What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of Sex Addiction
The media today is filled with powerful men in trouble for their sexual behaviors, and invariably, they are diagnosed as sexual addicts. Once, these behaviors were considered a moral failing, but now they are viewed as evidence of a fictitious disease, that of "sexual addiction." The concept of sexual addiction is a controversial one because it is based on poor research and subjective moral judgments. Despite claims to the contrary, sex addiction is not a medically or scientifically accepted diagnosis. Sex addiction is a belief system, supported by faith, conviction and religious principles, that represents an attack on sexuality. Labeling these behaviors as sex addiction asserts a false, dangerous myth that undermines personal responsibility. Not only does this supposed epidemic of sex addiction mislabel male sexuality as dangerous and unhealthy, but it destroys our ability to hold people accountable for their behaviors. By labeling males as weak and powerless before the onslaught of desire and the churning tide of lust, we take away those things that men should live up personal responsibility; integrity; self-control; independence; accountability; self-motivation; honor; respect for self and others.
In The Myth of Sex Addiction, Dr. David Ley presents the cultural history, moral judgments and junk science underlying this alleged disorder. He exposes the subjective values embedded in the concept, as well as the significant economic factors that drive the label of sex addiction in clinical practice and the popular media. Ley outlines how this label represents a social attack on many forms of sexuality--male sexuality in particular--as well as presenting the difficulty this label creates in holding people responsible for their sexual behaviors. Going against current assumptions and trends, Ley debunks the idea that sex addiction is real. Instead, he suggests that the high-sex behaviors of some men is something that has been tacitly condoned for countless years and is only now labeled as a disorder as men are being held accountable to the same rules that have been applied to women. He suggests we should expect men to take responsibility for sexual choices, rather than supporting an approach that labels male sexual desire as a "demonic force" that must be resisted, feared, treated, and exorcised.
In The Myth of Sex Addiction, Dr. David Ley presents the cultural history, moral judgments and junk science underlying this alleged disorder. He exposes the subjective values embedded in the concept, as well as the significant economic factors that drive the label of sex addiction in clinical practice and the popular media. Ley outlines how this label represents a social attack on many forms of sexuality--male sexuality in particular--as well as presenting the difficulty this label creates in holding people responsible for their sexual behaviors. Going against current assumptions and trends, Ley debunks the idea that sex addiction is real. Instead, he suggests that the high-sex behaviors of some men is something that has been tacitly condoned for countless years and is only now labeled as a disorder as men are being held accountable to the same rules that have been applied to women. He suggests we should expect men to take responsibility for sexual choices, rather than supporting an approach that labels male sexual desire as a "demonic force" that must be resisted, feared, treated, and exorcised.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2012
40 people are currently reading
437 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
March 19, 2021
https://adam.nz/2012/the-myth-of-sex-...
I think there is some interesting work to be done around men's role in society, families and relationships. Around how they've changed over the past 100 years and what we want them to become. I've read some interesting articles over the years as people struggle with this but largely they feel to me that they have an agenda I don't fully agree with or that they are written in retribution for some perceived wrong.
Growing up white, male, middle-class you are well indoctrinated to believe that you have no right to ever feel that you might have been hard done by at some point. Or at least to keep your mouth shut about it. It was wonderful to read somebody, who is both more eloquent and educated then I am, speak about some of these instances where the world doesn't treat men very well. For me he struck the right balance between thoughtful and direct and he never tries to blame anybody, he simply talks about what is.
The above was only a small part of the content of the book, but it was a recurring theme throughout. I didn't read it cover to cover, but it was an interesting browse. Some quotes that I found provocative and/or funny ...
----
If the message, the only message, to boys is that their sexuality is potentially harmful to girls, how will we ever rsise them to be full partners in healthy relationships? — Sharon Lamb
----
In porn, men are invulnerable, and the women are easily orgasmic and eternally grateful.
----
The prerequisite for a good marriage, it seems to me, is the license to be unfaithful. — Carl Jung, in a letter to Sigmund Freud
----
Men do not rule society but exist within it, just as women do. Men are exploited by the culture of our society as much as women are, just in different and often fatal ways: far more men than women die as soldiers, as firefighters, as police officers and even truck drivers in the frozen north of Alaska. While we may have more male leaders, we also have higher rates of poverty, death, mental retardation and suicide in men.
----
The mistake that straight people made was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided that marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey. In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure release valve which men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always enjoyed. “And it's been a disaster for marriage.” — Dan Savage
----
Girls become women through a biological process, reaching puberty and menarche, and even woman who do not or cannot have children are not widely seen as “unwomanly”. Women might be seen as unfeminine but aren't seen as having lost their womanhood.
In contrast manhood is seen as something males must achieve, through rites of passage and challenges. Vision quests, battles, going to war and losing ones virginity are actions associated with boys becoming men. Men must constantly prove their masculinity or face its loss. Real men must be made, and created, by force of will, aggression, dominance and success over others and over adversity.
I think there is some interesting work to be done around men's role in society, families and relationships. Around how they've changed over the past 100 years and what we want them to become. I've read some interesting articles over the years as people struggle with this but largely they feel to me that they have an agenda I don't fully agree with or that they are written in retribution for some perceived wrong.
Growing up white, male, middle-class you are well indoctrinated to believe that you have no right to ever feel that you might have been hard done by at some point. Or at least to keep your mouth shut about it. It was wonderful to read somebody, who is both more eloquent and educated then I am, speak about some of these instances where the world doesn't treat men very well. For me he struck the right balance between thoughtful and direct and he never tries to blame anybody, he simply talks about what is.
The above was only a small part of the content of the book, but it was a recurring theme throughout. I didn't read it cover to cover, but it was an interesting browse. Some quotes that I found provocative and/or funny ...
----
If the message, the only message, to boys is that their sexuality is potentially harmful to girls, how will we ever rsise them to be full partners in healthy relationships? — Sharon Lamb
----
In porn, men are invulnerable, and the women are easily orgasmic and eternally grateful.
