By Christian
In an interview a few years back on Late Night with Conan O’Brien, comedian Russell Brand addressed the possibility of his own sex addiction, saying, “I mean, yeah, it’s possible I’m a sex addict. But then, maybe I just really like boobies! How can you tell?”
We live in a society that is plagued with addiction. Alcohol, drugs, smoking, sex, and gambling are the some of the more common ones. Treatment centers and programs are everywhere, and yet the most popular answer to addiction in our day and age, by everyone from parents to professionals and from both a preventive and curative standpoint, seems to be abstinence. But what if abstinence isn’t the answer we seem to think it is? What if abstinence is part of the problem?
A psychology professor named Daniel M. Wegner wrote a book called White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts. In it he details a study he performed in which he instructs his subjects not to think about white bears for five minutes while they speak out loud everything that comes to their mind. He asks them to ring a bell if they speak about or think of a white bear. Of course, you already know the results. (You’re probably even trying not to think about a white bear right now. . . and failing!) Most people couldn’t escape thinking about a white bear. Some would even unintentionally utter the words “white bear” while thinking out loud! One of his conclusions is that the more we try not to do something, the more time we spend monitoring ourselves for failure. In other words, our subconscious is actually looking for a white bear in our thoughts. The harder we try not to think about a white bear, the more we think about it!
Well, what if telling someone they can never partake of something again is akin to telling someone not to think about a white bear? Or not to think about boobies? (Seriously, do not think about them right now, I mean it.)
Especially when it comes to more taboo subjects, the whole reverse psychology thing rarely works. Most of us have tried to use it at one point or another. If you’re a parent, then you definitely have. Parents, especially of young children, use it often because it’s effective. Its efficacy on young children shows us that the desire to do what we’re told not to do is a part of human nature, even at our earliest stages. As we mature, we may outgrow the susceptibility to simple “reverse psychology” tricks and we may master our self-control a bit better, but how often does being told not to do something accomplish the opposite of the intended effect? Much like walking past a lawn with a sign that says, “Don’t walk on the grass!”, and your first thought is, “I wasn’t even thinking about walking on your grass, but now I am. We’ll see if your damn sign can stop me!” Ok, maybe everyone doesn’t experience this to the same degree as I do, but I believe it’s fairly common.
Add this subconscious monitoring of ourselves for failure (producing a focus on what we’re trying not to focus on) to the fact that we have an innate desire to do what we’re told not to; throw in mankind’s penchant for trying to exert control over people with rule upon rule, and you have a recipe for disaster. We may be in even more trouble if you throw in that many of us are aware that “forbidden fruit tastes sweeter.”
There’s an old Latin phrase that says abusus non tollit usum, which literally means that “abuse does not take away use” (a better rendering would be, “the abuse of something does not eliminate the proper use of it”). We live in an age of isms and disorders, where everything seems to be a disease. People have eating disorders, they’re addicted to shopping, they’re chocoholics. Well, perhaps if we were to find some middle ground between indulgence and abstinence, we could avoid such pathologies? Maybe if we ceased demonizing certain questionable practices and forbidding them so strongly, they would lose their allure?
In a word, maybe if I’m allowed to think about boobies some of the time, I’ll stop thinking about them all of the time?
Interesting piece. I would wonder, though, where the line is? Is it legit to say, “If I prohibit my 16 year-old son from snorting blow, it’s just going to make him want it more, so I’ll leave it up to him,” or, “My 14 year-old daughter is going to have sex regardless, so I may as well accept it and teach her about birth control.”
Curious to hear your thoughts on that.
If you have a 16 year old who’s snorting blow and a 14 year old daughter sleeping around, then there are probably some deeper issues.
I get the question you’re asking though, and my point of view would just be that there’s not a hard line, that it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution, and to use common sense. Most 16 year olds aren’t wanting to snort blow and most 14 year old girls aren’t wanting to have sex (14 year old boys – different story), so it’s not usually an issue. If it is an issue, I’m not sure forbidding it is going to help at that point.
I would apply this more to things that are somewhat common and excepted and have a proper use associated with them. If someone has an eating disorder, we don’t tell them that they can’t ever have food again. No, we teach them how to not abuse food. However, if someone has an alcohol problem, the answer always seems to be abstinence, not rehabilitation.
As a parent of teenagers, I don’t teach my kids that abstinence is the most important thing. I teach them that proper use is the most important thing.
I like where you’re heading with the piece. With our Fundamentalist backgrounds EVERYTHING was forbidden. I still catch myself feeling tremendously guilty for things I haven’t done, but only thought about! As we got older (and wiser) we realized most of what was forbidden was done so by the church and not God. When my husband teaches about legalism, he always refers to Eve in the garden when she’s tempted by the serpent, “…’but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree…neither shall you touch it.'” God never told Adam not to touch it, just not to eat it. Adam tacked on the little bit when he told Eve, just to make sure she really kept away. We all know what happened.
