In my work, I consistently interact with college women who are survivors. As a feminist who works to privilege sex-positive discourses, it's crucial to respect their boundaries and limits in my role as an advocate who might provide information and support. Since power and control were taken away, empowerment has to happen on their own terms.

I think a more general problem is the lack of pleasure-centered discourses about sex. These messages harm both partners, potential perpetrators and potential victims alike.

TMI warning:
I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I have been sexually abused twice in my life--once for two years from age 6 to age 8, and once in college, when I was 17. In high school, I never dated because I was afraid the "boys" would pressure me to have sex...or drag me under the bed again. I had very few friends of either gender. In college, I was nearly-raped by the one person I allowed myself to get close to. I vowed never to get close to another person again.

This all changed however, when I met my first "official" boyfriend, now my husband. He has consistently allowed me to direct our sexual escapades and is incredibly trustworthy and gentle. He is focused on what I call "equal sex," wherein both of us are satisfied at all stages. I thank my lucky stars that I have a partner who helped me recover from my past sexual history, and was/is able to demonstrate his love for me in a physically and emotionally supportive manner, which I needed.

I don't suppose this applies to everyone. Don't many people cope with a sexual abuse history through hypersexualization?

I personally resent the trope that is put out there by articles like this, that sex is always wonderful and necessary, and that those who don't want sex are somehow defective or damaged goods.

I for one don't miss it.

sgzax:

I have not read the book, but I imagine it might broach that topic. Being hypersexual can be just as, possibly even more, unhealthy for victims of abuse and does not necessarily equal a healing, safe and satisfying sexual experience. I don't think you were trying to imply that it does, of course.
The rest of the interview deals more with sexual healing in general vs this quote.

I think a healthy idea of sex is always wonderful and necessary. If women who have been abused are avoiding sex out of fear or shame, that's not a good or healthy way to live your life. If a woman is avoiding sex out of personal preferance (whether or not she's been abused) I think that's fine and healthy.

So I don't think that having sex has to be the litmus test for recovery from abuse. I also don't think that this post was meant to imply that anyone was "damaged goods" if they weren't having sex. I think it was meant to point out that many women who have been abused or assaulted or raped are then denyed the pleasure of sex due to fear. "Going forward" as is suggested, means reclaiming a woman's own sense of pleasure. It doesn't mean she has to need sex or always want it. It's more about developing a positive, healthy view of it.

"To heal, they have to go toward, and eventually through whatever triggers memories of the abuse — that's where freedom is."

While I think this may be a very healing thing for some survivors, I don't think this is the right approach. Somehow I can just see someone refering to this article as a way to further pressure a rape survivor into sex. If a rape survivor doesn't want to have sex, I think they have every right to feel that way and don't need any advice that might act as, or be used as, a form of pressure to have sex. I think the most healing thing for a rape survivor is to regain their own autonomy and have control over their own decisions, whatever they may be.

Why do I have to have sex to be "normal"? I don't particularly like having sex, to be honest. I'd rather get an extra hour of sleep or time to read a book, to be honest.
I know that this partially has to do with being assaulted several times as a young teenager. I finally learned to love MYSELF again, but I've never had the desire to have sex, really. *shrug* If that's wrong, fine.

acranom, good job summing up her true message. I read the whole article and was amazed that her advice was so close to what I've naturally been doing to self-heal from my own traumatic experience. While, like anything else, her message in the wrong hands could be misconstrued in a harmful way, I think that's far outweighed by the potential for healing it brings to survivors of childhood sexual abuse and adult rape. This is definitely an area often overlooked in traditional discussions of healing from sexual trauma.

Sexual addicts, a group who were often targets of sexual abuse, are required to be "Sober" for 6 weeks minimum - a peroid where they can't indulge in any sexual activity in any form (including masturbation, etc).

This is according to Patrick Carnes, a leading specialist in the area of addiction.

Only then can their healing begin. With lots of counciling.

This Staci Haines seems to be going to the opposite direction.

I don't think that what Haines advocates entails a potential danger of hypersexualization or bullying survivors into sex.

On a personal level, it means a lot to me to read about this approach. It took me years to discover that through trust and greater openness I could reclaim a sense of control over my sexuality . Believe it or not, opening up to enjoyment helped me deal with memories that had kept me in their power for a long time.

