Shocker: Researchers Say There's Just Not Enough Evidence to Conclude "Sex Addiction" is a Thing Which Is Really Real

Previous editions of the DSM called "sex addiction" "being a dude."

Celebrities, Anthony Weiner hardest hit.

Claiming a sex addiction may be a go-to for misbehaving celebrities and politicians, but from a science perspective there isn't enough study to prove sex addiction is real, according to a professional organization of sex educators and therapists.

There is not enough empirical evidence to classify sex addiction or porn addiction as a mental disorder, the The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) said in a statement to members last week. The organization said that current sex addiction therapy and counseling is not adequately informed by human sexuality and thus not supported as a standard practice by the organization.

I saw someone link this Bob Newhart appearance on Mad TV a little while ago, and it seems apropos here.

And speaking of sex, there are now dating sites which will hook you up only with people who supported the candidate you supported:

The encounter had seemed promising enough, but the couple brought together by an online dating site failed to connect because of one glaring, irreconcilable difference: He was a Donald Trump supporter, she was not.

It's a scene played out again and again in the dating world: In an increasingly partisan and polarized country, similarity in political viewpoints has become a major criterion when choosing -- or weeding out -- prospective love interests.

But now, new dating websites are cropping up to take the guesswork out of pinning down political leanings.

One site, TrumpSingles.com specifically caters to fans of the divisive real estate billionaire...

A similar site was set up for supporters of Bernie Sanders, the tousle-haired Vermont senator whose fiery rhetoric and embrace of environmental causes earned him a fervent and loyal following among liberals and voters under the age of 30.

TrumpSingles says it has registered 12,000 people with a goal of "Making Dating Great Again" -- a riff on Trump's "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan.

Unlike conventional dating sites such as Match.com and OKCupid, the site screens its users to ensure they are not trolls seeking to make trouble, but truly supporters of the president-elect, who takes the oath of office next month.

I don't think this idea is anything close to crazy, or divisive. A long time ago I used to go to a "secret" conservative meet-up. When I would go there, I preferred not to talk about politics (it's my day job, after all -- I just got done talking about politics all day).

So why go at all? Why go to an event featuring people who shared (basically) your politics and avoid politics as a topic?

Well, what I think is that politics is just a good proxy for general outlook. So whether or not I'm explicitly talking about politics, I'm going to be talking with people who are not, from my perspective, simply insane. I can talk to them about Die Hard and not hear that John McClaine should be prosecuted for executing innocent terrorists/theives. (#GermanMercenaryLivesMatter.)

I tried to test this theory with a question: Which is the more aesthetically pleasing building, the Chrysler Building, or the Empire State Building?

This is kind of a trick question because the Conventional Wisdom liberal-hegemony repeat-this-answer-if-you-want-to-be-considered-"cultured" answer is the Chrysler Building.

But the Chrysler Building uses an aesthetic I've never much liked -- ornamental, cheeky, frivolous, tarted-up. Decor imposed on the thing artificially, like the curlicues of a doily, rather than emerging naturally from the construction.

The Empire State Building is, to me, more attractive --mostly (but not entirely) an emergent beauty arising from functionality. Yes there are set-backs and such to give the thing some texture, but it's mostly just straight lines rising straight into the sky.

Anyway, a test of this theory showed some viability: most people, say seven out of ten, choose the Empire State Building. And I suspect those who answered the other way really didn't care either way and were just recalling what the liberally-accepted answer was.

So I don't really think it's nuts or divisive or hyperpartisan to use politics as a proxy to see if someone else is basically on your vibe.

posted by Ace at 03:23 PM

| Access Comments