Feature
- Mental Health Screenings Not Necessary in Abortions
- The Burqa Ban is ON!
- Middle-Class Moms and Alcoholism: A Rising Epidemic?
- Murderous Moms: The Peters Tragedy
- Does Being a Pear-Shape Affect Long-Term Memory?
- Is Joan Rivers a Matriarch of Feminism?
- Mother-Murdering Teen Addresses the Media From Jail
- Forget Ron Burgundy ... Anchorladies on the rise!
- Celebrate! Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage!
- Saudi Group Using “Prophet of Four” Concept to Control Women
Interesting Tiger-inspired thoughts from Hanna Rosin over on Slate.com’s XX Factor blog. Foremost among them: Is society just letting philanderers off easy by allowing them to play the “sex addiction” card when they get caught, or is it actually a total victory for feminism? Maybe having men termed “sex addicts” more frequently in the public eye actually flips the script:
Suddenly, certain brutish behaviors that used to be overlooked were exiled as abnormal. And in the clinical literature, the word promiscuous came to primarily describe not hysterical women but rather predatory men.
According to Rosin, the reason — besides the obvious “cop-out-for-cads” one — that feminists originally rejected the idea of sex addiction put forth by Patrick Carnes (who founded the clinic where Tiger is being treated) in the 1970s was that it can be perceived as “sex-negative.” Up until then, though, “excessive sexual appetite was only clearly pathologized when it showed up in women.”
During the Victorian era, nymphomania became the catch-all term for a wide range of inappropriate behavior, from “lascivious glances” to extramarital affairs … Even wearing perfume was sometimes diagnosed as a symptom of “mild nymphomania.” … [I]n 1895, [a widow] blamed her “lascivious longings” on reading too many novels and going to too many gay parties as a young girl. It is with “the greatest difficulty that I could conduct myself in a decorous and ladylike manner in the presence of the other sex,” she lamented to her doctor, who prescribed leeches applied to the uterus and ice to the genital region.
Today, 95% of people treated for sex addiction are men, and Marty Kafka — “the reigning expert” on the subject, according to the Slate article — says there isn’t a doubt in his mind that the condition exists. Rosin suggests that in our present sex culture, which is more overtly “traditional” and “moral” than that of the ’70s, coming out as a sex addict is probably less “socially acceptable” than going to drug or alcohol rehab.
-
-
9
var feedback_widget = new GSFN.feedback_widget(feedback_widget_options);
Hi, my name is Joey and I’m a sex addict. But I’ve been cured,no it wasn’t ice or leeches on the pork sword,it was divorce attorneys!!!
I for one am glad that it’s far less acceptable for men to be rampaging sluts than it used to be. Or, at the very least, females who like sex aren’t just “loose women” anymore. It always bothered me that men who fucked a lot were just being sexy Casanovas.
^Not that being a rampaging slut is entirely bad, it just wasn’t fair that only women get the nasty reputation.
What’s wrong with being addicted to pu—y? I am happily addicted to women, too. And that,i dare say, is quite normal.leave the fucking Tiger alone.The day i stop chasing skirt,i will cut my c—k off!!!
Oh, you class act, you.
*snort*
Tiger Woods is a “sex addict”? Please. He was able to have sex with those women because A) He’s extremely wealthy and famous, B) He has the time and resources to devote to the pursuit of sex with various women.
Both Tiger and his paramours consented to these activities. What got him in trouble was that he was married, had small children, and his wife / the world found out about the extent of his activities.
End of scandal.
That’s his (Tiger’s) story and he’s sticking to it!
[...] says on “Sex Addiction: Feminist Victory?”: “I for one am glad that it’s far less acceptable for men to be rampaging sluts [...]