Talk:Sexual addiction/Archive 1

message: I think there are a diversity of points of view on the subject:
* Sex addiction is a clinically diagnosable mental illness.
* Sex addiction is a problem some people have.
* Sex addiction is a myth propagated by anti-sex advocates, usually for religious reasons.
Currently, the article seems to be arguing with itself, and its only references are to some web sites that are obviously biased on the issue.  I've tagged this article as potentially inaccurate, until it becomes more coherent and multi-faceted. -- Beland 08:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this article is tagged as potentially inaccurate

message: From the article "Like a dog, he has returned to his vomit." - Piece of idiom I'm not familiar with, seems fairly loaded and subjective? 80.73.223.229 03:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small thing 

message: I think there is a better way to point out the disputed nature of sex addiction. I'll start by saying that I do believe sex addiction exists.  I also understand why it is held in contention. 
I would like to make the argument that "addiction" is any repetitive and compulsive behaviour that endangers the person. Now, physiological addictions are much more easily to be accepted, since there is "proof". You can measure the addiction. It's the psychological addictions that are more difficult to analyze, and these include gambling and sex. One can argue that the repeated compulsive nature of these activities provides a physiological stimulus, but more down to the point, psychological addicts are still willing to bet their grandmother's last dollar, or have unprotected anal sex with a complete stranger because they need it. That's not mentally healthy. I would like to distinguish that motivation behind sex addiction differs from promiscuity in a number of ways. Many promiscuous people are open abot who they had sex with or are encouraged by their peers to go and have a good time. Sex addicts are often ashamed of their actions and will try to conceal their behaviour. They will stay up until 4am trying to figure out how they can obtain their next "fix" or sexual partner. If a promiscuous person doesn't pick up at a bar, then they go home cursing their bad luck and go to bed. Sex addicts lose their jobs, endanger their health with exposure to STI's and experience many of the same self-esteem issues as other addictions. 
Additionally to confirm my two cents, hypersexuality, nymphomania, sex addiction and promiscuity are all different things. 
I am going to rephrase certain areas of the article to encourage a more neutral tone.
--Waterspyder 19:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did a very good job of articulating the concerns. I couldn't write on the topic since I myself am onlly well-read on one side of the issue. I'm wondering if we can remove the POV tag? As far as I can tell, the article now has a neutral POV. Expressing both sides of the issue in a factual sense is pretty well what that means. Now if someone will flesh out the intro...--Waterspyder 20:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As stated above, it is an obsessive disorder.  That obsessive disorders may have some commonality with addictions is clear, but that does not mean they are the same.  Lets not let the addiction addicts cloud the issue.  The American Psychiatric Association does not even officially use the term addiction anymore because it has been so watered down by the 12 step cults.
I am a final year psychology student and one of my modules this term is Addictive Behaviours.  I've chosen to answer an exam question on sex addiction.  My lecturer is one of the leading addiction psychologists in the country.  He has stated in his lectures, that although focusing on behavioural rather than biological addictions, he finds the concept of sex addiction difficult.  It is not that he is against sex addiction, more the mess the area is in.  I have been doing research based on internet searches.  I am trying to find out what sex addiction is and what it means to the people who suffer from it.  One thing that has amazed me is the complete disagreement between different sites.  Every web-site I have visited has a different definition.  How can sex addiction exist when no-one knows what it really is?  One thing my lecturer emphasised was the importance of context.  He stated that everyone goes through stages in their lives when they could be diagnosed a sex addict, but that doesn't mean they are.  I understand that sex addiction is very really to the people who claim to have it, and I am not denying they have a problem.  I'm just finding the psychological literature to make so little sense, how can it exist? ----bex 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding my two cents 

message: I think the information on the page is well written. I removed that line reading "According to proponents of this concept," from the beginning of each paragraph since I think that it's not neutral for one. An example would be if someone wrote that for the article on Evolution or for Intelligent Design. Let's acknowledge that there is controversy, and I have included a section on Controversy within this article. Right now there is not much information in that section, so I invite people who believe that Sexual addiction is not real to please share their thoughts and reasons in this talk page and under that heading since it will help to elaborate on the larger picture without affecting the other information that people have spent time researching and verifying. Thanks --Waterspyder 19:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I did clean up the criticism, and I hope that while I was removing the POV that I didn't swing it too far in the opposite direction. I would like to caution other writers on the use of original source material, usually expressing an idea that has not been previously published in the news or journals. I realize this is a tricky topic to avoid doing so, but it is a public encycolpedia and not a forum for our respective speculations on various topics. In any case, good work so far.--Waterspyder 21:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution on criticism 

message: This is my 1st contribuition here, so I aploigize up front if I am way out of line. This is probably not of much use, but I thought I would share some of my experience. First to the suggestion: I suggest you replace "Feelings" with emotions as there is a Wikipedia article on emotions. I find the model proposed by Parrott, W. (2001), Emotions in Social Psychology, Psychology Press, Philadelphia and shown at http://changingminds.org/explanations/emotions/basic%20emotions.htm to be helpful when looking at an emotional basis for obsessive compulsive behaviors. I will also mention that model to the editor of the emotions article.
As someone who once considered them self a sex addict and did the 12 Step route for over five years, may I suggest (with all due respect to the 12 Step movement and addiction in general) that obsessive compulsive behaviors are not exactly the same as substance abuse, and trying to apply the same criteria and cure is incorrect.
Example: If a person is a compulsive hand washer, a behavior, and wants to change, they would still be encouraged to wash their hands after relieving them self. But because sex is "pleasurable" and of course the source of much moralizing over the ages there is often a desire to treat it differently. Indeed in the Sexaholics Anonymous fellowship for partners SA-Anon, there is a saying "Sex is optional."
In each individual, the effects of nature and nurturing (or the lack there of) I find truly amazing. But what I have found is that the "Acting out" of painful emotions is pretty close to what the original Alcoholics Anonymous "Big Book" identified: Fear, anger, shame. To which I add loneliness, boredom and depression. I have found that many times the sex addiction masks depression. Not vice versa as the colloquial would suggest.
Sex addiction is for most behavior,and I have found that behaviors can be changed and the "Addiction" either arrested or removed. Thus the difference between sex addiction and say an alcoholic who is one of the 15% of the population who has a physiology that reacts to alcohol differently then the other 85% of the population.
I find it interesting to note that crack cocaine comes very close to replicating the "high" produced in an orgasm.
It is also my opinion based on others research and my own personal observations that many become "sex addicts" in adolescence when they discover masturbation and porn and then use sex as a counter for painful emotions. Then rather work through these painful emotions in adolescence they get a "fix" through sex and don't develop the ability to manage their emotions except through relief via sex. And have difficulty with the secondary and tertiary emotions Parrott postulates. It is well accepted that sexual abuse can have a tremendous effect on a person. Pat Carnes in the Betrayal Bond also shows that sex addiction can demonstrate the effects of PTSD from non sexual abuse.
So if one is willing to do a bit of a paradigm shift, here is one way of looking at it:
If a 12 year old, new to the city, in their inexperience stepped in front of a bus, or was pushed by others who are ill, few would blame the victim. Few would deny the victim medical care, and no one would be surprised if even after a couple of years of treatment the adult was incapable of running a marathon. But if the effects are from an emotional blast the child can't handle, or from a series of small blasts, like a small car driving repeatedly over the same leg, so many are willing to say "Just get over it." Or you don't really have a problem.
Jon Marsh at http://www.recoverynation.com provides a non-12 Step model for changing sex and relationship addictions. One that is based on dealing with emotions from more of a scientific rather then "spiritual" basis. But one that is still based on the need to change one's belief system. Not unlike Martin Seligman teaches in Learned Optimism : How to Change Your Mind and Your Life.
Shiseiji 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Been There 

