It states that the criteria for the diagnosis is rooted in whether or not said addiction causes problems in the life of the afflicted person, which I feel is the only real viable way to determine if the diagnosis is justified.

Does this mean all of us have a sexual addiction? Seriously though, I wonder what new drugs and medical procedures will now be proposed to line medical and pharmaceutical pockets, thereby supposedly alleviating our "problem?" I am a cynic when it comes to western medical practices. (Carefully putting the soapbox in the closet and shutting the door so I don't trip  on the way to the bathroom, later tonight).

The inaccurate term "addiction", which has a different clinical definition, was carefully avoided by the DSM5 Work Group.

Klein's team at UCLA did good work, but more remains to be done - that is why the proposed "Hypersexual Disorder" will only make it into Section 3 in DSM5, due out next May.  Perhaps we will see it in DSM6 or later, but that is still many years out.

We are mindful of the obligation to not pathologize normal behavior, as happened with homosexuality in DSM1 and DSM2 (this was corrected with DSM3, which dates back to 1987).

I have a few problems with the linked article:

The proposed criteria are careful to refer to excessive behaviors, but the article gives the impression that behaviors which do not meet this threshold will be sufficient to warrant the diagnosis.

The article does not convey clearly enough to the layperson that the Klein study was intended only to test the use of the
proposed diagnostic criteria to identify patients who self-described as primarily seeking help for problematic sexual behaviors, rather than for other types of problems.  It also says that the predictive positive accuracy rate was 93%, when in fact it was 88%.  It was the negative predictive rate which was 93%.

Your main point, that the diagnosis should never be warranted (if it should ever make it into the "official" main body of a future DSM, rather than just into just Section 3) unless the behaviors are causing problems in the person's life, is a good point.  Also, the criteria that the person must have made unsuccessful attempts to stop the behavior, should be a necessary criteria.

-- Modified on 10/26/2012 2:02:22 PM

if i want to get laid..i get laid..i just dont have time to wonder why..

Th scientific definition is wanting to have sex more than I do.

Very well put, Miss Cary Rose, you doll.

And how about for the ladies and their involvement as providers? When is it just a business decision for them (economic necessity or economically lucrative and advantageous) versus enjoying/"over enjoying" their work - sex? Or are all providers expected to disassociate all their feelings/emotions all the time from their clients and their work lest they be labeled hypersexuals as enjoying and participating in sex too much?
How might some providers be defined as having hyposexual disorder? Might they be defined as those with less/fewer boundaries who put themselves and their clients at risk? As those who allow/indulge in anal sex? Who offer BBBJ vice CBJ? Who offer BBFS (unprotected vaginal sex) and/or unprotected anal sex? Where is the line between just being risky for sexual pleasure as compared to offering more to be more competitive in the business? In other words, when would such behavior constitute hypersexual disorder versus plain old greed? Or might both coexist? In addition to boundaries and what services providers might offer, how about their enthusiasm level and how often they work, or how many clients a provider may see in a given day? Again, when is it just greed versus overacting out a sexual disorder? And, even how we use the term "greed" gives it a negative, pejorative meaning. At what point does wanting to be successful and making lots of money, for whatever reason(s), become bad? In the provider profession, what and where is that crossing of the line from success/greed to hypersexuality disorder?
Our own common sense and experiences and observations may give us a gut feeling answer to this, but it is really
subjective and would likely vary from individual to individual. Just my thoughts, but I think it would make for some interesting research in an area of interest to all of us.

Glad you liked it Buscador. I've always been a doll, even a mature one.

When you got to the word, "greed", I was wondering where you were going, but you clarified it for me nicely. I don't see how anyone could possibly take all of us and lump us into a few categories. Too many variables.