The Truth About Sexual Addiction
Posted by Dewan Gibson | Filed under Humor, Social Comm
Former ESPN baseball analyst Steve Phillips was on “The Today Show” to discuss his battle with sex addiction. To make a long story short the 40-something Mr. Phillips and his magnificent goatee cheated on his wife with a 22 year old production assistant (as documented when I inducted Mr. Phillips into my Player Hall of F(sh)ame).
The chubby assistant fell in love with Mr. Phillips. Out of a jealous anger she then confronted his wife by texting “We both can’t have him” and later showed up at her house. She also reached out to one of his four children via a fake identity on Facebook to get the inside scoop on the marriage. Mr. Phillips and the production assistant were both fired from ESPN. His goatee was fired a week later.
Mr. Philips is now attempting to rehabilitate his image and has completed a second go-around at the same sex addiction clinic where Tiger Woods is allegedly receiving treatment. So…to finally get to the point, this sex addiction phenomenon is starting to reek of bullshit.
For one, sexual activity is a biologically inherent trait. Males are programmed to reproduce, and exercise their chances to have a successful reproductive act. Which means having sex with women of child bearing age and appearance. Key word being the plural of woman, WOMEN.
But marriage is a social norm that tells us we should only express this reproductive trait with a woman whom you file a joint tax return. As a result you have this male conflict between biology and the desirable social norm to have a happy family life and not lose half of everything you own. Some men choose the former; some choose the latter, while others want both.
So to say Steve Phillips and Tiger Woods are sex addicts is a bit of a stretch. But they are men who share three characteristics: 1) They have options 2) They have the means and 3) They are arrogant.
An average (or even less than average) looking man with stable employment and confidence/arrogance will be attractive to a lot of women. But multiply that times 1,000 and make that same less than good looking man rich and powerful. That equals PUSSY GALORE! I know you probably didn’t learn that equation in ninth grade algebra, but it’s true. (Men + extraordinary means=options) x (arrogance)=PUSSY GALORE. For example: Bill Clinton, David Duchovny and that to a lesser extent that nigga in the club buying out the bar all have options. And they have a near unlimited amount of means. It’s a dangerous mix.
The good news is that many or most men grow out of their selfish phase and commit to an ordinary married life. But an arrogant man never leaves the selfish phase that most of us overcome in our mid to late 20’s. An arrogant man believes he DESERVES a loyal wife, a stable family, a harem of average looking women, or at least a chubby intern to mess around with.
He is also arrogant enough to believe he will never be caught. And if he is caught, he can deal with it anyway. Because in his eyes, and often in the eyes of others, HE’S THE SHIT!
This behavior often continues until the arrogant man with options and the means, is truly humbled by his behavior blowing up in his face, or simply accepts that he is not husband material—which is OK!
But until then he has no business being married, and these silly ass women have no business thinking they can change him after marriage. You can excuse his behavior by labeling it an addiction or simply see it for what it is: options, means and arrogance.
NOTE: I am not an expert in relational therapy or any associated field. However, I do hold a Master of Arts in the Easy Classes from San Diego State University. I have also conducted extensive observational and participatory research on fidelity. I have moderate options and means, but have worked hard to eliminate arrogance while maintaining confidence.
Dewan W. Gibson: Author of The Imperfect Enjoyment
7 Responses to “The Truth About Sexual Addiction”
-
Divo Says:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:38 pmI still can’t accept men’s biological need to screw as many women as possible before settling down. Most women on the other hand, want to cut to the chase, and without the need to screw as many people as possible, get serious already. Men f*ing suck!
-
Dewan Gibson Says:
February 8th, 2010 at 11:30 pmI might have overstated the biological need a bit. Now that I think about it more it’s partly social–men are encouraged to “be a man” and therefore promiscuous. I suppose women have some of the same feelings, but are shunned into thinking it’s not ladylike. Though many women don’t give a damn and just do what makes them happy. I LIKES THAT!
-
Dr. Pheelgud Says:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:56 pmbiological needs play a part, i do agree. And thankfully women and men are different biologically so they wouldn’t necessarily have the same instincts to procreate as men do. They still have their instinct in finding a suitable mate. ie one that is a good provider. (ie safety, shelter, food) which now a days can translate to confidence, money, power.
i say biology plays a definite factor but is by no means an excuse.
-
Ruby Says:
February 10th, 2010 at 5:23 amI think what happened is people heard the terminology “sex addiction” and decided to start applying it to every selfish person who couldn’t be bothered not to stray in their relationship. There are people who are nymphomaniacs, for real, and honestly it’s not this cute little thing that causes you to go out and discretely arrange a two year affair with only one woman…LMAO…like, give me a break!