----
The prerequisite for a good marriage, it seems to me, is the license to be unfaithful. — Carl Jung, in a letter to Sigmund Freud
----
Men do not rule society but exist within it, just as women do. Men are exploited by the culture of our society as much as women are, just in different and often fatal ways: far more men than women die as soldiers, as firefighters, as police officers and even truck drivers in the frozen north of Alaska. While we may have more male leaders, we also have higher rates of poverty, death, mental retardation and suicide in men.
----
The mistake that straight people made was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided that marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey. In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure release valve which men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always enjoyed. “And it's been a disaster for marriage.” — Dan Savage
----
Girls become women through a biological process, reaching puberty and menarche, and even woman who do not or cannot have children are not widely seen as “unwomanly”. Women might be seen as unfeminine but aren't seen as having lost their womanhood.
In contrast manhood is seen as something males must achieve, through rites of passage and challenges. Vision quests, battles, going to war and losing ones virginity are actions associated with boys becoming men. Men must constantly prove their masculinity or face its loss. Real men must be made, and created, by force of will, aggression, dominance and success over others and over adversity.
May 22, 2014
I am glad to see Dr. Ley challenging the addictions industry. His analysis it on target and based on the current scientific evidence. The entire concept is deeply involved with religious ideas about sex and sexuality. In short, the notion of sex addiction is largely a religious one, though he does not make that claim as strongly as I would like. It is not coincidence that recent research demonstrates the more religious you are, the more likely you are to self diagnose as a sex addict. Part of the answer is, get rid of your religion and learn who you are without superstition. You may find your guilt and shame melt away and your sexual needs change and become much more manageable if not disappear entirely. While my own work only deals tangentially with this issue, I came to the same conclusion years ago. (see Sex and God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality). If you are interested in the back story and what to know how the idea of sex addition is quite harmful, read this book. If you think you are a sex addict, think again and stay away from addictions treatment. Deal with the shame and guilt or other emotional issues you may have with a good secular psychologist, and you will probably find it is not nearly as difficult to gain control of your life as the addictions pushers would have you believe.
Needless to say, after this book came out, the addictions industry strongly condemned it. None of the negative reviews however brought counter scientific evidence, rather, they used ad hominum attacks and the logic of religion and religious morality.
Needless to say, after this book came out, the addictions industry strongly condemned it. None of the negative reviews however brought counter scientific evidence, rather, they used ad hominum attacks and the logic of religion and religious morality.
November 14, 2012
David J. Ley has written a sledgehammer to demolish a dust-bunny.
The myth that Ley intends to smash is a myth that virtually no one serious believes. Or rather, the people who believe the myth are, for the most part, well served by their belief in it, and those who will understand his prose, his arguments, never would have believed it in the first place.
The argument is partly semantic, partly theological, and partly commercial: semantically, those who believe that "addiction" is indistinguishable from "compulsion" will never be convinced, because one CAN have a compulsive relationship to sex. Theologically, those who believe that "sex addiction" is a disease, treatable as other addictions are by 12-step programs, have a belief about the relationship between the self and compulsive behaviors that is not likely to be displaced by scientific argumentation. And commercially, those, like Patrick Carnes, who have made a career out of selling "treatment services" to people who are "sick" always will sell those services, and the people who buy those services typically will be so desperate they won't be interested in Ley's arguments.
All this is too bad, because there's truth on all sides. While one can't be addicted to sex, one certainly can have a compulsive relationship to sex that makes one look indistinguishable from an addict.
While there are ZERO studies showing that 12-step programs are effective in treating compulsive sexual behavior, there's no doubt that they help SOME people.
And while Patrick Carnes clearly is a huckster who has made a good living off of others' suffering, I've known people who swear he helped them. And his books were even helpful to me.
It's too bad this book isn't more thoughtful, and instead, is hell-bent on making a very basic point.
I wrote a bit more on this subject on my blog, here
The myth that Ley intends to smash is a myth that virtually no one serious believes. Or rather, the people who believe the myth are, for the most part, well served by their belief in it, and those who will understand his prose, his arguments, never would have believed it in the first place.
The argument is partly semantic, partly theological, and partly commercial: semantically, those who believe that "addiction" is indistinguishable from "compulsion" will never be convinced, because one CAN have a compulsive relationship to sex. Theologically, those who believe that "sex addiction" is a disease, treatable as other addictions are by 12-step programs, have a belief about the relationship between the self and compulsive behaviors that is not likely to be displaced by scientific argumentation. And commercially, those, like Patrick Carnes, who have made a career out of selling "treatment services" to people who are "sick" always will sell those services, and the people who buy those services typically will be so desperate they won't be interested in Ley's arguments.
All this is too bad, because there's truth on all sides. While one can't be addicted to sex, one certainly can have a compulsive relationship to sex that makes one look indistinguishable from an addict.
While there are ZERO studies showing that 12-step programs are effective in treating compulsive sexual behavior, there's no doubt that they help SOME people.
And while Patrick Carnes clearly is a huckster who has made a good living off of others' suffering, I've known people who swear he helped them. And his books were even helpful to me.
It's too bad this book isn't more thoughtful, and instead, is hell-bent on making a very basic point.
I wrote a bit more on this subject on my blog, here
July 18, 2013
I saw this book on the new books section as you enter our local library and its title piqued my interest.
The author is a therapist who has worked heavily with people, mostly men, who have been labeled as sex addicts. He disputes this term and his premises are basically that
a.) There is debate about what constitutes appropriate sexual interest or sexual deviance because it is often a morality-based judgment based on cultural norms depending on the society you are in, the fact that men and women naturally have differing libidos, and that it's quite common for people to have sexual fantasies.
b.)There isn't enough scientific and medical data to justify preoccupation with sex as addiction since many other activities done compulsively aren't labeled addictions. He doesn't dispute that people can pursue sex to harmful degrees, but that data show that people can exercise control over their urges.