And although it is crucial that the partner be understanding and caring, it is not about him or her having any kind of power over the survivor's pleasure -- it's not anything like Hemingway's earthquake orgasm vision in For Whom the Bell Tolls. It's about the survivor realizing that in fulfilling sex s/he is a participant, not someone overpowered by the partner, the circumstances, the sex drive, but someone fully present in the pleasure. Which is why I think it's remote from the dangers some of the earlier comments mentioned.

I wouldn't say I was addicted to sex, it was more a "you can't rape the willing" attempt to take back control. I had already had good sex and giving it up didn't make sense. Rape is not sex. Time and love(all love) create healing.

Sexual addicts, a group who were often targets of sexual abuse,

But you're making a category error. A high percentage of sexual addicts may be survivors of sexual abuse, but that does not mean that a high percentage of survivors of sexual abuse are sexual addicts. An approach developed to help survivors of sexual abuse reclaim their sexuality would not, therefore, necessarily have anything to do with sexual addiction.

As a survivor, I have to say that I never felt truly free until I had sex and it didn't scare me or hurt me. Actually, I take that back.

I never felt truly free until I was able to trust a man enough to let him love me and to love him in return. From that love and trust came sex that I could truly enjoy. I think love brings freedom, since it makes you a million times more vulnerable than sex.

I wouldn't say that not wanting to have sex in general is a bad or not "normal" thing. It matters based on why you are making your decision. In many ways, if you are responding to sexual assault, the decision to not have sex would not actually be a decision influenced by what you think is right for you. I believe this is what the article means about freedom. If you are not a very sexual person or you find more enjoyment elsewhere that is your decision. If you're not having sex because you don't want to because of fear then i believe her method would apply.

One of my best friends went through the hypersexualization stage and even though she is not in a serious relationship she still is working through issues as far as her being able to truly enjoy sex.

Sex is a normal and healthy part of being human.
OH HELLZ NO.
Sex is a normal and healthy part of life for *most* humans, and I absolutely hate it when people take the liberty of telling every single one of us what is normal and healthy. I haven't been abused thank God, but I am asexual, which means I have no sex drive. Studies have shown that we're about 1% of the population-- not a majority by any means, but we're out there. For me, having sex would be ABnormal.
Sorry that was a bit off-topic, but I had a hard time letting that comment slip by. ;-)

Gawd, I can't imagine life without the joy of orgasm :) I'm a "survivor" of this kind of abuse as well, and I've had the "symptoms" of that during sex (remember feeling numb once in the process years ago, like I wasn't there), and I've also played out the "patterns" of it all.

Even so, I now have a very "healthy" sexual appetite for and attitude towards sex. I feel what healed me most in this area was shaking off the belief that sex was bad/dirty ("dirty dancing," "junk") per traditional religious beliefs. And I know most of us have at least a subconscious belief of such. There's no way around it in a society so infused with such beliefs. We've been brainwashed into believing that sex is very wrong, even if consciously we don't believe it -- or don't want to believe it. We've witnessed the harsh reactions that churchy people have to sex, we're supposed to be ashamed of it, it's something we are supposed to hide the reality of, pretend we don't do. Keep ourselves covered so as to make it seem that we have no animalistic attributes or tendencies. Not healthy, denying that which we are.

But I thankfully am healed of that type of ignorant and fearful thinking. We (clearly most of us) are animalistic, we have all the "equipment" :) and desires to have sex. We were "meant" to have sex (okay, most of us).

And the joy that not only orgasm brings, but that phenomenal closeness with another human being that we've already connected with emotionally/mentally, its wonderfully joyous.

I can only feel sorry for those who don't experience that kinda "magic." And I also wonder if perhaps they have actually learned how to have/get an orgasm. Perhaps some have no idea as yet the physical pleasure they are missing. If they've never had an orgasm (I hear that's not uncommon), how could they? How would they know what we are talking about?

