I guess my question is how would they find out?
If you wonder if you aren’t skinny enough, you are.
You do realize you have just voiced the attitude that causes most people to avoid therapy, don’t you?
Yep.
It’s also the attitude that should be driving those in need toward therapy but, unfortunately, it’s not.
And as to the drinking um…
yeah…
you don’t have to drink at all to be an alcoholic, or at least exibit some of the symptoms and have some of the personal problems. So “I don’t drink” or “I don’t drink that much” or “I don’t drink alone that often” or “I don’t drink like I used to anymore” doesn’t really hold water.
Sorry.
Sorry for what? I already said I periodically review my behavior for any sign - the teensiest sign - of alcoholic tendencies. So far, the answer’s always been “nope, not present, okay.” Where did I say anything about basing my answer on the quantity or frequency of my drinking alone?
Unless you’re trying to say that because I suffer depressive episodes I must be a dry drunk. That’d be interesting logic, since my first diagnosis came about more than 7 years before I had a drink. Can one logically be an alcoholic, even a dry drunk, if she’s never had a drink? Or should we just assume that, logically, my depression is not caused by any sort of alcoholism, dry or wet, but by something else?
Are there any behaviors that AA won’t attribute to alcoholism?
I don’t mean to insinuate anything specific about anybody, just pointing to a few flags, as always IANAP & YMMV. Many, many apologies if I came off judgemental.
But for your questions, yes someone can be an alcoholic (a dry drunk) without ever touching a drop. By definition a dry drunk exhibits a lack of sobriety without the presence of alcohol, it does not mention that alcohol is a necessary precursor.
Oh, and put your finger on the side of your neck, right there by your artery. Feel that throbbing? That could be a warning sign right there.
Alcohol use is often a symptom of depression rather than a cause, again YMMV.
For one, I disagree with your statement that thinking there may be a problem = problem: that just seems indefensible to me.
Your linked definition says that a ‘dry drunk’ is an alcoholic who no longer drinks but still exhibits alcoholic tendencies. So that means that you need to be an alcoholic first. And I’ve never seen a definition of alcoholism that doesn’t define it as something along the lines of “drinking a lot despite Bad Things happening due to drinking.”
So according to medical and psychiatric professionals (not Alcoholics Anonymous), yes you do need to drink, repeatedly and at the expense of some other facet(s) of your life, to be an alcoholic.
Perhaps you have a mental illness, perhaps not. If it doesn’t affect your life in any negative way then why seek treatment? In my laymans view I would equate it to a guy with HPV. In almost every case, the HPV will have no negative effect on him. So while he does objectively have a condition, he will only seek treatment on those rare occasions when a problem arises.
If it’s causing you issues, get help, otherwise my opinion is why bother?
And if Warty McWartington has unprotected sex with someone what happens?
My point is, if someone suspects a problem, at least enough of a suspicion to voice it internally if not publicly, then there is something wrong. In one of my early group therapy sessions the councelor noted that sane people don’t normally go around wondering if they’ve got a mental illness.\
Perhaps HPV guy has no idea anythings wrong, but at even the slightest suspicion I think it would be wise to, at the very least, get some sort of evaluation when the red flags start popping up (even if it is only one very small red flag). What is not a problem today may be life altering tomorrow and by then it could be too late.
The link you provided has one fatal omission, which renders the info there worse then useless. The listed behavior (withdrawing/acting out, etcetera), which is of course so common it applies to nearly everyone at some point, has to be behavior the person didn’t exhibit before they had some life-altering event happen in their life.
The official guide to mental disorders, DSM IV, words it more carefully:
From the OP, it appears she has felt like this all her life, and that she can’t point out some experience after which “everything changed”.
“Professionals” in the mental health field aren’t oracles any more then you or me. I have seen, first hand, their opinions on the same patient differ wildly, so what does that say about their supposed infallibility?
Wouldn’t this be more accurately described not as someone who is an alcoholic, but someone who exhibits symptoms of a condition that is similar to alcoholism? I just don’t see how someone who has never drank a drop in their life can be considered an alcoholic … it’s in the name! It just seems that we have discovered enough mental abnormalities that we don’t have to rely on applying existing conditions to all other conditions with slightly similar symptoms, particularly when the most basic aspect of those conditions isn’t met.
In the case of someone who exhibits a lack of sobriety without the presence of alcohol (despite never having drank alcohol), I would suggest that any alcoholism that follows is merely a result of an existing condition rather than the other way around. In this case, alcoholism would be a symptom of a wider reaching problem rather than the cause of a problem that existed beforehand.
But then I could be misinterpreting your statement.