Sex__Not_and_Addiciton_but_a_Resposibility

Sex: Not an Addiction but a Responsibility Bryce Walkiewicz Berry College Sex is a very sensitive subject in the world today, even though it was what makes the world go round. There is a major issue, and that is if sex is addictive or just a strong chemistry bond between two people. Patrick J. Carnes believes that sex is addictive just like alcohol or any other drug, while Lawrence A. Siegel believes that addictive is way over the top and confuses moral ideology with scientific facts. I believe that sex is a passion shared between two individuals, and if they choose to do it a lot then that is their decision. I do not believe that sex is addictive and is needed like alcohol or drugs can be. There are four main points on why these authors think their ways. Sex is merely an interest to people, not an addiction. The first point is that “sexual addiction” is just a term that falls outside of a social norm, though Patrick thinks that sex is a straight addiction. I agree with Lawrence in that he states what the people say and know instead of biased statistics (3). Lawrence states three main reasons why it is not addictive. They are that sex is healthy in a heterosexual relationship, sexual expressions have obvious limits, and that it is unhealthy to have sex just to feel better when one is down (3). All these coming from the people sex addiction advocates. All these reasons reflect a restrictive view, and how sex is not a scientific experiment. Patrick argues that sex is more of a pick-me-up, instead of a passion which is why he believes it becomes an addiction. He states that sex is a compulsive behavior that interferes with normal living which causes stress on family, friends, and working environments (2). I can see how when one is mad they use sex to relieve some stress, but that is a personal opinion and cannot judge that sex is addictive. On this issue I do believe both authors bounce on both sides of the fence a little much, they still are able to portray their research with plenty of information. Our textbook shows that men are more into casual sex than women, but in no way does it say that sex can be addictive and harmful like a drug (1). Chemical dependence shouldn’t be confused with what drives a sexual appetite. Though Patrick thinks it can be as dependent as drugs or alcohol. Lawrence knows that drugs give one’s body more of something to make them feel better, and when they don’t have the drug the body won’t release what it needs because it is waiting for the drug to do so (3). This is called a withdrawal. Patrick believes that sex can give one a high in which they will come back for (2). The body is already planned for sex. It has to happen for reproduction so one’s body will go back to normal after sex unlike a drug. He states sex as a parallel to drugs which seems to me like he knows it is not the same thing. Our textbook does talk about drugs and how it affects the body, but it does not put sex and drugs in the same category, nor on another parallel (1). I have never heard of sex being a drug and hindering one’s lifestyle, so in my eyes, addiction seems like a totally wrong word to use. Patrick thinks that deviant behaviors judge what make sex addictive while Lawrence ponders that a definition for addiction has not been agreed on. If the concept of chemical addictions has no clinical conclusion then how can an individual be addicted, is what Lawrence believes (3). Patrick states that diagnoses have been done to show that deviant sexual activities can be addictive (2). Though he does not support why, he talks about a sexual addiction screening test, which is supposed to help professionals determine is sex can be addictive. It is just a test in helping, which means it is not proven, so the argument seems pretty swayed at this moment. Patrick is going to need more than a test to show that sex “is” addictive. Just like the first point we know that sex is needed and that people might take sex out of proportion, but in no ways is sex stated in the textbook as a harmful addiction to mankind. In my eyes sex is up to two people in when, and how much they want to do it. As long as it is concentual between the partners, why does it have to be deemed as an addiction' Once again I agree with Lawrence in believing that sex is a personal responsibility, not physiology (3). Patrick, on the other hand, states that once one is addicted they cannot control their self-destructive behavior (2). All these tests that Patrick believes in have no credible background. Sex is a way of life inside the closed walls (hopefully) of partners that are choosing to do what they want however many times they want too. Lawrence hits Patrick with a stab in saying that his background is in alcohol addiction (3). This seeming true gives all of what Patrick is saying very low credibility. Once again sex is a way of life and is not an addictive behavior. There are no true tests in saying that sex is addictive and until there is, I would not hop on that side of the fence. More research should be done on this by on individuals with no biased background to either side. This would help in more people understanding if it is a major problem or not. Even with test and studies sex is still needed to pass on human life, so it is going to happen, problem or no problem. Works Cited (1)David G. Meyers, Psychology textbook 8th edition (2)Patrick J. Carnes, from “Sexual Addiction Q&A,” http://www.sexhalp/sa_q_and_a.cfm (November 11, 2006) (3)Lawrence A. Siegel and Richard M. Siegel, from “Sex Addiction: Recovering from a Shady Concept,” An Original Essay Written for Taking Sides: Human Sexuality, 10th edition (2007)