Additionally, it's quite telling that the majority of those who find it "healthy" to not want sex, have also been traumatized by sexual abuse -- and supposedly healed of said abuse. But if they are truly happy (and not hiding anger and unhealed trauma), then okay :)

But sex isn't "dirty." If it is, then we are -- because sex is very much a part of us, of this life experience. No sex, no people, eh? And we very much aren't "dirty," we are profoundly amazing beings... Asexual and otherwise :)

I say there is nothing more blissful than having sex with the right partner and I'm exceedingly grateful that I haven't a hint of guilt or feelings of shame afterward. That makes it even more joyful, knowing that it is not only right and "good," but also very empowering, magical even :)

Allowing that "animal" in us to come alive in a loving ritual is also very freeing...its honest, its real, its magical :) And I can't imagine taking equal pleasure in knitting or baking a cake. But hey, I guess those are good too ;)

Peace,
Dove

EG, your points are true from how I phrased my first post. I didn't mean to imply that all sexualy abused people were sex addicts. But they often fall into two catagories : sex addicts and sexual anorexics. Sexual anorexia is often covered when refering to sexual addiction. Infact most support groups will cater to both as many people bounce from anorexia to addiction. And if an addict goes into recovery, they often have to deal with becoming anorexic.

This article seems to be discussing how to recover from sexual anorexia for those who have been sexualy abused, in a broad sense. Which is a riddicusly broad generalisation.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but since sexual activity (either alone or with a partner) is something that our bodies are generally wired to participate in (I mean we have the hormones, etc., without doing anything artificial to ourselves), how is it possible to become addicted in the clinical sense? Can we separate out people who are actually "addicted" versus people who just have high sex drives? Does it have to do with destructive behaviors?

While I'm willing to consider the framework as a valid one, I guess I'm a little skeptical that it isn't just another way of labeling sex per se as a negative, dangerous, possibly toxic thing, by grouping it with stuff like alcohol, drugs, etc.

Can someone help clarify?

"And the joy that not only orgasm brings, but that phenomenal closeness with another human being that we've already connected with emotionally/mentally, its wonderfully joyous.

"I can only feel sorry for those who don't experience that kinda 'magic.' And I also wonder if perhaps they have actually learned how to have/get an orgasm."

Don't forget that you're talking about something which requires 2 willing people.

What about someone who already learned how to orgasm by masturbation but doesn't have someone else to be phenomenally close to?

"Additionally, it's quite telling that the majority of those who find it 'healthy' to not want sex, have also been traumatized by sexual abuse"

Meanwhile, I bet that in some cases the person who doesn't want sex doesn't want to traumatize someone else by sexual abuse.

Think about it: If nobody consents to sex with you, then is it healthier to think you're still entitled to have sex with someone (a la http://feministing.com/archives/006305.html#comment-61062 ), or to not want sex...?

Hey annajcook, one can become addicted to the chemical relaease that occurs or orgasm. This is, according to someone (not me!) who was addicted to sex, cocane and alchol, the hardest of the three to give up.

The definition of sex addiction verses a high sex drive is if you have sex or masturbate to feel good about your self as a person. Not if you have a one night stand or like to have sex five times a day. But if one goes without sex for a long time (lets say three or four days) and begin to emotionaly feel terrible about yourself, really terrible, and suffer withdrawl, sweats and headaches (symptoms very from people to people) instead of just feeling really, really, horney, thats a sign of addiction. Freud said the question to ask an alcholohic is why aren't they sex addicts. As that was the primary addiction.

As a footnote, it would also inply that for an addict, rebound sex would be a bad idea. And that intimacy should be emphisised over desire, as a rule. Look up Patrick Carnes for more info.

Sex addiction may be used as a method to shame peoples sex drives or to drive people to Jesus, but this is up to the indivigual group/ therapist. Unfortunatly, lots of tweleve step programs (like SA or SLAA (sex and love addicts annonomus)) are hijacked by christian groups. They exploit the "higher power" idea into "God and only our God" mentality that they are famous for. This of course sucks big time.

Hope this makes sense.

Thanks, Andrew, for posting your further thoughts. That helps me make better sense of the different categories we're talking about. We (as a culture) can be so sloppy about slapping the "addiction" label on things.

I guess, just like other sorts of addictive chemicals, some people would be pre-disposed to becoming addicted to the chemicals associated with sexual pleasure? It seems sad that, for some people, those chemicals would, then, be somewhat toxic or dangerous.