The book gave me lots of food for thought, and I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with a variety of his points. Overall the book was probably a 2.5 because it was poorly edited and organized and it wasn't until the last chapter that he outlined a coherent thesis and argument that would have been helpful at the beginning to guide his narrative.
The author is a therapist who has worked heavily with people, mostly men, who have been labeled as sex addicts. He disputes this term and his premises are basically that
a.) There is debate about what constitutes appropriate sexual interest or sexual deviance because it is often a morality-based judgment based on cultural norms depending on the society you are in, the fact that men and women naturally have differing libidos, and that it's quite common for people to have sexual fantasies.
b.)There isn't enough scientific and medical data to justify preoccupation with sex as addiction since many other activities done compulsively aren't labeled addictions. He doesn't dispute that people can pursue sex to harmful degrees, but that data show that people can exercise control over their urges.
The book gave me lots of food for thought, and I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with a variety of his points. Overall the book was probably a 2.5 because it was poorly edited and organized and it wasn't until the last chapter that he outlined a coherent thesis and argument that would have been helpful at the beginning to guide his narrative.
November 9, 2013
This is a fairly successful attempt at debunking sex addiction as equivalent to any other addiction. I thought it was successful in demonstrating how what has been labeled as sex addiction is not a true addiction in the medical sense. It presents a basic history of how the idea of 'sex addiction' came about, but I think there could have been more information in that area. I did like how the author presented the label as something that disparate groups use to promote their own agendas. Overall, it's a good counter-point to yet another result of junk science that is prevalent in the media. Recommended.
August 9, 2021
Dr. David Ley claims that the term “Sex Addiction” is misguided and harmful because it reinforces an antisex morality that is embedded in our culture and it does harm in alleviating personal responsibility and engrains an unhelpful victim’s mentality. Ley attacks both the mental disorder diagnostic system and the underlying view that claims human nature and sexuality is inherently dangerous and unhealthy.
I picked up the book because I resonated with the title - the term Sex Addiction seems misguided. I fundamentally agree that sex addiction is the wrong level of analysis because sex is so broad as a concept, so deep in human nature, and so integral to the psyche, that it is unuseful to try to single out “sex” as a problematic part of an individual.
A big problem with the term “Sex addiction” stems from the fact it’s not only hard to define healthy and normal sexuality, but it is also hard to pin down what people are seeking when they want sex. Defining what alcohol, gambling, and drugs are, is pretty straightforward in comparison to defining sex. What is sought after exactly? Orgasm? Ejaculation? Emotional connection? Love? Reproduction? Physical exercise? Power? Touch? Self-expression?
The problem is that sex is broad. Sex is often merely a tool to express one’s feelings. You cannot decouple sex from everyday life in a clear-cut way. Flirting is sex. Walking is sex. Opening a door is a sex. The mass confusion stems from the fact that the actual intercourse is just the tip of the iceberg of sex - and the ejaculation is at the tip of the tip of the iceberg, which is what the medical community, unfortunately, focuses on - ignoring a holistic view that is antithetical to modern medicine.
Progress in the field of psychiatry seems to be measured by how many ways we can tell people how screwed up in the head they are. More categories of illness are used to justify progress to funders of research whose profit can be made by treatment.
Of course, most people in the mental health field have good intentions to help people - and they do. The problem is that the entire field is obsessed with pathology. We only point out what’s wrong with people and don’t pay attention to the positive aspects of their character. This has a massive effect on people where the implicit goal is to get rid of the pathologies in hope that they become “normal” so they can cope with life better. A psychologically healthy person today is defined as having no diagnosed mental disorder. Not someone with moral virtues with a unique personality, that has pros and cons, contributes to society filling a vital role while also leading a fulfilling life.
This is in line with the ideology that permeates the scientific community, namely that one day all human behavior can be explained by science, so we no longer have to punish people for what is the illusion of free will, instead, we can treat the victims of misalignments in neurochemistry with the respect they deserve.
It is clear to me that human health is primarily a factor of moral action, and being tangled up in a web of lies is an underdiagnosed cause of mental illness. In case of a brain tumor or neurochemical imbalances, the person still has the faculty of moral courage to seek help in moments they feel in control. It seems clear to me that a person with a brain tumor is more afraid of shame and punishment than the consequences on others by his own actions.
Even though I fundamentally agree with Ley on most points, the book is meant to counter the “sex-negative” view with an overcompensation in the opposite direction. He makes a straw-man argument of conservative views and cherry-picks data in favor of polygamy.
The problem is to figure out is how to acknowledge and help those who struggle with a compulsive and destructive relationship to sex while at the same time avoid demonizing sex itself and pathologizing normal, healthy people with a high libido. Ley wants to untangle the medical diagnosis from societal norms and religious dogma, and he does this by pushing sex positivism, taking for granted that the true north of morality is to live according to our biology.
My main issue with the book is that since the positivity of sex shines so much bright in Ley’s eyes that it blinds him to the genuine destructive element of sexuality because he is confident that something as good and natural as sex, or anything associated with sex, such as pornography, could not possibly be the source of harm. In fact, he claims that sex does not even have a tinge of danger, and asks if sex is so dangerous, then why is it pleasurable?
While it is apparent that pornography is tied with dysfunction, he justifies this by suggesting that those men who don’t do well in relationships, the plethora of men who are addicted *cough* choose to masturbate to porn or fantasy instead, should let themselves weed their genes out. This is a typical example of using the theory of natural selection as an excuse to be unhelpful to those struggling. The argument is not taking into consideration that while the inability to get laid causes porn addiction, porn further exacerbates the problem.
And frankly, promoting the question “Do we really want these men reproducing?” is a sickening justification to ignore a large problem that affects men who otherwise would be able to function normally in a relationship. It’s similar to neglecting the importance of disease because we don’t want people who are genetically disposed to it in our future generations. That’s secular ethics for ya.
