Sex Addict Or Scumbag?

Every week or two, it seems, there is a new scandal dealing with sexual misconduct. From allegations about the president, admissions by sports giants, billionaire businessmen, politicians, or heroes of stage and screen, we’re confronted by sexual conduct that is both abhorrent and frequently, but not always, signals the end of a career for the accused, not to mention gut-wrenching, life-changing trauma for the survivors. The frequency with which VIPS and celebrities are involved in these sex scandals suggests that power and status play a large role for these individuals regarding their actions, but that's a topic for another time. Right now, I want to address the regularity which these perpetrators claim “sexual addiction” and check themselves into an inpatient treatment center for help. There is also usually an outcry that the person is a scumbag, not a person with a disorder, and that it is pure cop-out to claim otherwise. There then frequently follows a long discussion about whether there is such a thing as sexual addiction.

We think there are people who have lost control over their sexual behavior.
We also think there are scumbags. Is there a difference? Is there a way to tell the difference?

Those are tough questions, but there are some guiding principles we can use. For starters, let’s compare this question to that of excessive drinking. We know for certain that a person who is drunk has reduced judgment for both thoughts and actions, reduced social inhibitions, and slowed reflexes. We also know if a person, due to being drunk, commits a crime, let’s say domestic abuse or vehicular homicide, that the courts will find him/her responsible for the crime, regardless of the existence of a mind-altering, behavior-changing condition brought about by alcohol. Whether that person is addicted to alcohol or not is not considered in determining guilt or innocence. He did harm, he’s guilty. The explanation, “But Judge, I was drunk, I didn’t know what I was doing, and in fact, I’m an alcoholic,” does not result in the judge saying: “Oh, why didn’t you say so? Case dismissed.”

Does s/he nonetheless need treatment? Well, of course, depending upon his/her drinking profile, anything from simple education through intense alcohol counseling, with or without medication. But that doesn’t alter the fact that he is responsible for the damage he caused.

Is he a scumbag? Hey, I’m a therapist. I usually don’t think in those terms. But, in everyday life, a person who has a drinking problem and totally ignores, denies, or rationalizes it, in spite of changes in aggressiveness, in spite of knowing full well that drunk people should not drive, is certainly pushing the envelope, if not qualifying for the term.

Some argue that the comparison of sex addiction and alcoholism is not accurate because sexual excess is not brought about by a substance. It’s purely behavioral and therefore the perpetrator deserves even less consideration than the drunk driver.

Well, not so fast. We know that many many people form negative habits that are very difficult to break, including gambling and several forms of sexual excess. Neuroscientists are telling us that chemical and behavioral habits or addictions all are mediated through the nucleus accumbens, part of the so-called “pleasure circuit” of the brain, and all are dependent upon the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine. While we don’t know if a chemical addiction and a behavioral addiction share all of the same neurological underpinnings, we know that there are many that are shared. The distinction between “chemical” and “behavioral” may not be relevant in the long run.

Here’s our bottom line: A person with a negative habit, whether chemical or behavioral, is responsible for the harm he/she causes from that habit. It is his/her responsibility to seek treatment to address and remedy the problem, and it is his/her responsibility to avoid harming others while the habit is still in place. It doesn’t matter what the underlying mechanism is that is controlling the habit. What matters is that the individual accepts his/her responsibility right now, before any more damage is done.

So maybe the definition of scumbag is somebody with a habit who recognizes but ignores it, who disregards how it affects others, or who stops trying to fix it, and who refers to it as an excuse to avoid blame instead of as a problem s/he needs to accept and resolve.

.