I can only feel sorry for those who don't experience that kinda "magic."

Well, you can save your sympathy, and your condescension, because a lot of us don't want either one. I do happen to know how to have an orgasm, BTW, and am just fine getting one by myself. Frankly, there's no fucking way I'd survive being raped again, and if that means avoiding sex, so be it. And attitudes like those espoused here -- the condescending as fuck "Your poor oppressed survivors MUST have sex or you'll NEVER be okay!" just makes it even harder for many of us to heal. For some people having sex may help them heal, but this one-size-fits-all mentality is some absurd bullshit. As a survivor I can make my own goddamn decisions about what I need to do to heal, and it's been my experience that every time I have sex, even if it's "good" sex with a committed partner who I love, it inevitably ends up with me trying to kill myself. So, thanks, but I'll take being alive and celibate over being dead.

"And attitudes like those espoused here -- the condescending as fuck 'Your poor oppressed survivors MUST have sex or you'll NEVER be okay!' just makes it even harder for many of us to heal."

In fact, I wonder how many of the rapists believed the more-general "you poor people MUST have sex or you'll NEVER be okay/healthy/adult!" versions in the first place...

"So, thanks, but I'll take being alive and celibate over being dead."

Meanwhile, I have awful luck in dating and I'll take being celibate over being a rapist*.

* I heard that it is technically possible for a woman to rape a man.

As another asexual I also have to post how sad it makes me that people assume that just because I have never had a desire to have sex, there *must* be something wrong with me. I don't really like to be classified as abnormal by the article, even if it wasn't the intent.

As another asexual I also have to post how sad it makes me that people assume that just because I have never had a desire to have sex, there *must* be something wrong with me. I don't really like to be classified as abnormal by the article, even if it wasn't the intent.

Only then can their healing begin. With lots of counciling.
This Staci Haines seems to be going to the opposite direction.

Staci Haines advocates sexual abuse survivor's taking control of their lives and their healing and doing whatever is RIGHT for them to recover. For each and every survivor it's different.

No one person is exactly like another person, so sticking all survivor's who have engaged in a lot of sex need to stop having all sex. It's as individual as every other human choice. But the point is survivor's need to learn to MAKE THE CHOICE.

The book is a really great book and it's saved my life and my relationship.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but since sexual activity (either alone or with a partner) is something that our bodies are generally wired to participate in (I mean we have the hormones, etc., without doing anything artificial to ourselves), how is it possible to become addicted in the clinical sense? Can we separate out people who are actually "addicted" versus people who just have high sex drives? Does it have to do with destructive behaviors?

I'll try to answer this, although I'm definitely the wrong person. It has to do with:
1) destructive behaviour (as you say): engaging in the act even though it is bad for you (i.e. bad partners, harming other parts of your life, giving up standards of how you want to live your life in order to get it); and
2) the nature of the desire.

Alcoholics who do not drink are still alcoholics - they crave alcohol, no matter what. It isn't connected, necessarily, to anything concrete (such as wanting champagne at a birthday party); the need is completely separated from a rational desire and controls the person. Severe addiction essentially overrides free will and a rational thought process: the person cannot balance out the good of the action with the bad, but does the action regardless.

I'm not a psychologist, but I've noticed that the underlying issue in many mental disorders is a disconnect between emotions and their triggers. Our emotions are usually pretty rational: something bad happens, we are sad; something reminds us of something sad or stressful, and we get upset. Many people with mental illness have emotions that bear no rational relation to the world around them.

Likewise, the actions of addicts bear little relation to their own circumstances, and even less relation to their own rational values. A person who deeply values emotional intimacy in sex, but nevertheless has a few one-night stands, may very well be addicted to the physical aspect of it in ways that a person with a high sex drive and lower need for emotional intimacy has, even though the latter person has much more sex.

One fundamental element of addiction is the inability to say "no" without stress - whether it be alcohol, drugs, food, sex, extreme sports, etc. (Obviously, everything on that list except for drugs can be a positive element in people's lives.)

I don't think that addiction has anything to do with quantity or desire; rather, it has everything to do with control over the desire, ability to refuse and stress when doing so, and the effect upon one's life.