When it come to the question of "why do people cheat?", the answers given never seem to get at the heart of the matter, in my opinion... and that is, if you must constantly seek sex, or seek it outside of a committed relationship, some aspect is missing, whether of self, or between the couple.

And that's my opinion.

People with lower morals do what they can get away with.

I would guess that some of them at least are uncomfortable with deeply committed relationships (one is very exposed in a deeply intimate relationship) and create some "safe" distance emotionally by dividing themselves up between more than one lover/loved one. That way they are never totally exposed emotionally to anyone. It's a way of pushing the loved one back a bit and creating more safe space for the self, as it were.

Is my guess.

Kate

A casual observation based on number of dalliances is'nt what would determine (this still controversial idea)
heterosexuality is usually related to bi polar diagnosis for some. Can we accept a diagnosis of bi polar disorder without declaring it whopee!

Also, I think a person can just have a faulty personality. There are people that will do what they can do just because they can. These individuals have no medical, mental or parental teaching problems, it is just a personality default. JMO

Remember, neither JFK or Bill Clinton arranged for a burglary like Tricky Dick Nixon or were caught stealing like Agnew.

Either way, heri, you had some very good points in your last post.

Excuses, excuses.

Low morals--it was serial, not incidental or occasional.

No of course not, just stated some facts that are medically well known.

What we will never know for sure, assuming one does believe that sex addiction does exist, is whether JFK was or wasn't a sex addict.

Same as we will never know for sure if this story about the teen intern is or isn't true.

Whatever the reasons for his behavior, excuses where not what I was posting about.

IMHO, there are no excuses for a man not being able to "keep his pants zipped" whether he is a democrat or a republican, clergy or anything else that he may or may not be.

That being said, I also don't agree with raking any person over the coals that is dead and not able to defend him/herself against any charges and/or claims of what did or didn't happen.

Nor do I understand why it is done or is important more than 40 years after the fact.

OH, unless it is the idea of the GOP to rake the opposition over the coals to prove the point that the Dems are not so perfect.

Just don't get it.

It goes way beyond the archaic, tradition-based idea that "cheating is wrong".

In my opinion, and from my observations throughout life, it's about either not being honest within oneself, or not being honest with your committed partner within the relationship you are stepping outside of.

Or, it's about a piece of baggage that an individual who cheats may not even know they're carrying around with them, from failed relationship to failed relationship, due to a past issue... or some other flaw or missing puzzle piece within the psyche.

Take a gander at a few daytime television shows... the ones where polygraph tests are given to prove or disprove fidelity... and within a very short span of time, you will hear every excuse and lie in the book given for cheating. My personal favorite is... "you drove me to it, it's your fault".

I have no idea what the true statistics are for infidelity, but with a standing divorce rate of 50%... that's HALF of all marriages failing... and taking into consideration that a portion of that 50% won't have anything to do with fidelity... one can extrapolate that quite a few of those will be based upon cheating.

And then there are those couples that never make it to the alter or courthouse because of infidelity... and those persons who are attracted to the same type of partner over and over, who turn out to be cheaters... and the list goes on.

Some studies I've read say that the human species wasn't meant to partner for life, because of the fact that it's every living thing's purpose to survive through procreation. It's an instinctual, genetically built in... purpose... leading to continuation of a species.

However, we also know that faithfulness, or fidelity, is quite possible... and that couples can meet, eventually commit to a relationship with just that one other person, and can remain faithful for decades and decades, until one or the other, sadly, expires.

It is my opinion that our social and cultural traditions and constructs sometimes get in the way of finding and creating these bonds that contain fidelity. It is also my opinion that there's too large of a gap between the prime years of attraction and procreation, and the years that finally, and hopefully, bring certain wisdom to the human species... although, it's not always the younger set being unfaithful.

So, I think there are too many variables to nail it down nice and neatly and put it in a box marked "cheating-immoral".

There are many, many facets that make up what we term a healthy, committed relationship. A few of those facets might include, but are not limited to... love, mutual respect, trust, support (emotionally and otherwise), communication, sex, intimacy, understanding, empathy, and so many more...

