American Thinker: Immediately after their abusive behavior finally became public, Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey rushed off to a sex addiction clinic. Without questioning their motives, one can be justifiably skeptical about the prospect of success for such treatment. Exclusive clinics for sex addiction call to mind similar drug-rehab facilities, with their revolving doors of celebrities and jet-set clientele.
One great reason for skepticism is the fact that the psychotherapy industry itself has contributed considerably to the modern obsession with sex. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to point the finger only at psychotherapists. For a long time, Hollywood has been leading the way with its irresponsible sexual hedonism, a reality Raymond Chandler exposed seventy years ago in mystery novels like The Little Sister. Moreover, many others in the intelligentsia popularized the myth of the sexually repressed, joyless Judeo-Christian West, a concept that became a bulwark of the current widespread endorsement of sexual license.
Among our mandarins, the term “puritanical” was coined to denote an attitude of straight-laced disapproval of unbounded behavior in the sexual realm. However, anyone who thinks the Puritans were cold, inhibited, unaffectionate people ought to read the poetry of Ann Bradstreet, such as “A Letter to Her Husband,” or Jonathan Edwards’s glowing expressions of affection for his wife Sarah. Such people probably understood more about the wholesome enjoyment of sexuality than many in the creepy denizens of Hollywood and the mass media world, with their exhibitionism and excess. more here
I simply don’t buy that sex can be an “addiction”. Certainly many people, perhaps most people make foolish decisions regarding sex at some point in their lives, some of them for their entire lives. The problem isn’t an “addiction” the problem is a sociopathic view of the world.
These people aren’t “addicted to sex.”
If that’s the direction of their “treatment” it is doomed to failure.
The “clinics” teach them to mouth the proper platitudes and keep their licentiousness more properly hidden and plausible – the use of “sex therapists” and other assorted prostitutes, for instance, instead of squealing ingénues.
The result is to replace personal responsibility with the poultice of “disease” or “addiction” and get back into the game with as little (financial) loss as possible (since morality is a foreign construct).
izlamo delenda est …
Flawed notions about sex:
1. Everyone is entitled to sexual release. No, they aren’t, especially if it involves non-consensual behaviors, and this especially includes children, who are incapable of granting consent to anything.
2. Sexual behavior is healthy. No, not if it involves rape or dangerous practices. Then it’s just evil or perversion.
A rake is now called a sex addict, hell, everybody is crazy about it, most understand social mores and adjust their behaviour accordingly.
When everybody around you are a bunch of fawning sycophants your mind thinks you are special.
The entire Kennedy clan seemed to be renown for such caddish behaviour, including the lobotomized sister. Were they all addicts, or privileged in their own minds?
Bailiff, whack his peepee.
We are the goon squad and we’re coming to town. Beep beep.
They all called it “Sex”.
I called it a “Business transaction” !
Professional model who wants to be a movie star, but she’s so desperate for a shot of “man love” that she’ll “do” Harvey Weinstein in a restaurant bathroom? Sex addict.
Harvey Weinstein willing to “do” a professional model, in a restaurant bathroom, because she wants to be a movie star? Dude.
Saltpeter.
And/or castration.