message: >>>There is no sound clinical purpose in the grouping of behaviors ranging from serial one night stands, serial monogamy, compulsive masturbation, exhibitionism, frotteurism, all the way to rape, into a single vague term, sex addiction.<<<
I hate to disagree with Robnorth, but I'm afraid he's wrong on this.  Sexual addition is not determined by the specific act that the addict performs (i.e.: serial one night stands, serial monogamy, compulsive masturbation, exhibitionism, frotteurism, rape), but rather by what is causing it.  The addiction is really a symptom of something else, such as childhood traumas or past experiences, just as in the case of drug addiction.  What makes it an addiction is not the act itself, which as you say covers a wide gamut of activities, but rather the compulsion that causes it.
For example, we cannot say that a drug addict who has been clean of drugs for 5 years and then returns to his habit is doing so because of the addictiveness of the drug: the drug has been out of his system for years.  Something else is driving him to the addiction, a compulsion to get high.  Once an addict, always an addict, even if the addict never uses his drug again.  The compulsion to use the drug is always there, regardless of whether it is indulged or not.
: You're correct that addiction is not determined by the specific act, but not correct in saying that it's determined by past experiences and such... That's as if to say that we're not in control of our own lives, and that our futures are all firmly mapped out as a projection based on our past. The reality of it is that sexual addiction is not determined by the act, or as you say by what causes it, but it's by what the act causes. More on this is soon to be added below.
:As for the drug relapse analogy, actually the opposite is true. It is because of the addictiveness of the drug. Sure, you could argue that particular life experiences can have a very significant effect on events in the matter, but it's in no way shape or form a requirement; just merely factors on a purely individual basis.
:You see, drugs are broken down in the liver to what we call metabolites, and though much of these metabolites are purged from the body, a certain percentage is trapped within the fatty tissues of the body. Because the fatty tissues in our bodies turn over so slowly, these metabolites can be stored away for years. Eventually they are released back into the bloodstream, reaching the brain, and even in minuscule amounts can cause effects comparable to a full dose once again. That's a relapse. See: http://www.drug-effects.com/drug-facts.htm
:Beyond this point I would agree with you fully. :)Moosa17 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, thanks for your time! This isn't a warning or anything, just something to hopefully help you out. I've little or no history with the article here, but I will just point out that your arguments will be significantly bolstered if you can cite reliable sources to back them up; this helps us to be sure of the encyclopedia's factual accuracy and neutral point of view. Because it's unfortunately difficult or impossible for us to prove our credentials in any given subject, Wikipedia generally disallows original research -- per WP:V, "the standard of Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Hope that makes sense. Again, thanks. Luna Santin 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is sexual addiction real? 

message: * http://allpsych.com/journal/sexaddiction.html  
** Journal article, nothing that couldn't be incorporated into the article. Better used as a reference. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed links: 

message: I'll start by stating that I believe the concept of "sexual addiction" to be erroneous at best and, as often used by proponents of the concept, sheer nonsense.  Further, I consider Carnes to be an ideologue more than a scientist.   My biases aside, however, the fact is that the larger psychiatric/clinical community does not accept the concept of "sexual addiction", nor does the sexology community.  The reason for this is pretty simple: there is no evidence such a disorder exists.  
There is a certain degree of merit to, and evidence for, considering compulsive sexual behavior to be a legitimate clinical condition.  The fact is, one can already assign a diagnosis covering this concept within the current, accepted DSM-IV-TR criteria (the correct diagnosis would be 302.9, Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified).  But, while there is no real question that compulsive sexual behavior can be a problem, it isn't an addiction.  
Who are any of you to say that this is not an addiction? Are you a psychiatrist or someone that has vast knowledge in this area? Because I have a sexual addiction, knowing for a fact that it exists and you're not qualified to tell me that it doesn't. Matter of fact, unless a person has this condition, they are only speculating or relying on testimony from the FEW people, that they've questioned.Hotchina 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: I reviewed this article with an eye towards NPOV. 
It seems to me that relative to many other articles on wikipedia this article is already relatively NPOV, especially given the controversy these types of topics usually generate. 
I think the article is clearly qualified, and would hate to see every sentence turned into allegedly and supposedly. "Proponents of sexual addiction theorize" is clear. No one is going to mistake this as a clinical diagnosis. 
I would support removing the NPOV tag, but continuing what seems a good and civil discussion. 
Augustz 07:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no objection I will remove the NPOV tag in the next few days. This doesn't mean the article can't continue to be edited of course. Augustz 08:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the NPOV tag should remain. A large proportion of the article is written as though it is a real, validated diagnosis. Rosemary Amey 06:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one displays any of the behaviors mentioned in this article, then one needs to recuse oneself - not support an NPOV tag. --Haizum 07:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've taken some time too look this area up, and it seems within the mental health community there is large agreement that this type of behavior occurs, but controversy around the classification / designation of the behavior. It seems clear to me that the article is not making claims of a real, validated diagnosis. But it captures interesting information and does what seems to me a fair job of presenting it. Can you be more specific about the claims of a "real, validated diagnosis"? Perhaps then those can be edited accordingly. Augustz 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Review / NPOV 

message: from the MAIN article on Addiction. 
-Addiction is a mental or physical disorder proposed to be precipitated by a combination of genetic, biological/pharmacological and social factors. Addiction is characterized by the repeated use of substances or behaviors despite clear evidence of morbidity secondary to such use.
From Merriam Websters online dictionary definition of Addiction.
1 : the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2 : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
NOW. IS masturbation ALWAYS harmful?, IS prostitution ALWAYS HARMFUL?, IS PORNOGRAPHY HARMFUL?, and IS THERE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THE DANGER OF THESE ACTIVITIES???. 
If anyone answered NO to any of these questions then this subject IS up for debate, i've got TWO good sources and I can come up with numerous other definityions of addiction. 
Sexual Addiction as people put it. 
Is nothing more then a supposed addiction of a sexual nature.
So. THUS the standard definition of addiction fits in quite well i should say.
And.. based on this... I am going to be editing the article accordingly... (Especially the first few sentences)
Nateland 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definitions of sexual addiction 

message: Before it was FILLED with religious and/or extensive POV statements and scantily (at best) backed up claims. And it seems to me that with the addition of my definition of addiction things have cleared up a bit. I DO however think that there might be more room for fixing up, and this article seems to be in better health then before wiki wise.
Yet it seems that some groups of well hidden weasel words still remain, although I think that the NPOV tag should be removed and IF this case changes then it be immediately put back up.
And... if revert wars escalate like they have with me and a bunch of other people in the article on adolescence (currently i've managed to get a NPOV conforming purely scientific definition on teen sex in their for at least half an hour, although this is of little importance to the article.. just making an example) 
We can call in an administrator.
I think the next section that will need extensive rewords is the pornography addiction section if it's the same as when I checked it yesterday, plus the article on adolescent psychology 
could use with an expert other then 'leonard sax'. But all in all, things seem to be going pretty well with this article, anyone else have thoughts they want to share?
Nateland 20:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, as of late the article seems in decent shape. 