When someone asks the question, "why do you cheat?", is it because one of those necessary facets to that happy, healthy relationship is missing? And can that person recognize it, or admit to themselves and to their partner that there is something missing?

Were they truly ready for that committed relationship? Or were they pressured into it by a culturally conditioned response of this is what's expected of us... to meet someone, date them, further the relationship, get engaged, marry, and have a family? Otherwise known as "settling down".

Or, did the relationship start out on a shaky foundation to begin with, where attraction leads to natural sexual actions, accidentally leading to early procreation... and again, we're culturally conditioned to "do the right thing", and become a family unit, regardless of the unwillingness or inner dishonesty to ourselves, that we're ready for this responsibility, and the expected fidelity that comes with it?

It's my opinion that the "shotgun wedding" idea died long ago, and there's no reason to commit into a monogamous relationship if one is not truly ready. The ensuing unbalanced environment is not healthy for the product of that union, the children, or for the two people trying to make it work.

But, would I label infidelity as an addiction? Absolutely not. I think there are underlying issues of either personal dishonesty, missing facets of what makes a healthy committed relationship actually happy and healthy, possible ingrained social/cultural reasons that set up the relationship to take it's natural course, possible mental or emotional blockage that might need to be worked out...

There really are a lot of variants and facets to the subject... too many to make a simple or single judgment call. But I think labeling it an addiction is just an excuse, an avoidance of finding what the true problem is.

It's not complicated, so I'll give it a shot. Of COURSE liars pretend to be honest if they expect a benefit from keeping up the pretense. That's the explanation regardless of where that person is on the political spectrum. There are con-artists, self promoters, and manipulators across the political spectrum, in every profession, and from every walk of life.

What frequently confounds liberals (at least some of the ones here) is that they understand conservatives have flaws, but time and again we watch them struggle to preserve their idealized notions of people who agree with their progressive ideas. Some allow an emotional attachment to substitute for good judgment. For example, many good liberals here were stunned by Wienergate last summer.

NY Democrat and US Representative Anthony Wiener sent pictures of his crotch across the internet to women he didn't know. Instead of demanding his resignation ASAP, liberals were CONVINCED he was...wait for it...a victim of conservatives!!! They loudly predicted that Andrew Brietbart was going to have his "arse nailed to the wall" for "hacking" Wiener's Twitter account. It was a preposterous and laughable "defense" that mercifully died when Mr. Wiener resigned in disgrace, guilty as charged.

It is worth remembering that the folks who were duped by Wiener are the same folks who regularly accuse conservatives of having low IQs, difficulty understanding the real world, and problems with reading comprehension.

I don't understand why the former intern came out with this information from the past now. What possible purpose could it serve? Who does it help? And what of the feelings of Caroline Kennedy? Let sleeping dogs lie....

Infidelity has all sorts of reasons and variables. Every infidelity does not mean one is a sexual addict necessarily. Some people had no secure parentage to serve as role models for them as kids. Some people are just plain immature; others are easily bored. Each case is different and I don't like to judge and point fingers. With maturity comes wisdom, although not always....

I still admire JFK as a president, not so much as a man.

I think he did what he was wont to do simply because he could.

People knew, but it wasn't a tabloid splash - probably slightly before the era of "everyone has a right to know everything about everything" dawned.

What started that? Watergate?

Perhaps sex offered him pain relief. Or he just liked women. I don't know what makes men such horndogs, but it's part of their animal nature (generally speaking). It's in their biology.

Women enjoy sex too, but they are more emotional and preoccupied with relationships. IMO they tend to over-romanticize marriage and fidelity. Fidelity is important, but not to the point of breaking up a reasonably good marriage with children, and certainly not to the point of causing a divorce in the first family.

I never wanted to see her again and this was her history she just couldn't sustain a relationship. I obviously have a different view now but that must be really painful for her.

Perhaps the sexual interlude offered Presidents Kennedy and Clinton a few minutes or hours of relief from a very stressful job! ;)

(Remember the MD who used his sperm to artificially inseminate his women patients. They had no idea that this MD was the donor. With all his progeny running around, it's not outside of the realm of possibility that siblings could marry).