The issue of personal responsibility, free will, and determinism is an extremely complex and deeply paradoxical one, and I’m in agreement with Ley for the most part.
We are responsible even for your desire to flee responsibility. For example, we are still responsible for our actions during intoxication because we chose to get intoxicated in the first place. In fact, we are responsible for not developing our capacity for self-control, because it is indeed trainable, and as Ley points out, some men can reduce their sexual arousal better than others. We are responsible for developing bad habits that we cannot control because we did have control initially to start those habits. We are responsible for indulging in a fantasy that implants unconscious attitudes that alter our behavior.
My concern is while it is meant to be helpful, the extreme responsibility, “every man for himself” philosophy is also a justification for a lack of compassion for the weak.
I think there is a danger in too much responsibility as well. Our self-image can be hopelessly twisted and smashed if one perceives our actions as entirely free will when self-control inevitably fails.
There is a case to be made for diagnosing mental disorders. You see a doctor, Symptom 1, check, symptom 2, check, Symptom 3 check. You are diagnosed, whereas before you thought you were uniquely screwed up, you find out that you are not alone in this problem, or hell, you find a brain tumor or something. You find out there are many like you and you’re handed a protocol that has been used to some degree of success dealing with this disorder and you are introduced to a supportive community with those struggling with the same. That’s a huge relief, and may be useful in the long-term for the patient because sometimes the burden of responsibility can be so heavy it’s crushing.
In the light of statistics showing higher sexual impulsivity, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies in areas of poverty, Ley is critical of sociological explanations of sexual misconduct and applies the same principles of individual responsibility.
The problem here is that we dichotomize people as “The person and their biological sexuality.” Everyone has the right to reproduce, even if they don’t have the means to provide for the children properly. The question of the responsibility of third-world families who have unprotected sex before they can provide for their children is a dangerous and ignored topic considering how that line of thinking can easily degenerate into eugenics. Still, the point can be made by seeing how in Western countries we readily excuse women for having unprotected casual sex and give offer them abortions and finance single mothers expecting no moral responsibility on their part.
At large, there’s a growing trend to not attribute any personal responsibility to sexual misconduct. Men are excused as sex addicts and women’s responsibilities are ignored altogether. If we insist instead that sexual misconduct is a failure of one’s moral character and self-restraint, there would be a stronger motivation to be more careful not to let the sexual force override good judgment. Shame and real consequences is a powerful motivator for acting properly, which that has gone out of fashion.
On the other hand, the circumstances set real boundaries of the limits of thought and actions. It is simply unfair to assume that everyone has the same degree of personal autonomy regardless of circumstance. The mental claustrophobia of poverty is real and you can’t expect people to receive divine inspiration to act completely different from everyone around them.
Ley shows off his lack of philosophical rigor when he criticizes the Christian ethical view on sexuality for not having scientific proof, taking for granted biology provides a scientific moral system.
He goes on to say that moral judgments have no place in science. But that begs the question, how are we supposed to know what to study if it isn’t for moral judgments? Do we need to have an objective scientific reason to justify a study? How are we supposed to conduct a study determining if a study is worth studying? (Ad infinitum)
An additional problem would be how to interpret data. What is desirable data? What is our aim? Increase human happiness and decrease suffering? As Ley pointed out himself, suffering is a part of human life, and he criticizes the increasing trend to make suffering an illness in the mental health space, for instance, you can now be diagnosed with major depression and receive antidepressants if you’re still depressed after two weeks of losing a close loved one. Ley seems to take the stance that our aim should be to live according to our ancestors - but there's no scientific proof why that ought to be the case.
The problem is when you use science as an excuse to eradicate Christian values. There are many good reasons to be resentful of Christianity, but every single mental disorder comes from values deeply embedded in our culture. You cannot determine whether to pathologize something or not strictly by science. Science gives data, how it’s interpreted is always through the lens of the values of the culture. You simply cannot derive moral values from scientific data.
I do, however, sympathize strongly with the desire to separate the authority of the medical diagnosis from moral prejudices and have it so people go to church for moral preaching and the doctor for medical advice. Unfortunately, it’s an impossible task.
As a side note, since the Western world is for the most part secular, but its ethics are still grounded in Christianity, the medical authority will replace the church to enforce society’s need to control sexuality - the medical diagnosis is replacing the ten commandments. This is necessary because we don’t attribute any authority to the church, but are subscribing to its values. The main difference is that the medical community is more susceptible to cultural change, and now that radical feminism is getting a stronger foothold in our culture, there will not be long until signs of high testosterone will be diagnosed as a mental disorder. As a side-side-note, the fall of religious attitudes is closely linked with the rise of feminism. That's obvious, what’s more, interesting to contemplate is that feminism fills the role of religion in curbing successful men’s sexual privileges.
Ley tackles the anti-porn movement. Unfortunately, instead of presenting its strongest arguments and discussing them accordingly, he decides to represent the anti-porn movement by one of its leading proponents, Judith Reisman, a complete nutcase of a woman, who claims homosexuals were the blame for Nazi Germany. In fact, this is typical of the book. He provides cartoonish examples that are at the outskirts of reality to provoke an emotional reaction instead of presenting the opposite view strongly and dealing with it accordingly. Instead of straw-manning, he could at least address the naturalistic argument, namely that we are not evolutionarily designed to have instant sexual gratification constantly available to us.
The pro-porn folks are that they believe there's some sort of authoritarian conspiracy against pleasure because they want people fed into the capitalistic machine or something like that. The funny things I view things completely opposite. It seems to me like porn is in alignment with society's need to curb the dangerous aspects of sexuality. Porn does not make men dangerous, it makes them satisfied, hence safe. We can see that where porn use is increased there's a drop in the rate of teen pregnancies, STDs, and sexual violence.
Ley claims Sex has all sorts of benefits, ranging from making you smarter, increasing attention span, stimulates creativity, and improves social skills and public speaking.