message: according to volume IV of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, sex addiction involves 'compulsive searching for multiple partners, compulsive fixation on an unattainable partner, compulsive masturbation, compulsive love relationships or compulsive sexuality in a relationship. 
86.29.248.60 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  But it is in DSM 

message: Please stick to the facts and delete assumptions and opinions of those that are not qualified to give them. Unless you are quoting factual statements from qualified psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists, etc. or have a sexual addiction, as I do, you are unable to accurately explain or accurately analyze this subject.
I fully disagree with many of the statements here regarding sexual addiction, because generalizations and blanket statements are being used to describe a disease that's experienced differently in each person.
Sexual addiction does not always involve negative consequences other than the fact that the person constantly thinks about sex and can't seem to stop. Depression, self-loathing, despair, etc. may be suffered by some, but definitely not by me. Therefore, to say that sex addicts suffer from these feelings and I do not, would mean that sex addicts don't all suffer from these feelings. Nor do they all utilize prostitutes and have sex with hundreds of people. You can have a sexual addiction and only be involved faithfully, with one person.
I am also a woman and unfortunately, accurate studies have not been done, as they should be, about this topic in relation to women.
Therefore, Patrick Carnes and many like him, are generalizing and probably doing so just to sell books and make money.
Hotchina 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stick to the facts 

message: There are page numbers throughout the article, as if this were lifted from a book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F13nd (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 June 2007
:Added unsigned template and moved section to bottom of talk page. 
:These page numbers are all in parenthetical citations.  Not the preferred method on Wikipedia, but certainly not copyright infringement. Putting them all into  tags would be a great idea. By the way, a note to the administrator who handles this: is it acceptable for a non-admin to remove the tag in cases like this? Ichibani  utc 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard references ≠ copyvio. As for a non-admin removing the tag, common sense is common sense so I don't think there's any problem here, but as copyright violations are treated very, very seriously, I'd recommend asking for immediate admin assistance instead (WP:AN/I might not be a bad place to go). By the way, F13nd,  is more appropriate for when a copyvio is suspected, but a certain source cannot be found. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Infringement 

message: I am the author of the supposedly "stolen" material at the top of the page and under the symptoms section. I did not infringe any copyrights. I properly referenced my sources using the APA format. If you consult the APA website you'll see that pages numbers are included in the reference. That is why page numbers come after the statements. (In response to the above woman's concern) In addition to properly referencing my sources, I rewrote the author's ideas in my own way without consulting the author's actual wording. That hardly meets the definition of copyright infringement.
The woman above me said that Patrick Carnes is researching and writing about sexual addiction because he wants to make money. I don't believe people work for a PhD to make money. For that you go for an MBA.
The material I added to the page is clearly not breaking any copyright laws. I would like the copyright infringement tag to be removed as soon as possible.
Thank You.
Stanleymilgram 02:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag, as there is absolutely no evidence of a problem.  A citation is of course not copyright infringement. Ichibani  utc 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author of "Copyright Infringement" 

message: Though this article has come a long way toward NPOV, there's still room to improve.  Much of it reads as real, validated diagnosis (as mentioned in the Quick Review / NPOV above) and does not sufficiently indicate the controversiality of the controversial statements.  It probably just needs one good edit to fix this up and then it'll be ready to lose the tag.  I will hopefully start adding improvements myself soon.
Things to fix (feel free to add to the list):
* Introduction: "numerous critics and evidence on both sides of the debate".  What debate?  It hardly seems like a two sided argument.  Whatever it is, the core disagreements should be briefly explained in the introduction.  
* Diagnosis: Is it DSM now? (above talk post says yes) Can't find it in DSM IV.
* Manifestation: There's a lot here that seems controversial.  Really, an expert review would be the best solution here.  In an article flooded with references yet scarce of citations it'll take a complete rewrite to figure out what's accurate or not.
* Treatment: This twelve step plan stuff can't be neutral.  However, it should still be mentioned without all the weasel words and boons.
* More to come...
Ichibani 06:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At present, the NPOV tag should still be up.  I also noticed that there is no mention of medication in the treatment section, but I've run across a few sources concluding that medication can be an effective treatment for sexual addiction. Chupper 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still NPOV troubled. 

message: Hi, i just came in here and the first paragraph i thought was horrible.  It only had the first sentence dedicated to explaining sexual addiction, 2 sentences explaining alcoholism, and the rest comparing them.  Shouldn't the focus primarly be on sexual addiction?  It felt like views were being shoved down my throat --206.116.159.199 (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can change it. :) -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro has more alcoholism then sex 

message: This section doesn't follow from the rest of the information in the article, and doesn't sound encyclopedic; further, it's also uncited. I'm taking it out until someone can put in a cited source and write it in a professional tone.
: According to proponents of the sexual addiction concept, the addict's obsessive / compulsive tendencies can also be seen by the frequency with which they use masturbation for stimulation. Quite often they will perform this activity to the point of injury or to where it interferes significantly with ordinary life. For some addicts, it can even reach a point where the masturbatory activities replace their desire for sexual interactions with others. When a sexual addict does feel comfortable enough to involve other people, quite often they seek out strangers for anonymous sex or look for 'new love' through infidelity. Prostitutes are also employed because of their anonymity and non-judgmental willingness to engage in the sometimes unconventional sexual requests of sex addicts. The varying nature of a sexual addict's activities are in sharp contrast to individuals who commonly prefer more narrowly focused sexual activities such as those engaging in fetishism. But this is not to say that sex addicts cannot be found pursuing fetishes. 
68.42.17.202 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manifestation - masturbation 

message: Sex Addiction is much different from Hypersexuality. In fact, a person in treatment for sexual addiction may not exhibit an unusually voracious sexual appetite. Like a food addiction, which does not always exhibit as hyperphagia, it is the way the behaviors affect the individual's quality of life, how it affects others around him/her, and if there is difficulty in stopping the behavior in spite of attempts to do so. 
A good abstract on the problem of the DSM IV's failure to include sexual compulsive behavior is outlined here:
"Differential Diagnosis of Addictive Sexual Disorders Using the DSM-IV" 
Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity 1996, Volume 3, pp 7-21, 1996.
by Richard Irons, M. D. and Jennifer P. Schneider, M.D., Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) describes certain sexual disorders which are characterized by, or include among their features, excessive and/or unusual sexual urges or behaviors. Common disorders in the differential diagnosis include paraphilias, impulse disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), sexual disorder NOS, bipolar affective disorder, cyclothymic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and adjustment disorder. Infrequent disorders in the differential diagnosis consist of substance-induced anxiety disorder, substance-induced mood disorder, dissociative disorder, delusional disorder (erotomania), obsessive-compulsive disorder, gender identity disorder, and delirium, dementia, or other cognitive disorder. Addictive sexual disorders which do not fit into standard DSM-IV categories can best be diagnosed using an adaptation of the DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence.
I am too tired tonight to elaborate any more on this subject, but if I told my clients that they suffered from "hypersexuality", they'd laugh themselves silly.
:Agree - the section about compulsive masturbation doesn't make sense, given the rest of the description of the disorder. It also reads as something childish and apocryphal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.17.202 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Goodness 