People need to stop exploiting psychological and evolutionary biological theories and start taking accountability. 200,000 years ago when our instincts, rather than culture and evolved reasoning and thought processes have had the chance to mature over time maybe “it’s in our nature” would have been a reasonable argument…but unless you’re going to tell me you have less common sense and self control than a male bird (who in many species are very much monogamous) I’m gonna say its time to stop with these bullshit excuses and just man up or and be monogamous, or be single…why are you traumatizing someone else and wasting their time when divorce and separation are perfect viable options??
-
dr. pheelgud Says:
February 11th, 2010 at 3:31 ami did say it wasn’t an excuse. i was simply stating that the sexual drive is a biological trait.
Natural selection would have made it that being highly sexual is a positive trait since the more sexually active males where the ones having the most offspring. And multiply that over the course of thousands of years and you have the genetic traits of a majority of the men that inhabit this planet. now if you wanna wait a few more thousand years you may see the effect of people having exercised self control and limiting themselves to a small number of kids / a more controlled sexual libido. We can see how that affects the sexual tendencies of those generations.It is a completely valid point to attribute high libido with evolution. However people decide to handle their social interactions is a completely different matter.
On a side note I find it quite annoying when people use non-relevant examples when trying to prove their point. What does a bird have to do with our genetic traits? If you mean to show how birds developed that trait through evolution bec. Having both parents around kept their offspring alive more often then maybe it makes sense, although it doesn’t seem to back up your statement. And perhaps you just meant in a reference to the term “bird brain” which might have been a good way to sum up your statement.
*edit* 200,000 years ago? It was only 10,000 years ago humans were still living in a hunter / gather setting. Even if you were just exaggerating please don’t use it as a way to emphasize your argument.
-
Ruby Says:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:19 am@ dr. pheelgud
First of all let me just clarify that in no way was my comment directed to you, nor was it a direct response to your comment. In fact, the things that I wrote about came to mind while I was reading the actual post itself.Secondly, while I could care less what you find annoying or not, I think I’ll actually address all the ways in which you directly attacked my comment. First of all, I was actually speaking of some species of bird whose males normally are not monogamous. They have found that if these birds are in an environment where there is little lodging, safe nesting opportunities, higher risk of mortality (poisoned food, predators, etc.) that these birds will spontaneously become monogamous in their behaviour to ensure that their eggs and therefore offspring will survive. (check your sources before you decide to attack somebody and their reasoning, by the way…you may find that they are slightly more intelligent and well-versed on the subject than you may have thought). While you may STILL think this is irrelevant, I would say that in times where jobs, shelter, quality food, access to healthcare, many many risks to our health which can easily be acquired via contact with others, like H1N1, HIV, STI’s, and any other viral infection, that these would be times when it would make sense to find yourself someone to settle down with and create a solid foundation to ensure that your offspring will grow and live and reproduce themselves.
Further to that point, as I’m sure you are well aware of, our reasoning centres are far more complex and advanced than every other species that has one. Considering that birds can override their selected traits in desperate times without the benefit of cultural transmission (the news, word of mouth, history books, the internet), I would think that with all the additional resources that humans have at their disposal to aid them in making decisions, that they would be able to reign in their biological needs, especially if it would aid in their overall reproductive success (success meaning not just how many babies you make, but how many of them go on to have healthy little ones of their own, and how many).
If you still fail to see how this is relevant, please, email me classicruby@rogers.com, and I can further explain myself, but this is a blog, and while I do know what I’m talking about, I read (and comment) on blogs for fun.
And lastly, I can over-exaggerate as much as I want to. In fact, it’s something I like to do specifically to illustrate my general point. If I had been writing a formal essay, or I was trying to deliver more than my general opinion on Dewan’s post, I might have bothered to be more specific. But quite frankly I think the general point was understood. And if you don’t understand where someone is coming from, ask questions, don’t get on your high horse and put on your judging hat, because lord knows how entirely skewed, misguided, or just plain wrong your assumptions may be.
SMDH. People are allowed to have, and express, their own opinions how they so choose. Sorry (no I’m not, it’s just a saying, I didn’t MEAN the sorry literally…just wanted to clarify) if the way I choose to express mine bothers you.
-
Dewan Gibson Says:
February 15th, 2010 at 11:48 pmI’m reading over the sexual addiction comments now. I have little to add besides…damn! Grudge match! :) Thanks for commenting.