But where's the data on this? To contradict these statements, ejaculation causes the release of the hormone Prolactin which suppresses the desire to be productive and exert effort - an excessive indulgence of this and you end up lazy, and based on your personality, may decrease life satisfaction. Again, it seems like we all tend to find the science that backs up our personal experience. But Ley, as a sex educator, should be aware of individual differences.
The boogeyman of the book, Ley’s arch-nemesis: Patrick Carnes, says that sexual fantasy is only healthy if you are using it to move toward your partner. The author attacks this claim by noting how this will be surprising news to the huge numbers of people who report having secret fantasies about other people during sex with their spouse or partner.
Sorry but you have to be pretty morally immature to believe secrets improve the quality of the relationship. This is like attacking the statement from a health expert that vegetables are good for you by saying “This will surprise the majority of Americans who the majority is obese!”
Ley points out how men are increasingly attacked as being misogynistic and sex addicts for what he calls natural masculine behavior, especially powerful men with sexual privileges.
It is interesting to note, that we assign widely different thresholds of accepted “misogyny” and sexual behavior to different men. Basketball players and rappers are the first demographic that comes to mind when we as a society have no problem when they brag about sleeping with thousands of women, while a NASA scientist got ridiculed on Twitter and was brought to tears during an apology for wearing a t-shirt with naked women on it. Whereas minor sex “scandals” threatens men’s livelihood, other men are immune to any criticism of massive sexual adventure.
There might be a case made that the reason is that we have a greater acceptance of sexual behavior in men in the entertainment industry because we don’t trust them with taxpayer money and political power. It might be a factor, but a largely ignored issue is simply the man’s personality and attitude toward sex. In the NASA scientist case, the man was white and nerdy, not a tall charismatic strong basketball athlete.
It seems like the “gotcha” type activism/journalism for male sexual exploits is primarily an attack of incongruence, not masculinity. We all have a natural tendency to attack those who cannot live up to their own actions. We love catching the “Mr. Nice thumbs up smiley face guy” revealing that he’s secretly banging a lot of hoes. And we ignore the rappers and athletes who openly brag about their sexual exploits. In the case of comedian Louis C.K, however, it is apparent that personality is not immune to the power of big media distributors, and I recognize that there’s increasing cultural hostility toward sexuality in men. Although I sometimes wonder if Louis C.K's allegations would have been ignored had he been ripped and handsome.
In summary, it was worth reading, it’s a good read on what’s wrong with psychiatry and how our moral judgments about sex differ from that of our biology. Unfortunately, Ley promotes a sunshine lollipop view on sex with poor arguments, straw-manning, and cherry-picking
I picked up the book because I resonated with the title - the term Sex Addiction seems misguided. I fundamentally agree that sex addiction is the wrong level of analysis because sex is so broad as a concept, so deep in human nature, and so integral to the psyche, that it is unuseful to try to single out “sex” as a problematic part of an individual.
A big problem with the term “Sex addiction” stems from the fact it’s not only hard to define healthy and normal sexuality, but it is also hard to pin down what people are seeking when they want sex. Defining what alcohol, gambling, and drugs are, is pretty straightforward in comparison to defining sex. What is sought after exactly? Orgasm? Ejaculation? Emotional connection? Love? Reproduction? Physical exercise? Power? Touch? Self-expression?
The problem is that sex is broad. Sex is often merely a tool to express one’s feelings. You cannot decouple sex from everyday life in a clear-cut way. Flirting is sex. Walking is sex. Opening a door is a sex. The mass confusion stems from the fact that the actual intercourse is just the tip of the iceberg of sex - and the ejaculation is at the tip of the tip of the iceberg, which is what the medical community, unfortunately, focuses on - ignoring a holistic view that is antithetical to modern medicine.
Progress in the field of psychiatry seems to be measured by how many ways we can tell people how screwed up in the head they are. More categories of illness are used to justify progress to funders of research whose profit can be made by treatment.
Of course, most people in the mental health field have good intentions to help people - and they do. The problem is that the entire field is obsessed with pathology. We only point out what’s wrong with people and don’t pay attention to the positive aspects of their character. This has a massive effect on people where the implicit goal is to get rid of the pathologies in hope that they become “normal” so they can cope with life better. A psychologically healthy person today is defined as having no diagnosed mental disorder. Not someone with moral virtues with a unique personality, that has pros and cons, contributes to society filling a vital role while also leading a fulfilling life.
This is in line with the ideology that permeates the scientific community, namely that one day all human behavior can be explained by science, so we no longer have to punish people for what is the illusion of free will, instead, we can treat the victims of misalignments in neurochemistry with the respect they deserve.
It is clear to me that human health is primarily a factor of moral action, and being tangled up in a web of lies is an underdiagnosed cause of mental illness. In case of a brain tumor or neurochemical imbalances, the person still has the faculty of moral courage to seek help in moments they feel in control. It seems clear to me that a person with a brain tumor is more afraid of shame and punishment than the consequences on others by his own actions.
Even though I fundamentally agree with Ley on most points, the book is meant to counter the “sex-negative” view with an overcompensation in the opposite direction. He makes a straw-man argument of conservative views and cherry-picks data in favor of polygamy.
The problem is to figure out is how to acknowledge and help those who struggle with a compulsive and destructive relationship to sex while at the same time avoid demonizing sex itself and pathologizing normal, healthy people with a high libido. Ley wants to untangle the medical diagnosis from societal norms and religious dogma, and he does this by pushing sex positivism, taking for granted that the true north of morality is to live according to our biology.
My main issue with the book is that since the positivity of sex shines so much bright in Ley’s eyes that it blinds him to the genuine destructive element of sexuality because he is confident that something as good and natural as sex, or anything associated with sex, such as pornography, could not possibly be the source of harm. In fact, he claims that sex does not even have a tinge of danger, and asks if sex is so dangerous, then why is it pleasurable?