To continue in a biblical vein, Paul even says that “all things are lawful, although not all are profitable,” he also encouraged Timothy to drink in moderation, opposed to forbidding the act altogether. I think there are things that are clearly laid out for followers of Christ, that are not right, but when they are hammered into out hearts as an eternal cause of separation between us and God, opposed to forgivable acts coverable by sin, they are a snare and an obsession.
For those who don’t hold to biblical guild lines in their lives, they still have common sense and hopefully, self-respect. I may have strayed from your point a bit Christian.
Jason, to answer you question, I believe the key in guiding our kids is communication – giving them reasons for our rules, but grace when they mess up. I’ve told my daughter there are a couple things her father and I don’t want her to do. So, when she does them she comes home and talks to me about it. I’d rather have that, then her trying to hide everything from me because she thinks I’ll judge her. Or worse, try to hide everything from God because she’s convinced her sin changes His love for her.
I like boobies too.
“Well, perhaps if we were to find some middle ground between indulgence and abstinence, we could avoid such pathologies?”
A fine re-statement of Aristotle’s “mean of virtue”. The key principle for detrminging where the line should be drawn entails having a deep grasp of the various capacities of human nature and considering when excess or defect (i.e. indulgence or abstinence)in action or use of things begins to undermine human flourishing by suppressing human capacities. That is the principle. Its practical application will, of course, differ among persons due to paticular constitutions, circumstances, etc. – but within a concrete range. For instance, getting wasted on beer or brandy is an excess which shuts down one’s capacity to reason (which is a unique and profound human capacity). On the other hand, refusing to have drinks with good friends, or during times of celebration, can be a form of undue abstinence or puritanism which militates against interpersonal communion and the establishment or maintenance of friendships – another essential human good. The mean of virtue lies somewhere between these two extremes; however, exactly where depends on the person. A 100lbs woman and a 300lbs linebacker are going to have far different levels of tolerance piror to crossing the line from an enjoyable and communal buzz to becoming sloppy drunk.
I largely agree with the premise of the article and I agree with this commentary as well:
“I get the question you’re asking though, and my point of view would just be that there’s not a hard line, that it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution, and to use common sense. Most 16 year olds aren’t wanting to snort blow and most 14 year old girls aren’t wanting to have sex (14 year old boys – different story), so it’s not usually an issue. If it is an issue, I’m not sure forbidding it is going to help at that point.”
Ray, very well put! Especially this part:
“The key principle for detrminging where the line should be drawn entails having a deep grasp of the various capacities of human nature and considering when excess or defect (i.e. indulgence or abstinence)in action or use of things begins to undermine human flourishing by suppressing human capacities. That is the principle. Its practical application will, of course, differ among persons due to paticular constitutions, circumstances, etc. – but within a concrete range.”
These were the words I was looking for. 🙂
“Reverse psychology is an awesome tool. I don’t know if you guys know about it, but, basically, you make someone think the opposite of what you believe. And that tricks them into doing something stupid. Works like a charm.”
More seriously, one thing that bothers me about the therapeutic age is how real people with real problems get black eyes from so many who seem to just refuse to throw switches, especially men who claim sexual addiction. I’m sure there are guys who have real behavioral problems, and that sex is one way it is manifest, but the whiner who puts baby-sitter software on his computer (so he can behave like a child, only in a more socially acceptable way, at least among his moralist friends) makes the guy who also has substance abuse issues and relational problems look bad.
…speaking of tools, this reminded me of this tool’s blog post on the subject…
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/of-vice-and-men/
white bear
I don’t think that having a liking for any legitimately good thing (or things) is, in and of itself, problematic. I believe that the human body, male and female, comes to us, ultimately, from God. Apparently, He thinks that boobies need to exist, and I’m not one to quarrel with Him on that point! Boobies are one physical attribute of *whole female human beings* though– mind, body, and soul. If I don’t want to encourage in women a mentality that would reduce men to one or more of their physical attributes, then logically, I should not encourage, in myself, practices which would lead me to such a mentality concerning women… such as mindless, penis-centered, prolonged staring at boobies outside of the context of marriage. Within marriage, I think that that kind of reductive mentality is problematic too. What’s the solution? Well, there is this profound answer to dysfunctional sexual thinking called the Theology of the Body…. but how to best communicate it to a Western world that, increasingly, cannot and will not even *consider* ideas in any forms other than soundbites, television commercials, and loud, assaultive movies? I’m not sure of the answer there.
Boobies
Do you have any video of that? I’d like to find out more
details.
Check out my homepage; webpage (Onita)