One of the first celebs to attract the label was the actor Michael Douglas, who now says it was inaccurate, but the most jaw-
dropping recent case is that of Lord Laidlaw. This is what the multimillionaire Scottish peer had to say two years ago: "I
have been fighting sexual addiction for my whole adult life. I have been in therapy a number of times, but I have not worked hard enough or continuously enough on this. I should also have been stronger in resisting temp
tations." I'd say anyone who has given in excess of three million quid to the Tories is definitely in need of therapy, but the significant thing about Laidlaw's mea culpa is its timing – just as the News of the World was a
bout to reveal his attendance at parties where women apparently charged £3,000 a night for sex.
This is my problem with the notion of "sex addiction": how, exactly, does it differ from gr
eed? Isn't it about bad decision-making and a reluctance to exercise self-control? I've noticed it's often self-diagnosed by famous people whose marriages and careers are at risk, allowing them to appear as patients struggling to cope with a serious psycho-medical condition rather than shameless sexual predators. As a label, it's confused and confusing, for it's possible to have numerous sexual partners without displaying any of the symptoms of addiction or – and this is surely the point – exploiting other people.
So-called "sex addicts" often turn out to have been leading double lives, presenting themselves as uxorious husbands while seizing every sexual opportunity that comes their way. The clinic Woods has booked himself into offers courses for the spouses of sex addicts, where the title alone – "Mending a shattered heart" – makes me want to reach for the sick bag. I was hoping for tantric sex workshops at the very least, but I'll just have to make do with another bar of Green & Black's. Not that I'm greedy, you understand. My name is Joan and I'm a chocolate addict.
No comments:
Post a Comment