While it is apparent that pornography is tied with dysfunction, he justifies this by suggesting that those men who don’t do well in relationships, the plethora of men who are addicted *cough* choose to masturbate to porn or fantasy instead, should let themselves weed their genes out. This is a typical example of using the theory of natural selection as an excuse to be unhelpful to those struggling. The argument is not taking into consideration that while the inability to get laid causes porn addiction, porn further exacerbates the problem.
And frankly, promoting the question “Do we really want these men reproducing?” is a sickening justification to ignore a large problem that affects men who otherwise would be able to function normally in a relationship. It’s similar to neglecting the importance of disease because we don’t want people who are genetically disposed to it in our future generations. That’s secular ethics for ya.
The issue of personal responsibility, free will, and determinism is an extremely complex and deeply paradoxical one, and I’m in agreement with Ley for the most part.
We are responsible even for your desire to flee responsibility. For example, we are still responsible for our actions during intoxication because we chose to get intoxicated in the first place. In fact, we are responsible for not developing our capacity for self-control, because it is indeed trainable, and as Ley points out, some men can reduce their sexual arousal better than others. We are responsible for developing bad habits that we cannot control because we did have control initially to start those habits. We are responsible for indulging in a fantasy that implants unconscious attitudes that alter our behavior.
My concern is while it is meant to be helpful, the extreme responsibility, “every man for himself” philosophy is also a justification for a lack of compassion for the weak.
I think there is a danger in too much responsibility as well. Our self-image can be hopelessly twisted and smashed if one perceives our actions as entirely free will when self-control inevitably fails.
There is a case to be made for diagnosing mental disorders. You see a doctor, Symptom 1, check, symptom 2, check, Symptom 3 check. You are diagnosed, whereas before you thought you were uniquely screwed up, you find out that you are not alone in this problem, or hell, you find a brain tumor or something. You find out there are many like you and you’re handed a protocol that has been used to some degree of success dealing with this disorder and you are introduced to a supportive community with those struggling with the same. That’s a huge relief, and may be useful in the long-term for the patient because sometimes the burden of responsibility can be so heavy it’s crushing.
In the light of statistics showing higher sexual impulsivity, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies in areas of poverty, Ley is critical of sociological explanations of sexual misconduct and applies the same principles of individual responsibility.
The problem here is that we dichotomize people as “The person and their biological sexuality.” Everyone has the right to reproduce, even if they don’t have the means to provide for the children properly. The question of the responsibility of third-world families who have unprotected sex before they can provide for their children is a dangerous and ignored topic considering how that line of thinking can easily degenerate into eugenics. Still, the point can be made by seeing how in Western countries we readily excuse women for having unprotected casual sex and give offer them abortions and finance single mothers expecting no moral responsibility on their part.
At large, there’s a growing trend to not attribute any personal responsibility to sexual misconduct. Men are excused as sex addicts and women’s responsibilities are ignored altogether. If we insist instead that sexual misconduct is a failure of one’s moral character and self-restraint, there would be a stronger motivation to be more careful not to let the sexual force override good judgment. Shame and real consequences is a powerful motivator for acting properly, which that has gone out of fashion.
On the other hand, the circumstances set real boundaries of the limits of thought and actions. It is simply unfair to assume that everyone has the same degree of personal autonomy regardless of circumstance. The mental claustrophobia of poverty is real and you can’t expect people to receive divine inspiration to act completely different from everyone around them.
Ley shows off his lack of philosophical rigor when he criticizes the Christian ethical view on sexuality for not having scientific proof, taking for granted biology provides a scientific moral system.
He goes on to say that moral judgments have no place in science. But that begs the question, how are we supposed to know what to study if it isn’t for moral judgments? Do we need to have an objective scientific reason to justify a study? How are we supposed to conduct a study determining if a study is worth studying? (Ad infinitum)
An additional problem would be how to interpret data. What is desirable data? What is our aim? Increase human happiness and decrease suffering? As Ley pointed out himself, suffering is a part of human life, and he criticizes the increasing trend to make suffering an illness in the mental health space, for instance, you can now be diagnosed with major depression and receive antidepressants if you’re still depressed after two weeks of losing a close loved one. Ley seems to take the stance that our aim should be to live according to our ancestors - but there's no scientific proof why that ought to be the case.
The problem is when you use science as an excuse to eradicate Christian values. There are many good reasons to be resentful of Christianity, but every single mental disorder comes from values deeply embedded in our culture. You cannot determine whether to pathologize something or not strictly by science. Science gives data, how it’s interpreted is always through the lens of the values of the culture. You simply cannot derive moral values from scientific data.
I do, however, sympathize strongly with the desire to separate the authority of the medical diagnosis from moral prejudices and have it so people go to church for moral preaching and the doctor for medical advice. Unfortunately, it’s an impossible task.
As a side note, since the Western world is for the most part secular, but its ethics are still grounded in Christianity, the medical authority will replace the church to enforce society’s need to control sexuality - the medical diagnosis is replacing the ten commandments. This is necessary because we don’t attribute any authority to the church, but are subscribing to its values. The main difference is that the medical community is more susceptible to cultural change, and now that radical feminism is getting a stronger foothold in our culture, there will not be long until signs of high testosterone will be diagnosed as a mental disorder. As a side-side-note, the fall of religious attitudes is closely linked with the rise of feminism. That's obvious, what’s more, interesting to contemplate is that feminism fills the role of religion in curbing successful men’s sexual privileges.
Ley tackles the anti-porn movement. Unfortunately, instead of presenting its strongest arguments and discussing them accordingly, he decides to represent the anti-porn movement by one of its leading proponents, Judith Reisman, a complete nutcase of a woman, who claims homosexuals were the blame for Nazi Germany. In fact, this is typical of the book. He provides cartoonish examples that are at the outskirts of reality to provoke an emotional reaction instead of presenting the opposite view strongly and dealing with it accordingly. Instead of straw-manning, he could at least address the naturalistic argument, namely that we are not evolutionarily designed to have instant sexual gratification constantly available to us.