And I think the Kennedys, although Catholic, didn't think the rules applied to them. Hubris.

By the way, I'm a Democrat and I thought Wiener should resign, period. I don't care what party he was.

President Clinton wags his finger, looks America in the eye, and announces, "I did not have sex with that woman." George Michael wags another part of his anatomy and discovers just how public a park restroom can be. Capt. Rich Merritt commands 90 marines and makes gay porn videos on the side.

These three men and others like them lead tightly controlled, highly disciplined lives. At the same time, they act out sexually in career-threatening, dangerous ways. What's going on here?

Compartmentalization, for one thing. That's the psychological term for placing several different aspects of one's life in separate baskets and believing they can remain apart forever. However, when it comes to sex, some experts believe the issue goes beyond compartments to walls: Some men erect high barriers in a subconscious attempt to isolate parts of their lives. As the president, the entertainer, and the Marine Corps commander show, it seldom works.
Chris Matthews who has written about Kennedy called it inhuman.

He called aspects of JFK's personality "indefensible," and blamed the president's philandering on his "cold detachment" from people's feelings. Matthews described his ability to compartmentalize parts of his life as "inhuman."
The Stranger when neighbors & families are shocked to find out that person they thought was one thing ahd whole hidden areas of their life or even multiple lives multiple spouses families, tastes.

Was JFK a sex addict again who here is qualified to diagnose a term like that. (generalization) (defense) would be that was a different era (Rationalization) defense Most men are different in this way. (Globalization) defense he's a man isn't he.

Little children masturbate it's not sex though genitalia associated with sex in and adult are often involved (it's usually a self soothing behavior to overcome stress)

I believe I said I don't think sex, as it pertains to infidelity, can be adequately or accurately labeled an addiction. There are too many variables involved, and I think it's very debatable whether it can be clinically called an addiction. In fact, I think labeling sexual infidelity as an addiction gives it validation, which is not an answer, but more of an excuse for avoiding the underlying issue, and continuing the behavior.

Smoking IS an addiction, and we know the reasons why. They are chemical in nature, having to do with the substances today's cigarettes contain. But cigarettes and sex have nothing to do, one with the other, unless you count the fact that most smokers enjoy a post coital smoke.

This thread is not about me, however, and it's not about my addiction. The title clearly states that. Besides, you have no knowledge of whether or not this is still an addiction for me.

I've not read any books on JFK, and I'm not likely to, the man not being a subject of great enough interest to me that I would purchase and read a book. My reading habits run in the direction of other genres.

It occurs to me that within the past few decades, we've begun to label a lot of poor or negative behaviors as addictions, giving them validation. It's my opinion that this is not conducive or constructive to finding the underlying reasons for the behavior, or finding the missing piece to the puzzle. I would think it much better served to find answers, and not give excuses... which often seems to cause continuation of the behavior.

Sex addict or not, moral sleeze or not, he stood up to and out manuveured the generals who wanted to start World War III.

That is truly a frightening paragraph that doesn't see the irony of it's own self congratulations!

Anyway, I am curious do you think that because smoking (or alcholism, etc.) is a "real" addiction, that this somehow validates the behavior? That the rationalizations and excuses smokers or alcoholics tell themselves are somehow reasonable?

People are entitled to their own opinions not their own science!

Perhaps it would serve this discussion better if there were an upgraded degree of realization between what constitutes facts and statistic... and what an opinion means.

When a person is obese because they have no willpower, we can't logically say they are addicted to food... food is something every living thing requires to sustain life, so by the reasoning expressed by certain posters, that would mean every living thing is addicted to food. If we stop validating all this poor behavior, we might be able to get at the underlying reasons why willpower comes so hard for some, and so easy for others.

Labeling everything negative the human race does as an "addiction" validates that poor behavior IN MY OPINION, and gives it an excuse to continue... many times without ever exploring the core issues and changing the behavior.

I like you, Joe... but not everything can be solved in 12 steps... and again, that's just my opinion. I hope that's ok with you.