message: If you think you are moving on a road where there is only the deep abyss of addiction looming large in front of you, it is time you got yourself enrolled into a drug abuse or an alcohol abuse treatment center. Even if it is not you but someone you care for who is addicted, it is important that you intervene constructively when there is still time and get them enrolled.
Most people wonder why they should enter into a treatment center when they can try to overcome the addiction by themselves. There are many reasons why you should not think much about overcoming your addiction yourself. Firstly, you might end up doing it the wrong way, which can have more serious repercussions on your health than your addiction itself. Secondly, addiction treatment is never too effective if you are doing it yourself. That’s because there is no one to monitor you. You might think it is all right to go overboard with your addiction sometimes even when you are trying to come out of the addiction.
However, drug and alcohol rehab centers can help you in great measure. They will use the medication and the treatment programs that are needed to bring you or your loved one out of the addiction. But, most importantly, they are quite equipped to deal with the withdrawal symptoms that will occur and which can sometimes get to be too violent. They will use the personal approach to deal with their addicts and treat them on a one-to-one basis. This helps them in strengthening their resolve. Rehab centers use aggressive methods with great delicateness. This makes the person come out of the addiction without suffering too much, or going astray on the path to deaddiction.
Visit our site:
[[ http://www.drugrehab-center.com | Drug Rehab Center ]]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.43.58 (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  REHABILITATION FOR ADDICTION 

message: While this article was quite informative and seems factual, I cannot really vouch for it in earnest due to the very biased tone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.110.114 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: The article as a whole and this section in particular is very biased. Specifically, this section presents rape and child molestation as consequences of an uncontrollable addiction. This idea is an extreme minority view. I have redrafted this section to remove this inference. 
The text of this section gives a strong sense that the legal consequences of sex crimes are unfair consequences a sex addict may incur due to their medical disorder. There was also criticism (which I have now removed) of professional institutions and the clergy for implementing sanctions against staff for sexual misconduct and sex crimes. 
This "appologist" view for sex criminals pervades much of this article- including the "controversy" section, where the view that sex addiction is not a real disorder is presented in a way that reveals the writer's opposition to this view-point- an encyclopedia should not be drafted in this way. The view point that sex addiction is a real phenomenon but does not excuse sex crimes is not made anywhere and no distinction is made between sex addicts who manage their addiction within the law (masterbation, promiscuity etc) and those who choose to violate the law by committing sex crimes such as rape. 
00:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences of Addiction section 

message: In the definition it said "highly impersonal nonintimate behaviors", which I changed to "highly impersonal INTIMATE behaviors.  Nonintimate implies platonic, whereas I think sex addiction means the opposite.  Does this contradict the intended meaning?  highly impersonal nonintimate behaviors could mean anything.  Please comment/correct/clarify as needed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elleng (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  replaced "nonintimate" with "intimate" 

message: * This article seems to question the relevance of sexual addiction. Perhaps someone could incorporate it into this page. NorthernThunder (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the term 

message: Can some editor pls explain this revert through a wikipedia guideline? Several valuable references were added, how can they be removed?? Removal of well cited is nothing but Vandalism. Moreover, the "citation needed" tags were address with reliable sources, how can this be deleted, show me the wikipedia guideline for this?
"The idea of "sexual addiction" is not universally accepted[1] and is not recognized either by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association or by the International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization." — This is Original Research, where is the citation for this? In fact the edits before this correct this factual accuracy. Now coming to another statement in the intro, "Sexual addiction is a controversial term used to describe.." — The term "controversial" is Original Research and not based on any reliable sources, where is the citation from reliable sources for the term "controversial". However I do agree, the word "debatable" can be used, for which a reliable sources exists from the book Clinical Management of Sex Addiction, which was reverted :) I am going to restore the contents from reliable source I added., and let the facts speak for themselves. Also coming to the edit summary, "again, one paper doesn't define the topic" is misleading, there isn't one paper, there are at least 4-5 reliable sources. Bluptr (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  word for word reverts?? 

message: Dear Editors, I have added a new section on definition by material from the lead, neutral usage of words have been taken care, see, Wikipedia:WTA#Synonyms_for_say and the let the facts speak for themselves. Bluptr (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro, "Sexual addiction is sometimes used to describe sexual behaviour", is a weasel word and not backed by a reliable source, a more generic and neutral term would be "arguably defined", as per WP:WTA -- Bluptr (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear James, thanks for your views, I basically used "arguably" because, this is a very standard and generic term used by International Journals, Authors, when no consensus exits., ( In journals the way researchers write is, "I have argued..." ) and the word "argue" as such means — "To debate, disagree, or discuss opposing or differing viewpoints." and this is what the therapists, experts related to "sexual addiction" are doing....and Wikipedia's NPOV tutorial also prescribes the usage of the word "argue". However, I am also OK with the word controversy because this also captures the idea well — "A controversy or dispute is a commencement of a conflict between statements of accepted fact and a new or unaccepted proposal that disagrees with, argues against, or debates the accepted knowledge or opinion. Controversies can range in scope from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies." Thank you. Bluptr (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on "Definition" 

message: An editor added the non-neutrality tag to the main page without comment.  It is not at all clear, at least to me, what is non-neutral about the article.  The article is grossly under-sourced and requires substantial editing, but I personally don't see any obvious lack of neutrality.  In fact, I am not sure exactly which side the article is being perceived as biased towards.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you. Before adding the neutrality tag, it should be discussed. Bluptr (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality? 

message: These two pages are essentially redundant in their content.  They differ only in the actual term, which can be resolved by having a terminology section in the article kept.  Because hypersexuality is a stub and "sexual addiction" (and its cognates) are the more commonly used term, I proposed that the smaller article be moved into the larger.  Although I was tempted to be bold and just to do the merge, sexuality article are frequently controversial, so I have opted to enter this as the proposal first.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[sexual addiction]] and [[hypersexuality]] 

message: The article says : In The L Word, the lesbian character Bette Porter, (is a sex addict).
No way. I've seen the show and they never state she is an addict.  Hence the above statement would be original research.  The characater never displays any of the behaviour of an addict nor does she appear to have any sexual dysfunction.  I'll leave it to someone with decent writing skills to remove the original research in this article.
:Have cut out part of section and wd move towards A - Z by topic though this will need more time and effort.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Portrayal in popular culture 

