What’s wrong with sex addiction?

Keane, Helen

doi:10.4324/9781315639512-37

Cited by 83 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second factor limiting the biomedicalisation of smoking is nicotine's ambiguous place among other drugs 54. Nicotine has only mild psychoactive effects, and regular smokers do not become intoxicated.…”

Section: Factors Limiting the Biomedicalisation Of Smokingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medicalisation, smoking and e-cigarettes: evidence and implications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is debate in the tobacco control literature about the value of a medical model in reducing smoking-related harm. The variety of medical treatments for smoking cessation has increased, health professionals are encouraged to use them to assist smoking cessation and tobacco dependence is being described as a 'chronic disease'. Some critics suggest that the medicalisation of smoking undermines the tobacco industry's responsibility for the harms of smoking. Others worry that it will lead smokers to deny personal responsibility for cessation, create beliefs in 'magic bullets' for smoking cessation, or erode smokers' confidence in their ability to quit. We argue that the medicalisation of smoking will have limited impact due to the emphasis on population-based interventions in tobacco control, the ambiguous place of nicotine among other drugs and the modest efficacy of current pharmacotherapies. These factors, as well as lay understandings of smoking that emphasise willpower, personal choice and responsibility, have contributed to the limited success of medical approaches to smoking cessation. While the rapid uptake of e-cigarettes in some countries has provided an option for those who reject medical treatments for smoking cessation, current regulatory developments could limit the potential of e-cigarettes to provide non-therapeutic nicotine for those who currently smoke tobacco.

show abstract

Section: Factors Limiting the Biomedicalisation Of Smokingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medicalisation, smoking and e-cigarettes: evidence and implications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is, for example, largely consistent with traditional tropes of addiction, where the subject is positioned as chaotic, false, dependent, irrational and lacking control (e.g. Fraser and Seear 2011;Keane 2002), while simultaneously being enjoined to action, and responsibilized (e.g. Fraser 2004).…”

Section: Agency Capacity and The Criminogenic Addictmentioning

confidence: 76%

Making the abject: problem-solving courts, addiction, mental illness and impairment

Spivakovsky

Seear

2017

Continuum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This assumption is probably one of the most discussed and widely criticized aspects of the 12-step program and the 12-step fellowships (e.g., Alexander, 2008;Keane, 2002;Peele, 1995). But what is "disease," precisely, in the 12-step fellowships?…”

Section: The Positive Ethics Of Diseasementioning

confidence: 97%

User-driven standards in a mutual help context: The co-emergence of subjects and standards

Keis

Nielsen

Nissen

2016

Theory & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standards entail abstractions and generalizations. The 12-step fellowships (i.e., Alcoholics, Narcotics, Overeaters Anonymous, etc.) are all grounded in the same 12 steps and 12 traditions, originally developed for Alcoholics Anonymous. Furthermore, several principles and practices can be found across different fellowships addressing different addictions. At the same time, 12-step literature and most academic analyses of the fellowships agree that the content of these standards is never definite; no one but oneself may decide whether one lives up to the standard in question. Thus, 12-step fellowships seem a pure case of how the duality of social structure and personal definition is built into the fabric of standards. Yet, with a closer attention to practices, negotiations, and performances, it is possible to disturb this neat distribution of abstract-social versus concrete-personal. Drawing on two recent studies of Copenhagen fellowships, this article aims to problematize the assumption that user-driven standards must assume the pseudocommercial "logic of choice," in favor of a view of subjects and standards as co-emerging.

show abstract

What’s wrong with sex addiction?

Cited by 83 publications

References 1 publication

Medicalisation, smoking and e-cigarettes: evidence and implications

Medicalisation, smoking and e-cigarettes: evidence and implications

Making the abject: problem-solving courts, addiction, mental illness and impairment

User-driven standards in a mutual help context: The co-emergence of subjects and standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About