Is is already "Bash Jodi Day" again? I thought we just celebrated one of those recently...

Of course there are true "addictions" and many people have suffered from addiction to drugs and alcohol. Some people are addicted to eating dried paint.

We can drag out the dictionary and make just about anything an "addiction."

I suppose spending time on and checking into this forum on a regular basis could be considered an "addiction" but really--we have a choice. (I do it to procrastinate tackling certain tasks).

These days "addictions" are used as excuses way too much--for people hurting themsleves, hurting others, not taking responsibility for their own lives, and for getting attention.

It's my opinion that society should make an effort to separate true addictions from fashionable ones.

The Hazelden Foundation has been running since 1949 treating thousands of people they also publish Daily Word books for many Dis eases, dis orders!

Yesterdays reading & Meditation I hope all of you are free from having to deal with this in your families. Those with open minds & hearts will be tested those closed well enjoy the pain & ignorance

For Feb 10th

A long-time member of the program talks about her marriage: "My husband waited for me through seven years of my acting out sexually until I finally got into recovery. Then I waited three years for him to start dealing with his codependency. "It's a mystery of the heart why we love each other. Despite all the poor choices I'd made about men, I finally married someone who has the gentleness, honesty, and caring I need. I try not to analyze why we waited for each other or how we stayed married all those years. I just accept it, and now our relationship is the strongest and best it has ever been." Whether we're a recovering female or male sex addict, the hope in her story is ours to claim. If we want and are waiting for a healthy relationship, we can believe it will come when the time is right.

Hazelden Meditations (2011-02-17). Answers in the Heart (Hazelden Meditation Series) (p. 44). Hazelden. Kindle Edition.

You know Labrea, on several occasions I've ignored your references to certain women as "pigs" or "cows", but will not any longer, it's unacceptable and small. You freely start threads and post on issues that are important to you, yet, become quite judgmental of others who post in passion.

I agree with what you've posted, but your seemingly anti-women name calling negates all that good stuff.

;)

Was this an addition or just a chance to have sex without having to go to a bar and pick up someone?

Let's face it.... to some, sex more than once a month would be too much. Others, twice a day would be normal and acceptable. If it's offered, a lot of men would take it regardless of marriage, vows, duties, blah blah blah, etc.

I agree, the intern has rocks in her head and is looking at $$$$$$$$$ for coming out with this information now. I don't think it has improved HER character one bit.

There is some school of thought that there are "soft addictions" or "addictive behaviors", that trigger the brain's reward system, and perhaps other complex mechanisms in the body and mind, and make people compulsive and destructive about activities or substances that are not normally addictive for most people.

In future decades, science will no doubt be much more enlightened on this subject. I believe, for example, that science will understand the underlying basis of food addictions and it will be recognized as a major cause of obesity. Well, that's if there's enough food supply for people to be able to eat enough to be obese!

Your insisting on form here this become problematic as some of you are so adept at slice & dice it doesn't change what or who you are but seeks a condescension from me.
Boars and sows are collectively pigs!
EDD gets a pig card every year on his birthday we love pigs!
The animal pig we love the 2 legged variety well that still remains my unvarnished opinion!

What do you know, I'm a pig lover too, just not the meat.

I've collected pigs for over thirty years--my favorites are the flying pigs. For obvious reasons.

No one knows who or what anyone is here, only our opinions and what little we choose to share. Most unsolicited opinions about other posters come from projection, assumptions, political and cultural biases, and judgment.

In my experience, those who deal with a variety of people and personality types generally are excellent judges of character. And able to adjust their opinions when necessary.

I think we're all qualified to judge how other participants behave in this forum. How could someone comment for years and not leave an impression of their values, biases, and forum behaviour?

Personally, I don't care whether or not President Kennedy was a sex addict. While this type of addiction exists, there's also a savvy marketing field that knows how to titillate to push products. Unfortunately, over exposure and saturation leads to trivialization. On to the next malady-disorder-addiction du jour!

