturity may be the ability to control ones drive to excess making the argument that sex outside of procreation is an excess is fallacy. Sex has been scientifically shown to have benefits outside of procreation that occur each time sexual intercourse is engaged in. At the same time engaging in sex does not always result in a new life being created, even when that sex is unprotected for the purpose of attempting to create life. So in this scenario where sex did not result in life, was sex only for emotional gratification and therefor excess (immature) as it did not result in its "exclusive process"? I would have to say no. The idea is again, fairly simple. Should you reference science, please confirm the single most widely accepted scientific fact - what is sex all about, and why do all living things engage in it. Don't look for ancillaries in an obvious fact. What baffles me are the double standards of the moral zeitgeist today - that we change and cherry-pick everything based on what's convenient - if babies impose long-term responsibility over commercial sexuality, there should be a justification to limit their initial functional cycle based on our own hypocritical convenience. Then again, we are merely contemplating on additions here, and firstly we should confirm the single most needed fact here - what is sex for, based on widely believed evidence - what do you think it is for. We would then ease our contemplation over this issue.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

e-head
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 86

Posted 10/16/09 - 07:03 AM:	#23
Desidude666 wrote: Yes, we are made to most efficiently mate and procreate biologically but sentience comes at a 'responsibility' to others - to be able to procreate at Will comes with social 'responsibility', don't assume that sexual activity to be merely a process of entertainment, it is a powerful process. You are Gods to an extent, capable of giving birth to a potential human being, a different personality. Should you consider this, your idea of intimacy changes, and probably 'cure' your misunderstanding over this addiction. Don't take sexuality on such light assumptions, as made to believe by the media. While it does help maintain physical and mental bonds between mates (despite the limited utility value of a sexual and emotional inter-gender relationship) the process itself should always be regarded as primarily 'creation'. Should you disregard the importance of such an endeavour, you will always be not just addicted to it (as you can be addicted to alcohol) but also be responsible for giving life to others without proper 'ethical and moral' considerations. On a more serious note, it's best to avoid the process if you have the Will. Such activities have no value at all to personal intellectual growth. No value whatsoever. Your post was too hysterically prudish to pass by without making a comment. You have a very narrow definition of what sex is, and I assure you lots of sex takes place everyday that could in no way ever lead to conception. Just watch "Gay sex in the 70's". For people who are confused as to what sex addiction is, that documentary is a pretty good starting point. ------ Sex addiction is a so called behavioral addiction, in so far as behavioral addictions can be considered real, and I tend to be of the opinion that if addiction is real then behavioral addictions are real. After all, the body is capable of releasing a veritable cornucopia of neurotransmitters and other goodies that are just as "addictive" as anything you will find outside the body. I also think physical dependence and addiction are 2 totally different things. Many soldiers came back from Vietnam with physical dependencies on heroin but few of them went on to become heroin addicts. An interesting thought. I often find it perplexing that people find sex addiction so shocking, but are willing to accept things like gambling addiction. Surely, if there is anything at all to the idea of behavioral addictions, then mother nature has set us up to be vulnerable to food and sex more so than anything else. In fact, if you think about it is these terms, food and sex addiction are about the only addictions that even make sense... they can be construed as the existing pleasure-reward system just having careened out of control a bit. Though I suppose drugs can be construed as bypassing the normal entry point into this system and just stimulating you directly.

MasterSean2k
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Location: DC

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/17/09 - 10:31 AM:	#24
I prefer to think of an addiction as the assimilation of routine behaviors into the Self-concept because they emotionally and/or sensuously benefit the individual. This makes my view behavioral and identity-based, which may clash with standard psychological definitions. Sex provides pleasure at what appears to be little expense. If you have the means and opportunity to engage in it routinely, you become accustomed to the pursuit of sexual pleasure and the "sexual pleasure-seeker" identity becomes a part of how you behave and see yourself, whether consciously or not. When circumstances change, the identity remains salient and you continue to pursue sex even if it takes on negative effects (financially, physically, etc.). The same can be said of smoking and drinking, which have relaxing and liberating effects—and also the gratification of social acceptance in some circles—with no immediately apparent detriments. If you engage in these activities more and more, you make the "smoker" and "drinker" identities (value-free labels that indicate "one who smokes/drinks for the pleasure resultant of the experience") become a part of your Self-concept. The "chemical addiction" aspect strengthens the addiction, but is not sufficient cause in-itself (this I know will be controversial, but my own experience smoking and drinking daily and routinely while constantly telling myself that I'm not addicted resulted in my quitting both simultaneously with no effect).
~MS2k