message: "Research about recovery from sexual addiction has indicated that 12-step meetings are important for success. Those who do not attend 12-step meetings have a much more difficult time recovering, if they do at all."
It,s only an author's personal opinion. Notice that Carnes' researches include only 12-steps meetings members, so they were all convinced, that if they don't attend meetings they will fail. Carnes didn't consider those, who choose other therapy methods (eg cognitive-behavioral therapy), or those who overcame addiction on their own.
No, actually the study pooled and did outcome surveys with three sub-groups; those who participated in therapy only, those who participated in 12-step only and those who did a combination of both therapy and 12-step. True, it was a limited study in that it did not include other theoretically available and theoretically widely practiced methods for arresting addictive sexual complaints. The results of the study (I don't recall the numbers but they are available from SASH)were that the best outcomes were found among those who did therapy and 12-step combined.
I am submitting the above paragraph for consideration to use instead of the original senstence quoted above.
:Why would you include biased, 12 step propaganda into the article?  the 12 steps are nothing but religion which has never been proven to "treat" anything well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non 12-step therapy 

message: I'm concerned that this entry lacks neutrality. It seems to privilege proponents of 'sexual addiction' through listing their aetiological theories about the debatable phenomenon in question, while little corresponding space is given to the sceptics and their objections to classification of 'sexual addiction' as a distinct 'disorder.' This entry needs compensatory expansion to deal with critics of the diagnosis and its claimed aetiology.
Calibanu (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I am a therapist that deals with sexual addiction. I have been frustrated by the DSM IV's lack of comment on this topic, which I hope will be addressed in DSM V. So far, for insurance purposes, I have had to classify this as a 309.28 adjustment disorder with mixed depression and anxiety. This does not mean that the addiction is not present, however, in diagnoses. As a reminder for those familiar with the DSM, PTSD was not at first classified as a traumatic stress disorder, but as a depressive or anxiety disorder, which it includes, but does not fully satisfy the symptomology of the disease. When dealing with clients, I do not dismiss the patient choice in the matter to recover as it is a crucial component of recovery. The work of recovery is a long and painful process for the sexual addict which involves insight into unsuccessful beliefs and restructuring into new life beliefs that deliver the addict from the physical and emotional damage present in their life. ---- G. Nutter  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.55.10 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reality of sexual addiction 

message: I have a strong hunch that this is an United States only phenomenon. (Defining someone as a "sexual addict.") A some sort of international aspect would be interesting. Does anyone know any studies or statistics? Thanks! -- 88.194.188.158 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States only? 

message: I have deleted the following sentence in the main intro para 
:::Skeptics believe that it is a myth that the phenomenon exists as a disease or disorder at all and is instead a by-product of cultural and other influences.
::Thanks!
Arman Cagle (Contact me EMail Me Contribs) 18:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 11 

message: Am I the only to believe that this so-called phenomenon is nothing but a way for the therapists to line their pockets ?
Seriously...
The only pathology, in my opinion, is that some people want to believe they are sick. And some people are more than willing to make them think they are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.210.13.245 (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No critical section ? 

message: I have added to the mainpage an EL to an interview regarding sex addiction.  Because I am the subject of that interview, I am indicating it here, so that other editors may decide whether the EL informative appropriate to the page content.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosure. 

message: Isn't this modern version of sexual addiciton a United States only definition that is at least partly influenced by Christianity and "one partner only" policy? I think in Europe there is no such thing as too much sex. Healthy libido is a sign of healthy body.  -- 93.106.242.104 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US only? 

message: I think there should be a "Controversy" section.  Some experts believe that sex addiction isn't real.  For example, sex addiction is not listed in the current version of the DSM-IV.  Here's a source to prove my point: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/04/health/cbsdoc/main5062828.shtml
Voz7 (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: This section is in need of expansion (and perhaps re-naming to "Criticisms" or "Controversy" or the like).  There is much controversy over the existence, nature, diagnosis, nomenclature, treatment, etiology, etc. -- not only from a scientific/medical/psychological perspective, but also a social science perspective. Discussion of the various social science critiques of this phenomenon might present a more well-rounded or balanced picture of the kinds of debates that are happening. Christina1001 (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that it needs to be expanded further, and merged into the rest of the article, which (except for one sentence in the lead) seems to assume that sexual addiction (or at least compulsivity) actually exists and is actually a problem (as opposed to the problem being personal/societal discomfort with one's sexual urges). (Forgot to sign - sorry - Allens (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Call me cynical, but a lot of people appear to make a living from treating sex addiction. It seems to me that they would, for professional reasons, be likely to want to edit this article, and also, for self-esteem reasons, be somewhat unlikely to have much time for the idea that they may be spending their lives treating a non-condition. -- The Anome (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, most of those who do "addiction medicine" are hardly likely to reject the opportunity to extend their reach to people not (allegedly) suffering from chemical dependencies... Allens (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The same goes for the opinions of medical doctors about physical sickness, electricians about electricity, yoga teachers about yoga, homeopaths about homeopathy, or professional psychics about fortune telling. Or priests about God. The above is an observation on human behavior, not an observation on the actual reality or otherwise of sex addiction, something on which I have no definite view one way or the other. -- The Anome (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand. Biased != always incorrect; Pasteur's history shows that, among others, from what I've read about him... Allens (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over Status 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
*Comment - Sex addiction would be the most accurate term for this condition/phenomenon, I request that this be considered.  Currently 1/4 of a million people google "Sex Addiction" every month.  The term Sexual addiction receives about half as many hits.  Sexual intercourse addiction does not even compute. BTW, I think that expanding the history/emergence of the term Sex Addiction would be appropriate here.  Here's one article, I'm sure there are others that give a more detailed history:  http://sex.addictionblog.org/types-of-sex-addiction/ TBliss (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: While this entry refers to the concept of 'sex addiction,' it does not refer to criticism of this concept from medical practitioners and researchers. Unintentionally, there may be an NPOV involved in the formation of this entry.
Calibanu (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: I removed a few sentences from the lead of this article. The lead was clearly disproportionally long. It contained various sentences which were too general or simply didn't fit into a lead. Debresser (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I tagged this article as having NPOV. Sex addiction as a psychological disorder is currently a controversial issue but this article as it stands does a poor job of addressing the controversy. The intro completely ignores the controversy  and while there is one section that does address it then rest of the article seems to be written as if there is no controversy . Another problem is that the article refer in parts to hypersexuallity as if it is a synonym for sexual addiction when the former can simply refer to someone who's sex drive is much stronger then average, without there being an addiction. --67.101.218.192 (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please visit the history for this talk page.  This has been discussed.  The article is about sex addiction, not solely about the controversy surrounding sex addiction.  It is appropriate for the bulk of this wiki article to focus on information about sex addiction, as is the case for similar subjects like historical people and institutions where there is controversy.  A sub-category focusing on the controversy would be appropriate here, but there is no precedent of Wikipedia to include mention of the controversy throughout the article. Perhaps a separate page focusing solely on Sex Addiction Controversy might be in order. TBliss (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your misunderstanding the POV issues the above contributor expressed concern over. I've gone over the article myself and agree with what the NPOV concerns expressed above. Like the above person says, the intro did not mention the concept of sex addiction as being controversial, which I corrected. Second, the problem with the rest of the article is not that it does not focus mostly on the fact that this is a controversial concept but that certain sections present certain aspects of this conceptual model as if they are generally accepted when significant debate still exists over them in the medical & psychological community. I a few places there needs to be a slight rewording so as to make it clear that what is being discussed is a proposed conceptual model and that the info represent the views of those that believe sexual addiction to be a valid conceptual model. If you look at the article on Pornography addiction, you can see what I believe to be a more NPOV way to write about controversial conceptual models like this one. In that article, statements like "Pornography addiction is defined, by those who argue that it exists,..." and "Psychologists who see pornography as addictive may consider..." make it clear that the concept is controversial. Thus we need to go through the sections of this article and add similar clarifications that make it clear that the concept or some cases aspects of it are controversial. Basically we don't need to focus the whole article on the controversy just change the wording some places so it's clear the statements reflect the views of those who believe in the sex addiction and not currently generally accepted facts or views on the concept. Finely, you mention that NPOV issue has been discussed before but went through the archives and don;t feel the wording issue was properly discussed. If you believe the wording is fine as is then please why you don't feel it needs to changed here. --67.101.218.25 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issues with article 