There was a suggestion of debate on here awhile back. If posters can't even stick to the subject then whats the point. If Posters dismiss the idea (with prejudice) that such a condition even exists on more than 1 occasion then I open with full barrels.
I have posted that I attend Sexual recovery groups on here I only got there by going through AA first Alanon second & ACOA 3rd & several years of therapy & seeing a psychiatrist to be convinced that being raped at 15 might have something to do with my views on relationships, fears of abandonment, night terrors, and my own sexual acting out (what is acting out) rather than feel a feeling a behavior is engaged in usually a destructive behavior.

Now I have invited posters to attend open meetings of various recovery groups. If you have no issues yourself it may feel like your on the moon or listening to Greek.

"Acting out is a psychological term from the parlance of defense mechanisms and self-control, meaning to perform an action in contrast to bearing and managing the impulse to perform it. The acting done is usually anti-social and may take the form of acting on the impulses of an addiction (eg. drinking, drug taking or shoplifting) or in a means designed (often unconsciously or semi-consciously) to garner attention (eg. throwing a tantrum or behaving promiscuously).
In general usage, the action performed is destructive to self or others and may inhibit the development of more constructive responses to the feelings. The term is used in this way in sexual addiction treatment, psychotherapy, criminology and parenting.
Acting out painful feelings may be contrasted with expressing them in ways more helpful to the sufferer, e.g. by talking out, expressive therapy, psychodrama or mindful awareness of the feelings. Developing the ability to express one's conflicts safely and constructively is an important part of impulse control, personal development and self-care.

The casualness that some posters refer to the suffering/insanity/unmanagebility of others is indeed piggish from where I sit. Antiquated, ignorant, dull, lacking grace, narcissistic as they can only refer to their own insular understandings of life & how it should (head wagging) be lived.
It also seems to trigger my rage as the culture I lived in at the time of my rape made it nearly impossible to report.
There are those who support the maintenance of that culture alcoholics are weaklings, Anorexics are looking for attention, Autism is the fault of the mother (remember that one sure glad it changed)

Wanna be fair study about some of these things from reputable sources before It's not like I haven't made this request before. I must be an optimist beneath this surface cynicism.

You may *think* you know somebody and you might be right or you might be very wrong.

Labrea, some of the people I love best in life are serious curmudgeons and suuurly! - it doesn't scare me a bit. What I objected to is your use of the words "pigs" and "cows" in a sexist manner... and enjoying bacon is no excuse.

Whatever I guess, I made my objection, now back to bashing the dearly departed.

As far as men being hardwired for promiscuity-spreading their seed-it makes more sense biologically for women to be promiscuious because with out chemical help men are not as avaliable as women and it increases the chance of a women getting pregnant which is the whole point after all. We confuse culture with nature. In societies where the man is expected to help raise the ensuing child there is a strong tendency to require fidelity on the part of the female elsewise not so much.

I'm proud to say I voted for JFK. I was barely old enough to do so. I admired his presidency, especially how he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, with the standoff against the Russians. The situation called for a cool head. Because of his aloofness, he was able to remove himself from the situation and look at it all objectively, thus seeing that his generals who advocated attacking would have possibly have begun WW III. Wish more cool heads prevailed today, such as his. I was devastated by the loss of JFK, Bobby, then MLK, Jr.

Kate

I remember being devastated when JFK died. , and later Bobby and MLK. I had just begun working for Bobby's campaign the week he was killed. I still after all these years get teary watching the events of 11/22/63 which is why I enjoyed Stephen King's book so much.

I actually thought I expressed my views above, within my other posts, rather well... until I was accused of pointing at other addicts, which I can't recall doing, nor can I find.

The issues is sex as an addiction. And even with my very spotty memory, I can recall having these debates before, where I stood on the side of an addiction being something that is more chemical in nature, introduced to the body... such as nicotine, alcohol, heroin, or drugs of others kinds.

I consider the other end of the spectrum to be more behavior oriented or a pattern developed over time... such as cheating, eating paper or chalk, overeating, and other behaviors.

In my abridged search around 6 am, I ran across too much conflicting information to write a thesis. At certain times within a 24 hour period, I don't feel well enough to go searching for vetted scientific information, let alone writing the amount I do, putting my thoughts into words.

