If you didn’t kick your habit by learning coping methods or self-control skills, then how DID you manage it? If you learned things from AA members, then more power to you. Great! 12-step groups serve a social purpose for sure. But there’s no magic answer there that can’t be found from your church or other social group.
Additionally, the OP questioned the legitimacy of calling a certain addiction a disease. Twelve-steppers hold the strange position that addictions ARE diseases, that they are ONLY treated by using the 12-steps, and that using medication to treat any underlying mental illness that might lend itself to compulsive behavior is suspect at best.
Great, so I have a disease, but can’t treat it with medicine, only by “making ammends,” admitting my flaws to god, and praying to have them removed. If only that approach worked for cancer.
As the OP put it, we see “12 steps and other dubious treatments” for this disease because the disease itself has been appropriated by a religion. The 12-step program was created by a group of people who broke off from the Oxford Group (a religion) to found their own group (a slightly different religion). In the real world, church groups don’t determine which things are diseases and which aren’t. And in the real world, churches don’t treat disease.
Just like any other dubious treatment, people instantly start shouting that it worked for them or for someone they know. The same can be said for fortune tellers, faith healers, and other charlatains. The fact that people claim by their own experience that it works, does not mean a thing. It only means you thought that’s what worked for you.
AA’s own research shows that 6 months after beginning to attend meetings, only 5% remain in 12-step programs. (And there’s no proof that that 5% is sober.) Spontaneous remission stops alcoholism in its tracks 5% of the time. So 12-step treatment is no more effective (and possibly less effective) than NO treatment. If it WAS a disease cure, the FDA would certainly not allow people to take a drug with that level of efficacy.
OK, KnitWit, I think I finally see where you’re coming from. If I understand, it’s that AA, a non-medical entity, proclaims that alcoholism is a disease, and that this disease can be treated with the 12-step program. This seems to be contrary to other diseases such as diabetes. In addition, AA’s program seems to be no more successful than no treatment at all. Is that correct?
I’m no expert on AA (although 95% recidivism after AA seems a bit high. Could you supply a cite?). As far as the disease aspect: I always considered that a useful metaphor, although there’s others that would consider alcoholism a true disease. I don’t know, and don’t really have a dog in that particular fight. However, saying that alcoholism is not necessarily a) a moral lapse or b) a failure of will was useful to me. If it’s not either of those, than what is it? “Disease” seems to be as good a descriptor as any. (Hell, it seems that every five years I seem to read some article proclaiming a medical cure for alcoholism is right around the corner. So far, it’s right up there with the jet packs and lunar vacations.) Again, this applies only to what I found useful. And it worked for me.
Now, since I don’t really know whether sexual addiction is a disease or not, I’ll return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Unfortunately, the information there is attributed to original sources, however, I can’t find the original sources directly. I hate that.
I have seen the study that AA did in the 1980s in which they found the rate of people who remain in 12-step programs. It’s difficult to find, possibly since the 12-steppers are not proud of it. That research indicated that only 5% of AA attendees continued to attend after 6 months. I do not believe though, that leaving a 12-step program means failure in your endeavors. Not any more than remaining in the program necessarily indicates success. 95% of the original attendees may have gone off and found something that worked better for them or quit on their own.
For other interesting information on the subject, look up George Vaillant who has done experiments on alcoholic behavior using AA attendees. He was a pro-12-stepper who proved a good chunk of the 12-step “facts” were simply wrong., i.e. that consuming alcohol in small quantities didn’t make alcoholics lose control and drink as much as they could. If they were told their drinks didn’t contain alcohol, they weren’t any more interested in them than the control group.
I don’t think we can say whether sex addiction is a disease. There are most assuredly brain chemicals involved and maybe people who can’t control their sexual impulses have some sort of imbalance there. But telling people it’s a disease doesn’t work very well for chemical dependents and it probably won’t work for sex addicts.
I’m not KnitWit, but I have issues with sexual compulsivity, so I’ll take a stab at identifying reasons for vitriol against 12-step programs. At least where I live, I was unable to find an SA meeting that was not overtly religious; every one of them I tried began and ended with a prayer. I also disliked, distrust, and disapprove of the notion of powerlessness the 12 Steps foster. Here’s a list of them:
I found steps 1, 2, 6, & 7, in particular, to be extraordinarily unhelpful, and in fact counter-productive, because they diminish the role of my own responsiblility for my acts.
I won’t address whether sexual addiction is a “disease,” partly because I don’t feel qualified, partly because I don’t care. Sexual addiction is, however, a real affliction that requires a great deal of effort and support to overcome.
Well put; people do debate over whether to label as “disease” a case of addictive behavior where there exists a compulsive conduct but not a direct physiological dependency (e.g. gambling/sex vs. heroin/tobacco/etc.), but IMO that should have more to do with the definition of “disease” (e.g. is it truly “disease” if the “treatment” is something like 12-step?). Someone really addicted is beyond merely being weak-willed or unconcerned with consequences.
And yes, in the case of “sex addiction” it is so often overused as a lame excuse that the concept of it as an actual behavioral disorder has become debased, but it so happens sex is one of those behaviors that CAN become pathologically compulsive.
(Y’know, this is sort of an odd parallel to debates had in the past on the SDMB as to whether celibacy would not have “unhealthy” effects…)
This makes me think of a related question on the topic. Twelve step mantra demands abstinence. Strangely enough, Overeaters Anonymous slaps the label “abstinent” on you if you’re eating their prescribed diet (which is outrageously strict and impossible to follow in the real world, btw). But you can’t really be abstinent from food.
I wonder what the requirement is for being “abstinent” from sex. I mean, obviously if it’s not causing you problems anymore then you’ve got it under control, like with eating disorders. But I wonder what a 12-stepper would consider “abstinent from sex.” No more than once a day? Three times a week? Only with one person?
The prayer bit says something to the effect of God as you understand him to be. I personally carried a small bar of quartz in my pocket, simply to illustrate, to me, that order can arise from chaos. But you are welcome to continue to condemn, without real reason, an organization that has done an enormous amount of good for an enormous amount of people; I’m sure you have superior insight and the fact that my personal experience as well as several other members of this board contradicts what you say means that our recoveries were flukes. I wish this thread was in the pit but I’m too lazy to put one there.
I’m not a 12-stepper, and my support group doesn’t preach abstinence from sex. We support being abstinent from compulsive, abusive, and self-destructive sex, which sometimes means different things. For some of us it means no prostitutes; for others it means no flirting; for others it means no pornography. I think only one person in our group means to never again have sex in her life.