Posts Tagged ‘Sexuality’

Is “Sex Addiction” Just An Excuse for Bad Morals?

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

First Tiger Woods. Now Jesse James. Mr. Sandra Bullock has reportedly entered treatment for sex addiction after four mistresses have come forward alleging affairs with him.  There has been a lot of attention in the media lately about sex addiction as a possible diagnosis with a disease model. Most of the stories stem from Tiger Woods stay at an in-treatment facility that specializes in something called sex addiction. The problem is that sex addiction is not a clinical diagnosis. The bible for psychotherapists, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, does not list sexual addiction anywhere.

There’s no doubt that sexual attraction and orgasm alter brain chemistry. And one can crave the rush of hormones and endorphins that tend to accompany a sexual conquest. While “sex addiction” may not be a formal mental illness, the behavior certainly mimics substance addiction in that the preoccupation with obtaining the next “high” can debilitise lives. Any chronic behavior that negatively affects ones personal relationships or professional life it is considered a disorder.

So, are Tiger and the 3-5% of men and women who claim to have a sex addiction, hiding behind a simple character flaw? The answer is a bit complicated. Yes, and No. Certainly “sex addicts” appear to be attempting to put a sympathetic label on their dysfunctional behavior (who wouldn’t?) but even if sex addiction is considered only a character flaw, what is that? Simply a lapse in sound judgment? If so, could they just stop?

The thing that sets bad moral character apart from a physiological disorder is the degree of craving, the inability to stop, and the ensuing damage to one’s personal and professional life. If all these ducks are in order, this is a mental illness in my book.

Want to find out if you or someone you know has a sex addiction? Click here.

Why Men Stray More than Women (And How to Prevent Cheating)

Friday, February 26th, 2010

It is estimated that 65% of divorces occur  because of an extra-marital affair. And, despite the sexual revolution and the reduction of the “double standard,” more men still cheat than women. Now science shows us why this gender imbalance might exist.

First, there could be a genetic link. Swedish researchers recently identified an “infidelity gene,” which is present in four of 10 men. This gene can explain why some men are more prone to stormy relationships and bond less to their wives or girlfriends. However, it’s important to remember that biology is not destiny. People born with genetic predispositions to say, heart disease or obesity, make lifestyle adjustments that compensate for the negative gene.

Secondly, men may find it easier to cheat because they feel less guilt than woman. A Spanish study recently revealed that the interpersonal sensitivity of men (especially those aged between 25-33) is low compared to women. This clearly could affect a man’s ability to empathize with his partner. The study also showed that men feel less intense guilt and this difference is particularly stark in the 40-50-year-old age group, a group particularly vulnerable to the mid-life crisis affair.

Finally, more men fear emotional intimacy more than do women. Believe it or not, some men find lovers so they can  avoid any real intimacy. Emotional closeness and the expression of vulnerability that goes with it scares many men, so they distance themselves from their wives by cheating on them. At the same time,  they don’t get too emotionally involved with their lovers. This kind of “watering down of the milk” feels safer to some men.

As always, my solution to bullet-proof relationships is to grow a bond through emotional intimacy. To make a relationship  rock-solid, one must move a step or two closer to the bone, and hone some relationship skills. Compassion can be learned. Fair-fighting is a skill. And stonewalling is a killer of all connection. Intimacy is not easy nor painfree. Extreme emotional intimacy and mutual care may involve squeamish feelings of shame, the forced expression of awkward words, an ability to see the ugly in others and still love them, and worse,  the ability to glaringly see the ugly in ourselves and still feel lovable. But the pay-back is pure kryptonite. An I’ve-got-your-back-if-you’ve-got-mine emotional contract that can make your relationship affair-proof.


Women Who Orgasm While Breast Feeding

Friday, September 4th, 2009

When I was pregnant with my first child, I was hosting a show for TLC called “How’d They Do That?” And everyday my mind was asking the same question about pregnancy and breast feeding. All my female co-workers became a petri-dish for me as I probed their minds for information about what the heck was going on with my body.

I was most nervous about successfully breast feeding. Frankly, I had no idea how the two orbs with nerve endings directly connected so some pleasurable southern region, could be converted into a cafeteria. One morning, as I sat in the make-up chair with my middle bursting with new life, I posed a seemingly crazy question. Could a woman have an orgasm while breast feeding?

There was a pause. There was a sly smile from the make-up artist. The hairdresser hooted and hollered. Others just laughed their asses off. But I didn’t take my eyes off the make-up artist.

Later, when we were alone, I asked her again. She smiled again. “It’s more of a sensuous experience,” she said, “not a sexual one. It feels warm and cuddly and pleasurable, but it’s different from sex. If you had an orgasm, it wouldn’t be on purpose.”