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/26/09 - 12:00 AM:	#25
e-head wrote: Your post was too hysterically prudish to pass by without making a comment. If you think you understand it, I bet you don't. No wonder it's funny to you. e-head wrote: You have a very narrow definition of what sex is, and I assure you lots of sex takes place everyday that could in no way ever lead to conception. Just watch "Gay sex in the 70's". For people who are confused as to what sex addiction is, that documentary is a pretty good starting point. Exactly, have you tried reading something up there before laughing it off? Too much sex is precisely the problem. e-head wrote: Sex addiction is a so called behavioral addiction, in so far as behavioral addictions can be considered real, and I tend to be of the opinion that if addiction is real then behavioral addictions are real. After all, the body is capable of releasing a veritable cornucopia of neurotransmitters and other goodies that are just as "addictive" as anything you will find outside the body. I also think physical dependence and addiction are 2 totally different things. I beg to differ, they aren't addicted to a behavior, they are addicted to the effects that follow a sexual experience. It's addictive, and it's exactly the reason why biological organism replicate? If your body is made of senses, how can you create distinctions between physical and mental behaviours? Are you then not confusing habit to impulses? What results after sexual engagement, do I need to underline this? So are you addicted to the rigours, or the results of such rigours? Really, no wonder you find what's written up there hysterical. Addiction is a mental issue, not physical. All addiction is predominantly neural. How can you term it physical, which in reality would be a habit in that category. e-head wrote: Many soldiers came back from Vietnam with physical dependencies on heroin but few of them went on to become heroin addicts. An interesting thought. Right. Their addiction was 'physical' right? Can you create a biological distinction here then? How can you not be associating your neural system to, say, your physical assets? How is it not ultimately mental somehow defeats your suggestion? Surely you have nerves in your skin, right? Or impulses that are a product of your brain? Interesting thought too. e-head wrote: I often find it perplexing that people find sex addiction so shocking, but are willing to accept things like gambling addiction. Surely, if there is anything at all to the idea of behavioral addictions, then mother nature has set us up to be vulnerable to food and sex more so than anything else. Sex is not food, you don't die. You understand it, you win it. That precise mentality is the cause of this mindset. e-head wrote: In fact, if you think about it is these terms, food and sex addiction are about the only addictions that even make sense... they can be construed as the existing pleasure-reward system just having careened out of control a bit. Though I suppose drugs can be construed as bypassing the normal entry point into this system and just stimulating you directly. Again, I beg to differ - sex is not food for the body. It has a specific functional use, to procreate. Once we get attached to the chemical reactions of the process, that is cue for us to replicate at this level, we get addicted. Nothing will ever suffer toils, physical labour and such costs without an incentive. Instincts especially. Your fat stored is evidence enough - the body keeping stored fat, hence demoting macro-level aesthetics against survival. You can get addicted to food, yes, but you cannot compare toil to supplement. You don't die without sex.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 119

