idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
By all means, continue to call a relatively normal behavior an addiction if it means you can overreact and discuss all the dangers of a leader with a compulsive disorder.
A. It's not relatively normal behavior. If it was, there wouldn't be any uproar over it.
B. Regardless of what we call it, when someone continues to engage in behavior that has proved harmful to them in the past, it shows that they have some kind of problem stopping doing that behavior. Call it compulsion, addiction, or whatever, it's still indicates a problem with Weiner in that one thing he likes to do (sending sexually explicit pictures and texts) is interfering with his ability to do something else he wants to do (run for and hold public office).
To just assume Weiner belongs to that group with the amount of information we have is absurd. Even taking the facts we have now - that he has been continuing to send nude pictures of himself to women - into account, the amount of evidence you'd need to make anything approaching a reasonable inductive leap to sexual compulsion is immense.
Um... Regardless of what we call it, he clearly has a problem stopping engaging in behavior that is harmful to him professionally, even after already being caught and suffering a serious harmful effect (loss of job). We can quibble over the exact terminology, but it doesn't change that basic fact. Changing the label you use doesn't change what something is.
You obviously don't have to believe me here, but this actually is the field I work in.
And? What useful course of action should Weiner pursue here then? Because insisting that the rest of the world change itself to suit him isn't likely to work.
He could still be an exhibitionist. But it's not a compulsion. They are not linked.
Of course they aren't. I'm also not the one who even mentioned exhibition initially. I called what he's did a compulsion because it appears he's unable to not do it. What the **** definition do you use for compulsion, Mr. "This is the field I work in"? I mean, if we assume his past outcome as a direct result of his behavior is something he wants to avoid, he has two courses of action:
1. Don't pursue a career in a field in which that behavior will result in the negative outcome.
2. Stop the behavior.
He's chosen to pursue the same career, while still engaging in the same behavior the caused negative career effects before. So yeah, I think there's something wrong with someone who can't see that this is a problem. Whatever you want to call it, it's a problem. And it's a problem with *him*, not everyone else.
Exhibitionism is a relation to what is seen as a normal expression of sexuality, not to whether or not such an expression is something you MUST do. Even if it's something you must do to receive sexual relief, that's still not grounds for ruling it a compulsion.
I never said that exhibitionism and compulsion are one and the same. ****. I didn't even call what he was doing exhibitionism in the first place. I agree, that there are elements of that to what he's doing, but as I've said before, we have no way of knowing for sure what his motivations are, or what he gets out of this. What we can say for sure is that what he's doing is something that he enjoys doing. So much so that he is continuing to do so even when it's harmful to his chosen career.
That's the angle I'm looking at. Hence, why I said at the very beginning that it indicates a lack of self control on his part. Was that wrong? I don't think so. Edited, Jul 26th 2013 4:28pm by gbaji