Years later, I thought of this conversation. I was in one of my human sexuality classes in my Psychology Ph.D program, and we were learning that the nerve endings in our body can respond to physical stimulation even if our brain is not on board. In this case we were talking about rape, and the confusing feelings that can happen to victims of rape because during this horrific crime they sometimes experience a spontaneous orgasm. What an awful thought.

When my first daughter was finally born (pried out after 42 weeks in the oven,) breast feeding was anything but pleasurable. I like to call the newborn phase of breast feeding, the Vampire weeks, as that tiny, violent, sucking machine increases milk supply. But after a few months, my make-up artist was right. Totally pleasurable. But a far cry from sexual arousal.

As I continued to nurse, I read far and deep into the benefits of breast feeding for mother and child. One thing I learned is that prolonged breast feeding can help reduce your chances of getting breast cancer because it stops your periods and the monthly assault of estrogens on your breasts. That was enough for me, since my mother had died of breast cancer. I continued on. I also learned that often babies suckle for comfort rather than hunger and there are psychological benefits to this suckling. That sounded good too.

You saw the title of this article, so you know where I’m going here. I never, ever, mentally connected a breast feeding experience with a sexual experience. The mental boundary was so great, that I was convinced it was impossible. Then one night, while I was sleeping with my baby in my bed, I had one of those fabulous dreams that if a guy had it, it would have involved moisture. You’ve heard about them. I woke up from the dream to find that my tiny vampire had been doing some nocturnal suckling while I slept. Let me tell you, the experience totally freaked me out. And that was it. Co-sleeping bed beside me after that. I needed that bundle an arms length away.

Later, in another human sexuality class, I asked my professor about this experience. She confirmed that it is possible and probably quite common, although people have feelings of shame about it. Pleasurable breast feeding was probably one of nature’s ways to make a survival behavior attractive. She also told me that many women quit breast feeding for this reason. For some woman the feelings of an infant suckling can be so pleasurable that women feel that it is somehow wrong. That made me feel sad too. Breastfeeding is not pedophilia. Nature brought mommies and babies together for one of the most physically pleasurable relationships on earth. Let them suckle and do enjoy it ladies. It is such a short period in both your lives. And if your body responds without your consent, relax. Just buy a co-sleeper, side rider bed.

Jaycee’s Abductor. Is Rape Natural?

Friday, August 28th, 2009

5532_144390991833_115788661833_3339069_5427959_aThe registered sex offender who abducted Jaycee Lee Dugard and kept her captive for eighteen years had a prior record of rape. According to some experts, a rapist “gene” is something that may have helped evolution, that is, if men could procreate with both willing and unwilling women, it indicated fitness. And in doing so, they would also be passing on the gene that provided a penchant for forced sex.

This theory was expounded In a 2000 book co-authored by biologist Randy Thornhill, called “A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion.” But this year, in a Newsweek article, the debunking of the notion began. According to Newsweek’s Sharon Begley, Anthropologist, Kim Hill at Arizona State University, had a hunch that sloppy projections had been made about the fitness of rape. Although Anthropologists still study a fewhunter/gatherer societies today, few have ever seen a rape. That doesn’t mean the gene wasn’t selected for increased reproduction though.

Hill and some colleagues decided to do a calculation using an example of the Aché, a traditional hunter/gatherer tribe living in Paraguay. Using an example of a 25-year-old Aché, they mathematically projected how rape would affect the evolutionary journey of one male. They basically calculated a rapist’s costs and benefits and the likelihood that his genes would survive. They were also generous with their calculations — assuming that the subject would only rape women of child-bearing age, when in actuality, women of all ages are raped. The calculations included a demerit point system — the man would lose fitness points for things like getting killed by a rape victim’s relative, having the child abandoned by the rape victim, the likelihood that conception would happen at all based on a woman’s reproductive cycle, and even if being a rapist in a small town would affect the likelihood that others would share their food.

And…. drum roll please…. the final math, from Begley’s June, 2009, Newsweek article:

“Rape increases a man’s evolutionary fitness based on the chance that a rape victim is fertile (15 percent), that she will conceive (a 7 percent chance), that she will not miscarry (90 percent) and that she will not let the baby die even though it is the child of rape (90 percent). Hill then ran the numbers on the reproductive costs and benefits of rape. It wasn’t even close: the cost exceeds the benefit by a factor of 10. ‘That makes the likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation extremely low,’ says Hill. ‘It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the Pleistocene to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up.’ ”

Yep, from the mouths of scientists — if you are a rapist, you can’t blame your genes fellas. It’s your own damn fault. Well, actually it’s probably the fault of some receptive biology mixed with a bad childhood. But it’s your own damn fault if you fail to seek help.