The pro-porn folks are that they believe there's some sort of authoritarian conspiracy against pleasure because they want people fed into the capitalistic machine or something like that. The funny things I view things completely opposite. It seems to me like porn is in alignment with society's need to curb the dangerous aspects of sexuality. Porn does not make men dangerous, it makes them satisfied, hence safe. We can see that where porn use is increased there's a drop in the rate of teen pregnancies, STDs, and sexual violence.
Ley claims Sex has all sorts of benefits, ranging from making you smarter, increasing attention span, stimulates creativity, and improves social skills and public speaking.
But where's the data on this? To contradict these statements, ejaculation causes the release of the hormone Prolactin which suppresses the desire to be productive and exert effort - an excessive indulgence of this and you end up lazy, and based on your personality, may decrease life satisfaction. Again, it seems like we all tend to find the science that backs up our personal experience. But Ley, as a sex educator, should be aware of individual differences.
The boogeyman of the book, Ley’s arch-nemesis: Patrick Carnes, says that sexual fantasy is only healthy if you are using it to move toward your partner. The author attacks this claim by noting how this will be surprising news to the huge numbers of people who report having secret fantasies about other people during sex with their spouse or partner.
Sorry but you have to be pretty morally immature to believe secrets improve the quality of the relationship. This is like attacking the statement from a health expert that vegetables are good for you by saying “This will surprise the majority of Americans who the majority is obese!”
Ley points out how men are increasingly attacked as being misogynistic and sex addicts for what he calls natural masculine behavior, especially powerful men with sexual privileges.
It is interesting to note, that we assign widely different thresholds of accepted “misogyny” and sexual behavior to different men. Basketball players and rappers are the first demographic that comes to mind when we as a society have no problem when they brag about sleeping with thousands of women, while a NASA scientist got ridiculed on Twitter and was brought to tears during an apology for wearing a t-shirt with naked women on it. Whereas minor sex “scandals” threatens men’s livelihood, other men are immune to any criticism of massive sexual adventure.
There might be a case made that the reason is that we have a greater acceptance of sexual behavior in men in the entertainment industry because we don’t trust them with taxpayer money and political power. It might be a factor, but a largely ignored issue is simply the man’s personality and attitude toward sex. In the NASA scientist case, the man was white and nerdy, not a tall charismatic strong basketball athlete.
It seems like the “gotcha” type activism/journalism for male sexual exploits is primarily an attack of incongruence, not masculinity. We all have a natural tendency to attack those who cannot live up to their own actions. We love catching the “Mr. Nice thumbs up smiley face guy” revealing that he’s secretly banging a lot of hoes. And we ignore the rappers and athletes who openly brag about their sexual exploits. In the case of comedian Louis C.K, however, it is apparent that personality is not immune to the power of big media distributors, and I recognize that there’s increasing cultural hostility toward sexuality in men. Although I sometimes wonder if Louis C.K's allegations would have been ignored had he been ripped and handsome.
In summary, it was worth reading, it’s a good read on what’s wrong with psychiatry and how our moral judgments about sex differ from that of our biology. Unfortunately, Ley promotes a sunshine lollipop view on sex with poor arguments, straw-manning, and cherry-picking
August 22, 2016
This book started a lot stronger than it ended. I have been repeatedly frustrated by the dubious and unsupported claims of the "sex addiction" movement, especially in conservative religious settings, and picked up Ley's book to see what the actual research indicates. On this front he is quite good, demonstrating that there is essentially no evidence that sex is or can even be classified as an addiction. This is the important part of the book.
On the other hand, as the book goes on it rapidly devolves into objectivist claims about innate differences in the sexual practices of men and women. Given how carefully he parsed the research on so-called sex addiction, it was disappointing to see him fall prey to essentialist assumptions about what the research tells us regarding sexual interests between men and women, rather than noting that seven thousand years of cultural repression affect our sexual interests and decisions. And he ends up implying or overtly blaming the large number of female counselors and therapists for pathologizing male sexual behavior, which verges on sexism. His first argument, that sex addiction is driven by conservative moral ideology rather than scientific evidence, is a far stronger, rational, and valid argument.
On the other hand, as the book goes on it rapidly devolves into objectivist claims about innate differences in the sexual practices of men and women. Given how carefully he parsed the research on so-called sex addiction, it was disappointing to see him fall prey to essentialist assumptions about what the research tells us regarding sexual interests between men and women, rather than noting that seven thousand years of cultural repression affect our sexual interests and decisions. And he ends up implying or overtly blaming the large number of female counselors and therapists for pathologizing male sexual behavior, which verges on sexism. His first argument, that sex addiction is driven by conservative moral ideology rather than scientific evidence, is a far stronger, rational, and valid argument.
Read
October 3, 2016I was footnote hopping when I ordered this book and ... meh, it's okay but nothing terribly groundbreaking. The author summarizes the lack of evidence to support compulsive sexual behavior as a physiological addition, and also makes a compelling case for the reasons why even a colloquial use of "addiction" to describe behavior understood by the individual or their social circle to be problematic is...well, problematic. Unfortunately, the author's statements about female sexuality are superficial and out of date, for example his assumptions about how and why women read romance novels or view erotic imagery. Even more bizarre a near-throwaway statement that men are more uncomfortable with their sexuality than women are, a statement many of his sexologist peers would likely side-eye. He's clearly more at home talking about (straight, cis) male sexual behavior and the cultural narratives around masculinity than he is about queer or (cis) female sexuality and how narratives of "sex addiction" are used to police these vulnerable communities.
May 23, 2016
While I agree with the author's main thesis--that sex addiction is not a useful concept--he made a dozen other sub-arguments throughout the book that weren't as well supported. There were a lot of straw men (e.g. society rarely acknowledges the benefits from sex--except every other NYtimes article extolling the health benefits of sex). I did like the fact that he pointed out the hypocrisy many have of looking at women's eros as liberating but men's eros as depraved. I may have been misreading his point, but when he started to range into the cultural commentary I felt like his arguments were just more of the age-old, open sex for everyone argument. While he recognized sex differences in sexual desire (not politically correct but true nonetheless), he didn't really address the paradox of how this brave new world of liberated sexuality is supposed to come to pass while one half of the population has very different tendencies, expectations, and overall sexual goals than the other half.