message: This section doesn't seem to be integrated into the rest of the article and barely refers to sexual addiction -- I'm not sure why it's included in this article. BPD is already mentioned in the Causes section.TBliss (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borderline Personality Disorder section 

message: The general background info is: DSM-5 states the medical consensus in US psychiatry. I offered a direct quote from DSM-5, now it passes very well WP:VER. So, both parts of the claim are thoroughly supported. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your latest edit is obviously different from your first edit, which basically stated that the medical consensus disproved sex addiction. That the DSM5 found insufficient peer-reviewed evidence is the reason it wasn't included, and sounds more like a quote from that document. It also doesn't invalidate the theory of sex addiction -- just there isn't enough evidence yet. I think it might be noted that "medical consensus represented by DSM5" tho.TBliss (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:BALL, there is now no way to know the medical consensus from 2023 or 2033, we just know the US medical consensus from 2013. That the DSM-5 is the Bible of psychiatry (in US and some EU countries) is already sourced inside the article. And sex addiction would be treated by psychiatrists, if it were acknowledged as a real addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I am not implying that it could not be treated by psychologists, it is just that most psychologists aren't MDs, so the term medical consensus does not apply for them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're parsing words. Why not just state "medical consensus represented by the DSM-5" - ? - that's the first mention of DSM-5 in the article. The idea is to provide accurate encyclopedic information to the public. The burden is now on the reader to ferret out the truth of this information because you are obscuring it. And most readers aren't familiar with the DSM-5. BTW anyone can currently treat sex addiction -- psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, life coaches, sexologists -- there is little regulation or requirements. Inclusion in the DSM-5 chiefly means insurance would cover it. You really need to provide a page number for the DSM-5 where the quote comes from and format the citation correctly for such a document. I'm surprised you haven't done so since you're such a prolific editor who cites rules at the drop of a hat. Is that only when it suits your agenda?TBliss (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilarious! Page numbers are provided in the reference. It's editing 101. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I have no radical agenda in respect to this article. I don't have a dog in this fight. I am only a supporter of medical orthodoxy. If sex addiction will become part of medical orthodoxy, I will support its labeling as an addiction inside this article. But not before it belongs to orthodoxy. Now it is just a contested, purported addiction, as far as the APA is concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well this isn't the encyclopedia of APA terms, is it? Or the encyclopedia of your personal version of orthodoxy. There's more to sex addiction than the one paragraph in the DSM-5 as numerous citations here affirm. And misquoting the DSM-5 to say it disproved sex addiction doesn't do anyone any favors, least of all the public. I'm still surprised your pointing fingers at me, trying to have me banned no less, without manning up and admitting your own mistake.TBliss (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  DSM-5 and APA are representative for the medical consensus in this matter from a large part of the world (US and some EU countries which abide by the DSM, perhaps some other regions, too). And practically every significant piece of medical research is published in English, so APA is aware of all research that matters. The difference between  and  is so subtle that it practically means nothing, since there is no essential epistemic difference between them. That's why I got the impression that you would be trolling and believe me, it is frustrating to see one's good faith contributions getting trolled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Science customarily rejects hypotheses for which there is no convincing evidence, so I don't see the big difference with  either. Splitting hairs, there could technically be a difference between unproven and rejected, but as far as the scientific method is concerned, they mean the same thing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  Moving on -- What do you think of moving the Borderline Personality Disorder section from Medical Models to a subsection under Causes?  Maybe cutting half of the first paragraph -- the part which focuses on different manuals' language for BPD which is out of place in a sex addiction article, and maybe including the last half of that paragraph. Then also deleting the last paragraph focusing on famous people with BPD and their paraphilias, as sex addiction and paraphilias are different topics even though they may interrelate. Also I wonder if there should be a new section to talk about all the recent neurological studies that are finding evidence in support of brain addiction to sexual behavior -- there's a big one coming out on Friday.TBliss (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM-5 quote 

message: This article fails to acknowledge that regardless on how strongly the authors believe in sex addiction, sex addiction is not a scientific term nor is it a diagnosis that has been accepted by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association. It perpetuates the myth that sex addiction is a recognized diagnosis within the scientific community. Although recognized as such by almost every other civilized country on earth, the APA is still studying the matter at present.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.126.97 (talk) 
:See ΔFosB for a summary of the state of biomedical research on addiction to drugs and natural rewards.  There's actually a very large body of research supporting reinforcement effects in sexual reward/addiction; that single transcription factor plays a crucial role in its development. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there's a mountain of neuroscientific research on drug and natural reward addiction and how they're mediated through ΔFosB, I felt it prudent to update this article. The signaling cascades between chronic amphetamine use and excessive sexual reward are apparently very similar, but not identical. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex addiction is not an accepted diagnosis. 

message: I'm just making a new thread on this topic because the previous one has three tangential subthreads.  
Here's the current reviews on this topic that I found:
* 
* 
* 
* (this one is free)
* (this one is free and partially used in the article)
I'll download the first three and upload them for anyone interested to download... should have that done over the next day or two.  Been a bit busy the last two days, so I didn't have a chance to finish this.  I didn't find anything on the topics in the causes section in relation to sex addictions, so that will need to be rewritten with the content of these reviews (assuming there is anything on causes). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resourcing the article 

message: I just finished doing a lot of editing to try to clarify that there are two frameworks of addiction covered in this article as well as indicate which framework is used in model-specific sections of the article.  
Let me know what you think.  I'm open to revising it; I feel like it could use additional copyediting, mainly because there was a large amount of text that I added/changed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is much improved by your edits. I think the current article better serves anyone from the general public coming to this page now for information to write a report or learn about sex addiction. I would suggest a section about sex addiction in popular entertainment citing recent films like Shame, Thanks for Sharing, etc. Also it seems a section about Patrick Carnes' book Out of the Shadows would be appropriate in the history section because this was the first public mention and exploration of the concept of sex addiction as it is currently known. In general, it would be helpful for the casual reader to get a sense of how the concept of sex addiction has evolved since the publication of that book. But great work cleaning up a difficult subject!TBliss (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Model-specific organization of the article

