|
Lockit -> RE: BDSM=Sexual Addiction? (4/24/2010 6:05:54 PM)
|
I won't post his complete article, but will use a bit of it to make a point.
Lockit's comments: While I can agree with a lot of what this man says, he is very black and white about some things. I have a woman I respect immensely, who was a recovering alcoholic. She used to say that addicts go to extremes in their addiction and go to extremes in their recovery. They will often project their own experiences to those of others and there is no black and white. If you do what they believe are signs of addiction, you are an addict. (I agree with this.)
I tend to agree with him on a fetish. My opinion. Period. As for my other opinions expressed, how can I be wrong in my opinion? It is my opinion. How I could be wrong about the guy is my take on him and what he writes. Big whoop. If it makes sense to someone, cool, if they agree with him, cool as well. My opinions remain. He isn't the worst and isn't the best, in my opinion.
Unlike alcoholism, there are many different forms of sexual addiction. A fetish addiction is a more detached escape from reality because the focus of the addiction is on an object, not a person. The fetish enables the sexually addicted person to experience sexual pleasure without even the fantasy of human contact. In some instances the object is used to stimulate a fantasy of human contact. However, any sexual compulsion towards objects intensifies intimacy problems that can lead to divorce or a life of emotional isolation. If no other person is involved, it is in the category of addictive sex alone.
Voyeurism (the Peeping Tom syndrome) also removes the sex addict from emotional vulnerability. Through this form of sexual addiction, the voyeur seeks sexual pleasure without the risk of intimacy or even revealing himself. And he doesn't respect the privacy of the people he spies on. Since the voyeur relies on using another person for sexual stimulation, his addiction falls into the category of addictive sex with another person.
Lockit: Is this the only way voyeurism works? What about the man who loves his wife and she loves him and they have a wonderful relationship, but he likes watching her with another? Who says that voyeurism is a peeping Tom who watches people who are unaware? Maybe the addict does, maybe the addict doesn't and maybe he is only addressing the addict, but there is no variation mentioned by him that would clear someone of sexual interest in something. They are pretty much labeled, categorized and guilty. Those who read this type of thing could fall deeper into guilt in ways that many of us may have felt guilty because we didn't want just missionary position sex, with socially acceptable partners.
He is talking about addicts and that may be the difference here, but the bottom line is I believe he feels that anyone doing some of these things is an addict because of different things he says in various places. If I am wrong, I am wrong. But I am not going to read his book or whatever to find out.
Phone sex is another form of addictive sex with someone else. Although there is no physical contact between the participants and they don't even see each other, the sexually addicted person is using the other person for sexual stimulation he could not experience alone.
Lockit: How about a married person who calls because there is a problem in the marriage and he doesn't want to cheat? How about the man with an ill spouse who can no longer give him what he needs? Are there any people who have phone sex who are not addicts with an intimacy problem?
Sadomasochism goes beyond avoiding intimacy. It is based on gaining sexual pleasure through destructive and humiliating sex acts. It is certainly a form of sexually addictive behavior with someone else.
Lockit: What say all of you on this one? Do you find that sadomasochism goes beyond avoiding intimacy? I say... bull shit. We may be comparing apples and oranges here. The addict with someone who is not an addict who functions quite nicely doing the same acts an addict might. He does mention that there is a difference seemingly in some of his wording, but there are areas where he says things I object to and because of this, I wouldn't recommend a friend going to him and distrust some of what he says.
|
|
|
|