Posted 10/27/09 - 10:58 PM:	#26
Hi, Sex is a behaviour psychologically speaking, so lets take the sex out of the debate and just talk about behaviours. 1) Can a behaviour become an addiction? The answer is evidently yes. We have plenty of examples of people who are addicted to specific behaviours without a chemical component. Gambling adictions, runners highs, adrenaline junkies etc. The mechanics at least in the basic sense, of these things are all very well understood. Said behaviour is pleasurable, it leads to the release of endorphins in the brain, and over time the individual becomes habituated to them. He wants to experience them again and again. If he doesn't experience them he feels 'down' dejected, itching to do something to take his mind off his need. Ever seen a habituated runner forced to keep his feet up because of a sprain etc. They are miserable people, and often the need for that endorphin release is strong enough that they will still run and ignore the pain and the damage they do to themselves. The same behaviour is seen in people who cut themselves, the pain of what they do to themselves is outweighed by the pleasure or sense of control that they get from the act. 2) Can an addiction to a behaviour become a problem? This is the real crux of the question. Can the gambler stop gambling when he reaches the end of his discrewtionary money? Can the adrenaline junkie stop jumping off cliffs when its causing him health problems. Can the sex addict stop having sex when its creating problems in his life? If the answer is no then that person is an addict. The only real difference between a sex addict and a problem gambler is that sex comes with a whole lot of personal, social and cultural baggage, that and we don't necessarily like to speak about it, or if we do we consider it funny or perverse. Cheers.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/28/09 - 10:33 PM:	#27
psychotick wrote: Hi, Sex is a behaviour psychologically speaking, so lets take the sex out of the debate and just talk about behaviours. 1) Can a behaviour become an addiction? The answer is evidently yes. We have plenty of examples of people who are addicted to specific behaviours without a chemical component. Gambling adictions, runners highs, adrenaline junkies etc. The mechanics at least in the basic sense, of these things are all very well understood. Said behaviour is pleasurable, it leads to the release of endorphins in the brain, and over time the individual becomes habituated to them. He wants to experience them again and again. If he doesn't experience them he feels 'down' dejected, itching to do something to take his mind off his need. Ever seen a habituated runner forced to keep his feet up because of a sprain etc. They are miserable people, and often the need for that endorphin release is strong enough that they will still run and ignore the pain and the damage they do to themselves. The same behaviour is seen in people who cut themselves, the pain of what they do to themselves is outweighed by the pleasure or sense of control that they get from the act. 2) Can an addiction to a behaviour become a problem? This is the real crux of the question. Can the gambler stop gambling when he reaches the end of his discrewtionary money? Can the adrenaline junkie stop jumping off cliffs when its causing him health problems. Can the sex addict stop having sex when its creating problems in his life? If the answer is no then that person is an addict. The only real difference between a sex addict and a problem gambler is that sex comes with a whole lot of personal, social and cultural baggage, that and we don't necessarily like to speak about it, or if we do we consider it funny or perverse. Cheers. That's been my point all along. But they aren't addicted to sex or, let's put it aside as suggested, the process itself. He/she is addicted to internal chemical elements that are produced by performing a function. As such, once it's revealed, the idea then suggests control over their impulses. Once you realise the mundane functional aspect of it, I doubt anyone would want to engage in it. It's almost stupid to realise the futility of a labour, for example gambling, and then still indulge in it despite knowing that you aren't earning and spending all that money on a process, rather, the senses that produce a certain chemical release. Earning all that money just so that your body could produce chemicals for a particular experience. How can one still take these addictions seriously after knowing the truth is beyond me. You don't have to get everything you 'enjoy'. So restrictions imposed certainly assist in controlling addiction and so forth. For the knowledgeable, you restrict yourselves, for others, society does.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Open eyed
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 11/15/09 - 07:12 AM:	#28
Desidude666 wrote: psychotick wrote: Hi, Sex is a behaviour psychologically speaking, so lets take the sex out of the debate and just talk about behaviours. 1) Can a behaviour become an addiction? The answer is evidently yes. We have plenty of examples of people who are addicted to specific behaviours without a chemical component. Gambling adictions, runners highs, adrenaline junkies etc. The mechanics at least in the basic sense, of these things are all very well understood. Said behaviour is pleasurable, it leads to the release of endorphins in the brain, and over time the individual becomes habituated to them. He wants to experience them again and again. If he doesn't experience them he feels 'down' dejected, itching to do something to take his mind off his need. Ever seen a habituated runner forced to keep his feet up because of a sprain etc. They are miserable people, and often the need for that endorphin release is strong enough that they will still run and ignore the pain and the damage they do to themselves. The same behaviour is seen in people who cut themselves, the pain of what they do to themselves is outweighed by the pleasure or sense of control that they get from the act. 2) Can an addiction to a behaviour become a problem? This is the real crux of the question. Can the gambler stop gambling when he reaches the end of his discrewtionary money? Can the adrenaline junkie stop jumping off cliffs when its causing him health problems. Can the sex addict stop having sex when its creating problems in his life? If the answer is no then that person is an addict. The only real difference between a sex addict and a problem gambler is that sex comes with a whole lot of personal, social and cultural baggage, that and we don't necessarily like to speak about it, or if we do we consider it funny or perverse. Cheers. That's been my point all along. But they aren't addicted to sex or, let's put it aside as suggested, the process itself. He/she is addicted to internal chemical elements that are produced by performing a function. As such, once it's revealed, the idea then suggests control over their impulses. Once you realise the mundane functional aspect of it, I doubt anyone would want to engage in it. It's almost stupid to realise the futility of a labour, for example gambling, and then still indulge in it despite knowing that you aren't earning and spending all that money on a process, rather, the senses that produce a certain chemical release. Earning all that money just so that your body could produce chemicals for a particular experience. How can one still take these addictions seriously after knowing the truth is beyond me. You don't have to get everything you 'enjoy'. So restrictions imposed certainly assist in controlling addiction and so forth. For the knowledgeable, you restrict yourselves, for others, society does. Okay. I think I get what you're all about now. You're saying everything we do in life that makes us "happy" or experience "pleasure" is us trying to control those endorphins that make us feel "good". whether that be the feeling of completing a goal, ejaculation, validating oneself through insecure means, etc. If that is true, then that is the ultimate "point" of sex. To control those feel good hormones in our head.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/16/09 - 12:28 AM:	#29
The hormones aren't there for you to use, they are there to force you into it. Like an animal who needs to mate just because his hormones are released? The point of it is to reproduce - nothing more, not even released chemicals that make you 'happy' - because such chemicals have no other functional application to biology. The objective of life is to survive, replicate and mutate. That's what you're doing all the time, consuming so you can survive, mating so your genes survive and learning so you can adapt to your changing environment better.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Open eyed
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 11/16/09 - 03:00 AM:	#30
Desidude666 wrote: The hormones aren't there for you to use, they are there to force you into it. Like an animal who needs to mate just because his hormones are released? The point of it is to reproduce - nothing more, not even released chemicals that make you 'happy' - because such chemicals have no other functional application to biology. The objective of life is to survive, replicate and mutate. That's what you're doing all the time, consuming so you can survive, mating so your genes survive and learning so you can adapt to your changing environment better. I understand what our ultimate purpose is on this earth. To survive, replicate and mutate. I get that, but you have yet to express what is wrong with most humans searching for this feel good hormone release, regardless of what their there for. You can say it is wrong because it is unnecessary in order for us to function towards our ultimate goal. That would be a valid argument, if todays human being only had those three thoughts in his head (survival, replication, and mutation). Since todays modern man has layers and layers of other perceived wants and needs, why fight the fact that in order for anyone to just see sex as a means of pro creation is very difficult and unnecessary. When you and I are both on our death beds, with kids, we both will have achieved the same ultimate purpose of man regardless of how we got there. The end justifies the means

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.