I believe there are two categories of what some laypeople would term "addictions"... the first being concrete in nature, and having to do with introduced substances to the body... and the second more abstract, and having to do with labeling certain behaviors or patterns.

The original question was... and still is, I think... "was JFK a sex addict?". And my answer is no.

He stepped outside the committed relationship he shared with Jackie O. because some facet pertaining to that commitment was missing or not healthy. I don't know what more I can say... that's what I think.

Instead of looking at the bigger picture of our social/cultural constructs, we tend toward putting band aids on the smaller cracks and sores, but we never address the core problems. And this goes for every problem we have within our society, and not just addictions or behaviors.

In any event, it's only nomenclature--if it makes some feel better to call it an addiction, or consider it an addiction, or if one that sees it as a problem (and we have no evidence that I know of that Kennedy considered it a "problem) makes it easier to "treat," who cares what it's called?

Labrea, I know you that you consider this your "area" and since I am not and never have been addicted to anything and haven't had any compulsions other than occasional OCD washing hands and checking appliances years ago, I bow to your expertise.

But, I'm still entitled to my opinions.

I think we have too many "addictions" and "diseases" as excuses for bad choices in life. Those tend to diminish the importance of real addictions.

Lily, both JFK and Clinton may have been charismatic, but I have never considered Clinton handsome, especially when he was in office and packing a few extra pounds. I think some of the women "flocking" to them were possibly more turned on by POWER than by Clinton's looks. I've never considered power a turn-on, but there are women out there who believe power is very sexy. Don't ask me to explain why or how.

Kate

I'm confused!

As adolescents, we used fantasy and compulsive masturbation to avoid feelings, and continued this tendency into our adult lives with compulsive sex.
Compulsive sex became a drug, which we used to escape from feelings such as anxiety, loneliness, anger and self-hatred, as well as joy.
We tended to become immobilized by romantic obsessions. We became addicted to the search for sex and love; as a result, we neglected our lives.
We sought oblivion in fantasy and masturbation, and lost ourselves in compulsive sex. Sex became a reward, punishment, distraction and time-killer.
Because of our low self-esteem, we used sex to feel validated and complete.
We tried to bring intensity and excitement into our lives through sex, but felt ourselves growing steadily emptier.
Sex was compartmentalized instead of integrated into our lives as a healthy element.
We became addicted to people, and were unable to distinguish among sex, love and affection.
We searched for some "magical" quality in others to make us feel complete. Other people were idealized and endowed with a powerful symbolism, which often disappeared after we had sex with them.
We were drawn to people who were not available to us, or who would reject or abuse us.
We feared relationships, but continually searched for them. In a relationship, we feared abandonment and rejection, but out of one, we felt empty and incomplete.
While constantly seeking intimacy with another person, we found that the desperate quality of our need made true intimacy with anyone impossible, and we often developed unhealthy dependency relationships that eventually became unbearable.
Even when we got the love of another person, it never seemed enough, and we were unable to stop lusting after others.
Trying to conceal our dependency demands, we grew more isolated from ourselves, from God, and from the very people we longed to be close to.

There are many cross overs of OCD types in these programs many also have food & body dysmorphia issues, gym rats who if they could just put on a little more muscle they wont feel so puny, bulimics going through binge purge cycles, an awful lot of driven people drive to succeed (I see more of them in SCA than i do in MY AA program, a lot of performers & creative people.

A combination of pain killers & amphetamines also probably didn't help JFK's clear thinking I'm surprised he was'nt more paranoid.

She called her ex-husband Bobby Brown "her drug," saying that she "didn't do anything without him."

I don't think this was JFK's problem though , but who knows!

Who can I blame?

Hay

I blame my aunt who kept a bowl of chocolate kisses sitting around.

Hay

Who cares?....besides readers of the National Enquirer.

I blame all the noisy New Yorkers I used to hang out with.

Hay

My issue is that we can't simply label everything negative or self-harmful an addiction... where does it end?

I usually agree with 0% of what Hay has to say... but he makes a valid point with his twisted bit of humor...

