Defining the Difference

Sexual addiction is a real thing that affects many men in our country. There are probably a few dozen, at least! Props to these guys for dealing with a very serious struggle. For the rest of us, I'm increasingly confident that what the world shames men for as "addictive behaviors" is really the product of starvation of an important biological imperative. Of course, one can't discern between an addiction and starvation until their desire has been sated.

For example, a true glutton is addicted to food. This is, unsurprisingly, quite common even under the very relaxed psychological standards that try to avoid labeling people as "food addicts." Here's what it really boils down to, though:

  • The addict will keep on eating even after he is full.

  • The starved person will stop eating once he has been filled.

The same is true for any other biological imperative, including our sexuality.

Many of you may know my background as a Christian. One thing the church is great at doing is shaming men for their sexuality. I can't count the number of men who have told me, "I'm a sex addict," as some big confession for which they're looking for my cure. I'd ask them about their behaviors and it would line up - they'd be thinking about sex constantly, be watching porn constantly, fantasizing about all kinds of things that their wives would never do with them, cheating on their wives, etc. I always ask two questions after I hear their confession: How often do you have sex with your wife? And is it good sex or duty sex? Sure enough, "We have sex about once a month, and it's usually duty sex." Hmm ...

These men, and countless others, are controlled by their sexual desires - but they are not addicted. They are merely unfulfilled. This distinction matters.


Why This Matters

We want sex. That's a good thing. Society tells women it's a good thing and that they should embrace their sexuality. For fun, I googled "women should embrace their sexuality." The results are pretty expected: 10 straight links of encouragement to women to embrace their sexuality. This is a good result. I like it. What if I change it to "men should embrace their sexuality"? I get 1 link shaming men for being toxic and blaming male-kind for school shootings (?!?), 1 link that encourages male sexuality, 2 links about the "masculine" in a BDSM relationship, and 6 links telling women to embrace their sexuality. Surprisingly, despite my search history, none of the manosphere blogs came up. I changed the search again to ask: "is male sexuality good or evil?" I get 6 links shaming male sexuality, 1 link encouraging male sexuality, 2 links shaming male use of porn, and 1 link of sex tips.

In short, if a man misunderstands his own sexual desire as an addiction rather than a starvation, he's likely to buy into the lies that society feeds him, making it harder for him to swallow the pill and embrace some of the best parts of being a man. If society can convince men that their mentality about sex is a disorder, then those men will be compelled to look for a cure. And believe me, there are countless people selling all kinds of "cures" - from physical pills to psychological strategies, and even philosophical ideals that advance someone else's agenda.

People as a whole are easily suggestible. If someone tells you, "You're fat," even if we know it's objectively wrong, some part of us will wonder if there is any truth in the statement. Likewise, if someone says, "You have a problem. I have something that could really help you with that," we're most often curious. If the world tries to tell you you're a "sex addict," at some point you'll probably question whether or not they're right. This type of questioning is good, but the suggestion often lends itself to a particular conclusion. That's why attorneys always ask leading questions on cross-examination: because when you suggest a conclusion that doesn't seem far-fetched, people are more inclined to agree, and this often even changes a person's internal memory and point of reference on the issue once they have a present verbalization of assent to a concept that really should have gone the other way. But let's not get too sidetracked on that point, as I'm probably preaching to the choir.


What To Do?

I remember the days where I attempted to suppress my sexuality altogether. I just wrote my story on r/RPChristians, if you want to read more about it, but the TL;DR of the relevant part is that my wife reasonably didn't want to have sex with me, but her and the church shamed me for use of porn, leaving me with no sexual outlet at all. I was told I was addicted to sex because of how frequently I was using porn at one point. Once I embraced the fact that I was sex starved and not sex addicted, things started changing.

For one, my internal desire for sex is now easily sated. Shortly after discovering RP I would engage in mental masturbation, getting excited about all the sex I would have once I was "man enough." Of course, the time soon came when I could have sex on demand. I found that I no longer wanted it as often as I thought I would when I was in my starved state. I remember fasting for a week once. When the hunger truly set in all I could think about was how much I would eat when the fast was over. Then the fast ended. I loaded up my plate with all kinds of goodies ... then ate half of it and went off to do something else. That doesn't mean I don't want sex anymore - I certainly do. Rather, it means that I can now enjoy my sexuality to the brim and appreciate it for what it is without an insatiable desire that forced me to pedestalize that which could momentarily appease me.

Second, once my desire for sex was sated, I was no longer controlled by my wife's sexuality. This meant that I was now free in my marriage to do what I wanted to do, and when I wanted to do it. If I wanted to have sex, I'd have sex. If I wanted to go to the gym, I'd go to the gym. If I wanted to do something to advance my mission, I'd do that too. My life became mine to control because I no longer demanded her supply; she supplied on my demand ... or more accurately nowadays, I am the supply that she's demanding, and I make sure I'm a commodity she doesn't get or see anywhere else - especially among the other church men.

Third, once I was no longer controlled by my wife's sexuality, she became controlled by mine. Because I didn't need her in order to be happy and fulfilled, the balance of power shifted, per Rollo's Cardinal Rule of Relationships: The person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. When I didn't need to bend to her will, she bent to mine - and she was happier for it.

As I've noted on RPC often before, women are empaths - and that subject deserves a post of its own. But the basic concept is simply that when a man sacrifices his own happiness for the sake of his wife, she empathically experiences his unhappiness alongside of him and it makes the relationship miserable. When the man pursues his own happiness, even at the expense of his wife's interests, she empathically experiences his happiness alongside him, and it makes the relationship enjoyable for both of them.


Conclusion

Don't pedestalize your sexuality anymore than you pedestalize your wife. Believing society's lie that all men are sex-craved maniacs leaves a power of suggestion that you'd be better off rejecting - and not because you want to prove a counter-point (that you're not a "sex-craved maniac"), but because you have a healthy point of origin about why you crave sex in the first place.

ONEitis is dangerous, whether the object of your affection is a tangible woman or a sexual ideology. If you find yourself sexually hungry, don't become obsessed with your hunger. Accept that either you're not in a time of feasting and embrace the fast (monk mode) or go have sex and curb your appetite. Either way, by re-framing your thinking away from an addictive mentality and toward a regulated (not restrained) desire can give you a greater sense of control in how you express your sexuality, which both improves your attractive draw and ultimately makes you more satisfied as a man.