User talk:Nlikes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Nlikes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Carnes and his opponents[edit]

Hi! Thank you for information about Dr. Ley’s The Myth of Sex Addiction. The book seems very interesting. Besides, it contains a useful bibliography. Many thanks indeed!

And yet I had to correct your style in the article about Patrick Carnes. As for your disagreement, I understand you very well. Psychiatry is not an exact science in which peace and harmony reign. Your DSM is very different from Russian classifications which, in turn, differ from psychiatric approaches in other countries. Agreement among leading spokesmen of psychiatry is not as often as in other medical disciplines. Not surprisingly, Dr. Carnes’s model draws sharp criticism, and many experts consider it a misconception. There are a lot of objections that can be raised against his hypothesis. So you’re pointing out a real fact that his opinion has not become a generally accepted doctrine. But we are to avoid value-laden labels (alleged sexual addiction, “a self-proclaimed expert” etc.), with your personal disagreement being an original research here.

Personally, I can’t agree with some of Dr. Carnes’s principal propositions, too. First and foremost, his model capitalizes on the mistaken idea in which he himself and his opponents are similar, viz., demarcation between normal and pathological sexual behaviours is presupposed to be possible. Yu. Nesterenko justly notes (IMHO) that the sexual impulse itself is an addiction, so that sex addiction comes into any act of sexual relations. From this point of view, every sexual contact expresses a disease, normal sexual behaviour being merely a chimera. In contrast to Nesterenko and other proponents of Antisexual Movement, Carnes limits sexual addiction to particular sexual manifestations. Like his opponents, he believes that sexuality — though amenable to dysfunctions — is a normal need of human organism. And that is the basic fault underlying not only his conception, but also arguments of his critics. I have been profoundly convinced that the sexual impulse is a mental illness. Nevertheless, this conviction of mine does not allow me to make personal attacks on those who do not share the stance of antisexualism. The same can seemingly be said of your style in the article about P. Carnes, even though you prefer Dr. Ley’s position to that of Carnes. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)