The more validation we give to things, the more people feel that they are not at fault, don't have to take responsibility in any way... because, after all, they have a disease, an addiction. It becomes the excuse they need to continue the poor behavior.

"Oh, sorry, honey, that I cheated on you again... but, you know, I have an addiction, a disease. It's not my fault."

Do you see my point? There must be a distinction made, a line drawn in the sand, if you will...

If sex is an addiction, then I've been an addict for decades and decades! If food is an addiction, sign me up for that one, too... even if I don't weigh more than I should, I'm still addicted to eating because I have to in order to survive.

Let me put it this way... if I gain a few extra pounds over winter, let's say, I am NOT an addict. I simply change my diet and eating behavior, and those few extra pounds fall right off. I don't go through withdrawal, get sick, or experience any of the usual or typical symptoms associated with an addiction.

On the other side of the coin... let's use my dependence upon the medications I must take to live a normal life. As I'm sure everyone here already knows, I'm a Lupus sufferer, plus a chronic pain patient due to a severe accident I was in several years ago. What would happen if someone took away my medications?

That's correct... I would go into withdrawal, become very sick, and my pain load would triple, quadruple, or fly right off the charts. I wouldn't be able to bear it. I would experience all the normal symptoms associated with withdrawal from the medicines I'm forced to take. It would be extremely unpleasant, to say the least.

Now, in my case, the core cause is physical injury complicated by a very real immune system disease... for which there is no current cure, incidentally.

In the case of legitimate chronic pain patients, we prefer to use the word "dependence" over the word "addiction", because there's a very large difference between legitimate and illegitimate. I'm sure you can understand why.

But I digress...

One thing is behavioral in nature, the food/weight... and the other is a chemical or substance introduced into the body that changes how it reacts in a chemical way, pain medicines/physical pain.

So, where do we draw the line? What is a real addiction, a disease? And what is simply poor behavior, or poor behavior patterns?

I don't know... I see a difference. I can clearly see that some things, when validated through how they are listed and thought of, allow for excuses, often leading to continuation.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that some lines do entangle, or cross... but we just can't call every single bit of poor behavior an addiction. It just doesn't make rational sense to me.

Instead of labeling, why don't we work harder on the individual, and find out what the core issue is, or what piece of the puzzle is missing. The idea is to cure the addiction, or change the behavior patterns... by getting underneath it all and finding out why people do the negative things they do to themselves, that very often affect others... as in the case of JFK's cheating.

Guaranteed, someone... or maybe more than one other person... was very hurt by those actions.

It's almost kind of funny... but on every one of those daytime talk shows where they do the polygraph tests, or a partner, spouse, or committed couple appear on the show, and one has a "secret" to tell the other... almost every single admission of cheating begins exactly like this:

"Baby, you know I love you... but..." and then the truth is revealed. And I always think to myself, "if you really loved him or her, fool, you wouldn't even BE there in the first place!" And 99% of polygraph test takers contest the results when it doesn't come out in their favor. Imagine that.

Ok... someone else's turn...

I guess to abridge the whole thing, I'm saying... having the proper label attached helps us seek the right help in the first place.

Cigarettes were called "coffin nails" back in the thirties when my parents were smoking, so they were known to be bad for you.

I agree that the Kennedys were cold parents. I recall reading that when Jack came home from boarding school during vacations, nobody except the servants would be home.

Also, when Joe Kennedy was having an affair with Gloria Swanson, he said, "I was faithful to you this year, Rose didn't have a baby." And she fell for that?

Labrea, I am so sorry for your trauma and hope that you are on your way to wholeness. God bless.

I've seen it stated that anyone who smokes (continues to smoke?) has to be suffering from depression.

I think my coming to this forum has all the signs of an addiction. Is there a cure?

Hay

My childhood was as uneventful and normal as it was happy and filled with security and love and family... thinking back, peer pressure to fit in when I reached a certain age set is probably the very reason I ever picked up a cigarette in the first place. I wish I never had, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, they say.

It's been no easy feat, but I'm nothing if not strong and determined.

In all simplicity, I just don't think it gives real justice to addiction to call everything by that term. In my mind, that's not helpful.