message: Dear 
There are two competing Wikipedia guidelines which each seem to apply to this article. WP:MEDORDER says that the article's "Mechanisms" section should be first. But WP:UPFRONT says that the article's "Mechanisms" section should actually not be first.
Which guideline should win? I vote for WP:UPFRONT.
Regards, TealHill (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason for this article to deviate from its parent article - addiction  - in layout. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear  Well, perhaps the layout of _that_ article should also be rearranged in order to comply with WP:UPFRONT? TealHill (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section ordering 

message: This looks interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-jackman/utahs-new-antiporn-law-_b_9741310.html , and specifically this: 
:
which seems to make the FOSB hypothesis look rather more tentative. I've therefore removed the "Mechanism" section. -- The Anome (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  ΔFosB is a biomarker for addiction; hence, content on ΔFosB should be included in every addiction-related article for which there's a review that covers the relationship between it and the article topic. This isn't the pornography addiction article. If it were, I wouldn't have a problem with omitting content on mechanisms. Many research papers operationally define a porn addiction as compulsive porn viewing. Visual stimuli aren't capable of inducing an addiction though.  In contrast, a sex addiction involves compulsive intercourse, so there's little in common between the two addiction models. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   I have to agree with  While there is debate about it, removing the entire section seems excessive. - Scarpy (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

text:   I agree with  and , and I would vote against the removal of this section. Note that Nicole Prause and David Ley, the main sources in the article, collude and campaign against sex addiction, and profit from these point of views. They hardly represent scientific fact and a simple Google search will show their work has been much derided and debunked. TBliss (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting 

message: This Wiki is being used to promote a group of profiteering therapists and is continually updated to include their specific group whenever it is (appropriately) removed. CSAT has no basis in science and is under investigation by a number of bodies for practitioners attacking scientists and promoting anti-sex and anti-LGBT training and treatment. There is no reason to have a referece to them in this article except for their practitioners adding it themselves to promote profits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.11.52 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki used to promote business 

message: Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review to add later 

message: There is a lot of detail about the FOSB theories.. It would be good to have a summary and key themes and then link to the FOSB page 
Similarly, the table on addiction related plasticity is too much detail for non technical users and in the most part off topic  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.5.199 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The table on addiction-related plasticity is transcluded in every article that is linked in the column header, and then some. Why exclude it from this article? An entire column of entries is relevant to this page; moreover, the main benefit of having that table here is to illustrate how the known neuroplastic effects of excessive sexual activity compare to the neuroplastic effects of excessive drug use, excessive fat/sugar intake, physical exercise, and environmental enrichment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Edit: the table could be collapsed if you think it takes up too much space, but again I don't think removing it would be beneficial for our readers. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the table is very good - it's just in the wrong article. FOSB relates to so many other topics, we can't really transclude it in every page - we'll end up with massive duplication not to mention completely putting off non technical readers. Your paragraphs above the table summarise the FOSB stuff really well. A collapsible table would be better but this really is the kind of thing that should be spun off. Just to be clear, I merely want the page to have a suitable level of detail and to stay on topic. You are right there is a similar problem on other pages.. Once we have made this page more accessible, then we can look at those.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogsci101 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Seppi... just one other thing... if you want to modify an edit I have done, could you please just revert the INDIVIDUAL change and not ALL of my work. Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogsci101 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've collapsed the table. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much technical jargon / related theories with their own page 

message: This article has a number of POV issues which need to be considered. I have flagged this on the NPOV Noticeboard and welcome third party input. I am particularly concerned that the page creates the impression there is widespread consensus where, as of yet, little exists. The current 'state of science' is in its infancy and this article should reflect that fact. It is not the role of wikipedia to push for wider acceptance of theory. We should try to accurately reflect current status in the academic and related communities. 
Of particular concern, is the unrelated conditions in the Diagnosis section which creates the impression that their existence in the framework implies acceptance of sex addiction as a diagnosis. Sex addiction is NOT accepted by ANY of the diagnostic committees of the WHO, APA, BPS or others. 
1. Sex addiction has been considered separately by the ICD and DSM committees and explicitly and repeatedly rejected from their diagnostic frameworks. 
2. Excessive masturbation and excess sexual drive (both referred to in the diagnosis section) are NOT addictions. It is misleading to present them as such 
3. Deliberately conflating differentiated conditions which share a single property (sex/sexuality) is a use of association fallacy which is counter to WP:NPOV and WP:VALID 
Suggested Solution
1. Remove reference to unrelated conditions/diagnosis from the diagnosis section
2. Retain the history of consideration about their inclusion and any subsequent decisions / changes
3. Create a section on 'Associated Conditions / Misdiagnosis' and include reference to paraphilias, excess drive etc 
4. Avoid implying that these sexual dysfunctions / behaviours are classified as addiction.
5. Merge the Borderline Personality Disorder into this section
Suggestions/feedback welcome Cogsci101 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: There was an extensive section on delta fos B in mechanisms, arguing that this was evidence for sex addiction. This has never been shown in any human model or study. It is the pet-theory of an activist in this area, so its inclusion likely reflects activism. None of the citations provided had anything to do with human sexuality, nor could they. Of all the possible mechanisms, it has by far the least support (i.e., none) and is better excluded unless such evidence is ever published.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuro1973 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanisms 

message: After careful consideration and showing this content to other editors, I have come to the conclusion that the section on Diagnosis is potentially misleading.
Let's be absolutely clear, NONE of the diagnostic frameworks list sex addiction as a diagnosis. There is no ambiguity about this. Recent reviews have even strengthened this position. However, the diagnosis section of this page lists numerous unrelated conditions (such as compulsive behaviour or 'sexual disorders not elsewhere classified') none of which are addictions. This page is about sex addiction not general sexual dysfunction or psychosexual disorders. 
Conflating the two confuses the issue and looks very much like an attempt to suggest acceptance of sex addiction as a diagnosis in the frameworks which simply does not exist.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogsci101 (talk • contribs) 
:If you want to clarify this, make it clear by adding to the section or revising what is stated for greater clarity. Don't simply delete what you don't agree with unless you gain WP:consensus first; that will inevitably be reverted due to the NPOV issues that it creates. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted, per Seppi. Cogsci101, do not WP:Edit war over this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

text: The material in the diagnosis section about drug-induced compulsive sexual behavior (i.e., the stuff about a dopamine dysregulation syndrome) is on-topic because there is a clinical diagnosis for it.  I don't know why you would've removed it; that material doesn't contradict the fact that "sexual addiction" isn't included in any diagnostic classification system.The material about compulsive sexual behavior and sexual disorders NOS is relevant to this article because that's how compulsive sexual behaviors are diagnosed in practice: they're not diagnosed as a "sexual addiction". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't have any objections to the current revision of the diagnosis section (i.e., the revision as of your most recent edits to the article). It seems fine to me. If you're happy with it as is, then are there any other issues you wish to address? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

text: There are now five sexual health organizations who published sex/porn science cannot be characterized as addictive and that doing so is harmful to patients. Someone added "addiction" back into this wiki again last week. It is clearly an activist reposting pet theories. Can this be frozen to avoid this intentional deception by activists?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.90.6 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