April 25, 2017
I'm bad at writing book reviews.
I enjoyed this book, and compared to other books on "sex-addiction", my stars aligned with most of Dr. Ley's views on the subject. I was formerly pro "sex addiction", even joined the club, called myself one. But became leery of the whole enterprise after two years, well before reading this book. Reading Dr. Ley's book was helpful though, and made me feel better about getting out of the whole addiction camp when I did (especially since I have never been a drug/booze addict). I can see how the "sex-addict" label can help people, but for people like me, it hurt more than helped.
I have the google books edition, but wish it would come out in paperback. I re-read portions on google books from time to time.
I enjoyed this book, and compared to other books on "sex-addiction", my stars aligned with most of Dr. Ley's views on the subject. I was formerly pro "sex addiction", even joined the club, called myself one. But became leery of the whole enterprise after two years, well before reading this book. Reading Dr. Ley's book was helpful though, and made me feel better about getting out of the whole addiction camp when I did (especially since I have never been a drug/booze addict). I can see how the "sex-addict" label can help people, but for people like me, it hurt more than helped.
I have the google books edition, but wish it would come out in paperback. I re-read portions on google books from time to time.
February 8, 2020
Very thoroughly researched and well presented critique of “sex addiction”
As a psychiatrist I found this book illuminating in regards to men sexuality, relational conflicts, and the ways in which we continue to pathologies instincts. I’d recommend it to colleagues and patients alike a
As a psychiatrist I found this book illuminating in regards to men sexuality, relational conflicts, and the ways in which we continue to pathologies instincts. I’d recommend it to colleagues and patients alike a
Read
August 30, 2013306.77 L681 2012
June 4, 2021
Very compelling. Fantastic read. I was struck by the unusual tone that it not once felt like a soapbox. And I started this book with the assumption that sex addiction exists, similar to gambling. The writing style felt like Ley didn't need to try hard to make his points--the logic and science speaks for itself. (Make no mistake, that kind of writing style IS a lot of work.) I was impressed with the sociological points, with the philosophical points about sexuality and culture, and enlightened about masculinity. I was also impressed with how much reading Ley has done about what he disagrees with, and how much effort he puts into legitimately trying to understand their position and their arguments. It makes his disagreement even more persuasive. I recommend this for anyone interested in sex addiction in a theoretical sense, and especially for those people (and their families) who are wondering if they are sex addicts. This is an incredibly fair and cogent approach to the subject, and gives tremendously insightful advice on how to approach the sexual issues that so many label addiction.
March 13, 2022
David Ley offers a good overview for anyone interested in understanding sex addiction, a diagnosis that has rapidly spilt over from medicine to fiction, and clouds understanding of sexuality. He explains why sex addiction is not scientific truth but merely reflects the ideological temper of our times, and how good intentions can cause harm if they lack understanding. In the last few chapters, he compares male and female sexuality, and describes the role of testosterone amongst other things. However scientific rigour and critical thinking is no employed just as well to this part of the argument. The data on testosterone being associated with promiscuity and aggression is controversial. There is no discussion on the influence of culture, the long periods of suppression and silence marring female sexuality. Unfortunately this descends to another instance of a man trying to explain female sexuality to women and the world! I hope a more critical perspective allows us to think of explanations beyond women being gatekeepers of male sexuality.
December 29, 2019
This is a difficult book to review. Ley's arguments are not well-organized, but some of them are compelling. For instance, he points out that most people with symptoms called sex addiction have symptoms of other mood or personality disorders. And he points out that some people just want a lot of sex, and this is pretty normal and not a disease. Where it falls apart for me is some gender essentialism, where Ley asserts things like "We have to as a society start valuing masculinity again" and basically hinting that all men have huge sexual desires versus all women who don't. He makes a token nod to cultural influences but I think he way underestimates them. So not a perfect book, but maybe an important one.
March 22, 2021
Overall, a good resource and read. Though there are now quicker, readily available resources online that dismantle the myth of sex addiction, I’m grateful Dr. Ley contributed (and continues to contribute) his wisdom to the public.
I found the entrenchment of the theme of binary behaviors based on evolutionary theory challenging (it is hard to test, self fulfilling, and the rules of binary behavior are also cultural, not just biological). So, the framing of this book based on “masculine” sexuality was personally distracting. Ex. Some with “feminine” presentation would fit his “masculine” sexuality depiction.
I found the entrenchment of the theme of binary behaviors based on evolutionary theory challenging (it is hard to test, self fulfilling, and the rules of binary behavior are also cultural, not just biological). So, the framing of this book based on “masculine” sexuality was personally distracting. Ex. Some with “feminine” presentation would fit his “masculine” sexuality depiction.
March 28, 2023
Clinical Psychologist Ley explains how several sexual offences reportedly committed by powerful men have come to reflect not a moral failing, but instead, evidence of an ill-defined disease, that of “sexual addiction.” Ley explains why calling this an addiction undermines personal responsibility, destroys our ability to hold people accountable for their behaviors. By labeling males as weak and powerless before the onslaught and churning tide of lust, we take away those things that men should live up to: personal responsibility; integrity; self-control; independence; accountability; self-motivation; honor; respect for self and others.
Read
January 15, 2026hard to review. interesting content and some important arguments and evidence. however, disorganized in both structure and fundamental conceptual arguments. important read for specialists. for others, not sure
June 30, 2018
Despite some weakness in the presentation of arguments, this book leaves me with a lot to think about.
February 6, 2017
good central thesis but the last quarter devolves into outdated gender essentialism and evo-psych, which is frustrating - to say the least - from a book that purports to be against pseudoscience.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews