This is Science?
Crusading American housewives?
Moral crusade? Tirades? Ultraconservatives? Christian fundamentalists? Rally troops to fight the last battle on the Mound of Venus?
The author goes on to refer to anti-sex crusaders, guardians of morality, prudish adversaries, hardliners, their congregations, and refer to proponents of the theory of sex addiction as apologists. He also refers to Alfred Kinsey (“still free of moral preconceptions”) for statistics on US sexuality, though Kinsey gathered his data primarily from prison populations.
When finally quoting a proponent on the theory of sex addiction, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, the author acknowledges his “seemingly scientific precision” and notes with relief that the expert “does, at least, add the following caveat” that such behavior is only pathological if it contains an element of personal distress.
Damn it, Jim! I’m an engineer, not a psychologist!
However, if this article is to be taken something other than bigoted opinion, the only rational conclusion is that there is no such thing as psychological addition. After all, do you really think you can convince someone that sex is not addictive, but gambling or World Of Warcraft are? If so, I pity your sex life.
Considering the tone and terminology used by the author, I conclude that psychological addiction is a real possibility for sex as well as gambling, and that the author is merely using the theory of sex addiction to swing a cudgel at Americans in general and religious believers specifically.