text: The first sentence should probably acknowledge that the idea that this is an addiction is not accepted. As-is, the wiki is presented to describe a thing "sex addiction" that exists. There is an easy resource to cite to show that the science does not support sex as addicting by neuroscientists who specialize in this exact topic Lancet Psychiatry peer-reviewed article among many others.Neuro1973 (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnosis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sexual addiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202174943/http://www.scribd.com/doc/24115543/The-Myth-of-Sexual-Compulsivity to https://www.scribd.com/doc/24115543/The-Myth-of-Sexual-Compulsivity
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The single paragraph transcluded from Behavioral addiction is so small that I'm not sure it warrants the direct transclusion. Why not copy the text over (with attribution) and recast the whole section as specific to sexual addiction? (Better than using the multiple short headers, anyway) (not watching, please ) czar 11:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The benefit of a transclusion is that when content is added to that section of the behavioral addiction article, it's added to this one as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the negatives outweigh the positives in this case. In the case of a table common to multiple articles, the transclusion would make sense. In the case of this short paragraph, the parent section should really be re-written specific to this subject with a hatnote to relevant sections. If the material were expected to change often, the benefits of direct transclusion would be more apparent, but in this case, they're not. Chances are stronger that something will change in the transcluded section that doesn't belong in this article, or otherwise the structure of the Medications section will remain as is rather than receiving the holistic rewrite it warrants. czar 19:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion 

message: As seen here, new account Suuperon, which is now indefinitely blocked for WP:Socking (no surprise there), made drastic changes to the article. Seppi333, since some or a lot of it has to do with changes you made to the article, you might want to review the changes. I have my plate full with other matters. One thing is very clear: Per WP:Lead, the lead should begin with the term "sexual addiction" in bold and define what it means. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Socking was a bad choice for him/her, he/she could have reached his/her purpose if it were not for socking. Anyway, I don't disagree with removing speculation-only information from the article. And, yes, in order to research DeltaFosB, one needs a postmortem study. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

text: User was removed after providing accurate information following article vandalism? The inset quote is from a person whose 100% profit depends on defining sex as addictive and FOS is now misrepresented as having a human sexual role (paragraph beginning "ΔFosB also plays an important role"), so there remain gross inaccuracies. Maybe don't punt those improving the article accuracy? 185.51.228.243 (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Every single suggested reading was by IITAP/CSAT therapists. Diverse and scientific books not represented at all. This article is compromised by bias. Watch for paid editors from IITAP/CSAT. 185.51.228.243 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:Vandalism. Reverting you was not vandalism. And since you apparently don't understand that a WP:Block is a block on you, not just your account, I will go ahead and have this article WP:Semi-protected. Stop socking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Was out of town.  Restored the neutrality in the revised content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Feel free to revise further; I'm assuming the blocked editor made most of those revisions. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this revert, I think the lead sentence I used was fine and is perhaps a better lead sentence, given the sources. I mean, look at the source I used for that sentence. Sources (including the one I added) are also clear that "related models of pathological sexual behaviors" such as hypersexuality are not simply related models; they've been considered the same thing as sexual addiction, which is why I'd changed "related models to "related or synonymous models." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That revision seems fine to me.  I was mainly referring to the first lead sentence and the coverage of different viewpoints. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for restoring that piece. The first lead sentence is what I mean as well. Per WP:Lead sentence, it's what is meant when Wikipedia says "lead sentence." Given the sources, I'm just not seeing an issue with the lead sentence I used (other than that the shortened "sex addiction" was missing), but I don't feel strongly enough about it to debate it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: There is a large anti-porn lobby in the United States that appears to be repeatedly modifying this article. The hallmark is discussions of FOSB. That group consistently claims FOSB has some role in a proposed "sex addiction", yet it cannot be studied in living humans (and has not been in cadavers). They include long paragraphs that actually are about animal research on cocaine addiction and similar that are speculative, unpublished, and unlikely to be true. Thus, my changes reflect thoughtful corrections to activism on the page.Suuperon (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, purely speculative approaches should not be presented as evidence-based. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Since these comments, a huge section on delta fos-B has been added back. There is no evidence for this link in humans, and none is cited. It should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.147.58 (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing bias 

message: Add first line to "is a proposed model" or "is an hypothesized model". "Addiction" is a scientific model that has not been agreed on by any scientific body, so presenting "sex addiction" as "a state" misrepresents the state of the science, which largely has rejected this model (relative to, for example, impulsivity model, high drive model, social shame model, etc.). 71.196.154.4 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please provide a WP:VERIFIABLE source to support your claim.--DBigXray 19:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018 

message: The article currently contains the  template at the top of the article. Since almost the entirety of the rest of the article is about how the concept of "sex addiction" is not recognized by the majority of the medical profession as an addictive disorder, and that the position that it is an addictive disorder is a minority view, it seems unreasonable to make this pretty much the first thing the reader sees, creating the impression that this article is one of a family of articles about addictive disorders. 
 I'm going to remove it again in a moment; if you feel this should be kept, please discuss this here before restoring it. -- The Anome (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of a glossary is to provide a list of definitions for clarification.  I don't see how the presence of the glossary implies that the article it's placed in is a diagnosable condition or not.  As it is important to make a distinction between concepts like addiction and dependence, I am going to restore the glossary.  Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting it there puts "addiction" front and centre at the top of the article, which is quite misleading since consensus is that this is not addiction. If it is to be there at all, I suggest moving it down to the section where the addiction model is discussed. By the way, I think the main problem here is the word "addiction", with its overtones of moral panic; the word "compulsion/compulsive" is much more realistic, and fits the proposed ICD-11 categorization of this as "compulsive sexual behavior". -- The Anome (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I've now moved the  down to the "Mechanisms" section, where technical details of the addiction model are discussed. -- The Anome (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: An addiction is a compulsion. You seem to misunderstand the point of this glossary though.  It was not created for this article.  It was created for all articles on addiction, dependence, or substance use disorder to clarify these terms. Removing it from the article does not have any bearing on what the readers think about the article's topic.  Nor does adding it.  All that glossary does is clarify what those terms mean.   That said, it should not be any further down in the article than the first section, otherwise it loses its utility. If you want to move it to another section, move that section to the very top of the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, nevermind.  All of the sections are currently in the order specified by MOS:MED#Diseases or disorders or syndromes, so it doesn't matter. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not change the order of sections to suit a point of view.  MOS:MED is quite clear on the order of sections in an article and the names of those sections. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Per MOS:MED#Diseases or disorders or syndromes, "Classification" comes before "Mechanisms". I've just moved the classification section, which was previously mis-labeled as "Diagnosis" (which is clearly wrong, since (a) it's entirely about the various classification systems and (b) most of it consists of statements that there is nothing to diagnose), up the article to reflect this. -- The Anome (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad; I didn't notice you retitled it as such. It looks fine now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Next time you move an article with a blocked target, use this script.  I had to manually move the talk page subpages because you neglected to do so.  That script would've moved them for you as well as obviated the need to delete the article page and talk page that you were moving it to (see WP:ROBIN). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Sorry for creating work for you, and thanks for fixing it. I think this article is now converging on something we can both be happy with as a proper WP:NPOV treatment of the subject. -- The Anome (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addiction glossary template