Now that people are beginning to accept the idea that addictions do not necessarily involve the ingestion of a drug, today’s blog briefly overviews some of the newer addictions that are being talked about in clinical circles up and down the country.
Walking: Yes, believe it or not, there are people out there who like nothing better than to walk for hours and hours every day to get their kicks. This has been termed ‘pathological rambling’ and I hear there are a few Ramblers Anonymous groups in existence. This should not be confused with those other ramblers who are addicted to the sound of their own voice and engage in constant monologues (e.g., politicians). This is a diction problem rather than an addiction problem.
Rug making: This has been reported amongst the recently engaged and newly wed couples. Every evening after coming back from work, these couples spend hours making rugs by sowing squares of material together. A reported behavioural sign of ‘rug addiction’ is a preoccupation with needles. One of the couple is usually much less into the activity than their partner and builds up an incredible tolerance level before undergoing withdrawal. (Withdrawal effects from rug making have been reported and include feelings of happiness, normality and rational thought).
Gardening: For most people this is just an innocent pastime, but for a minority it can become an addiction. Why do some people become hooked on their garden? Theories are at present lacking but discourse analysts tell me that gardening has an established “recreational drug-related rhetoric”. Next time a gardener asks you about your “pot plants” or “grass”, or the quickest way to dispose of “weeds”, don’t make a hash of your answer.
Telling jokes: Can humour be dangerous? In a previous blog (and based on an article I had published I a 1989 issue of The Psychologist), I brought to your attention an account of ‘Witzelsucht’ (‘punning mania”) based on the work of Dr. A. A. Brill (dating back to a 1929 paper in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis). But now the discussion seems to be about the effects of ‘passive joking’. Should people have to put up with people’s joking when they go to a public place? Do they really need the pun and excitement? Passive joking certainly changes my own behaviour. I find that straight after reading a column by Stephen Fry or Charlie Brooker, I have an incredible urge to be witty myself. It’s even worse of there is a word-processor nearby…which brings me to my final addiction.
Writing addiction: It may come as a surprise but some people (including a small percentage of academics) are actually addicted to writing. Those of us that have an “ink problem” undertake ritualistic behaviour before engaging in the activity and experience immense “highs” on acceptance of an article or seeing the article in print. Tolerance occurs quickly and with writers having to write longer and longer articles or books to get intense “highs” (a stage at which the writing addict is well and truly “booked”). Irritability and withdrawal effects are experienced when they (i) get an article rejected, (ii) go more than a few days without getting anything accepted or published, (iii) run out of ideas to write about (many writers fear developing a “think problem” and some may resort to “clue sniffing” for inspiration), and (iv) are on holiday without access to a word-processor. This last consequence can sometimes be partly overcome by carrying a writing implement. Anecdotal evidence suggests writing addicts show cross-tolerance to pens and pencils but not to crayons.
So there you have it – or not – as the (clinical) case may be.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Brill, A.A. (1929). Unconscious insight: Some of its manifestations. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 10, 145-161.
Garfield, E. (1987). The crime of pun-ishment. Essays of an Information Scientist, 10, 174-178.
Griffiths, M.D. (1989). It’s not funny: A case study of ‘punning mania’. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 2, 272.
Griffiths, M.D. (1993). Addictions: Looking to the future. Clinical Psychology Forum, 62, 16.
While researching an article on compulsive masturbation, I quite by chance came across a recent paper published by Wolter Seuntjens in the Journal of Unsolved Questions entitled ‘The Masturbation Fantasy Paradox: An Overlooked Phenomenon?’ (And yes, I too was amazed that there was a journal with such a name, although it colloquially calls itself JUNQ).
Seuntjens noted in his paper that masturbation is an activity that is often accompanied by fantasizing. However, he uses anecdotal evidence and material found in biographic and literary works to suggest some people are completely unable to fantasize about the person they are in love with during masturbation. This he describes as the ‘Masturbation Fantasy Paradox’ (MFP), a “putative phenomenon” that “may be a particular case of a more general principle put forward by Sigmund Freud”. Freud wrote an essay in 1912 concerning the paradoxes of love and desire. More specifically, in ‘On the universal tendency to debasement in the sphere of love’ Freud noted that “where such men love they have no desire and where they desire they cannot love”.
The whole thesis of the paper appears to rests on a few choice selections from autobiographical material supplied by comic actor and broadcaster (and all-round polymath) Stephen Fry, journalist and columnist Dermod Moore, and French writer and poet (and founder of the Surrealist movement) André Breton. More specifically, the extracts chosen by Seuntjens were:
- Extract 1: “Although I was to develop, like every male, into an enthusiastic, ardent and committed masturbator, he was never once, nor ever has been, the subject of a masturbatory fantasy. Many times I tried to cast him in some scene. I was directing for the erotic XXX cinema in my head, but it always happened that some part of me banished him from the set, or else the very sight of him on screen in the coarse porn flick running in my mind had the effect of a gallon of cold water. Sex was to enter our lives, but he was never wank fodder, never” (Stephen Fry in Moab is My Washpot).
- Extract 2: “I have no racy stories about shady events after lights-out in the tent. In fact, having recently discovered masturbation, I found camp frustrating for the lack of opportunity for relief. The fly-infested latrines were the only possible venues, but, unaccountably, self-abuse lost its allure there. However, I was in love with a boy in my patrol. I never really thought about sex with him, but we would roll around on the damp grass in mock combat, laughing and shouting “Help! Homo! Rape!” loudly enough, supposedly, to disguise our covert desire from the others. And from each other” (Dermod Moore in Diary of a Man [about his experience as a Boy Scout]).
- Extract 3: “In 1930, André Breton, while discussing sexuality in the loosely formed group of surrealists, remarked comparably: What do you think about when you masturbate? André Breton: It is accompanied by a series of fleeting images of different women (dream women) or I knew or know but never a woman I have loved”.
These three selections are presented as “direct observations” and then followed by an extract from a book The Ultimate Aphrodisiac by John Hole. In the novel, the book’s main protagonist Norman Ranburn says:
- Extract 4: “It didn’t matter that he might be in love with her. Love meant nothing at his age. Except, he discovered with some fascination, that he didn’t want to besmirch and overlay his vision of her with a dirty wanker’s fantasy”.
Unsurprisingly, Seuntjens notes there is no scientific research into the MFP and also claims there is little research on masturbatory fantasizing more generally. His first port of call are Nancy Friday’s books My Secret Garden (the best selling book on female sexual fantasies) and Men in Love, Men’s Sexual Fantasies: The Triumph of Love Over Rage. Two of Friday’s respondents arguably describe the MFP when they are reported as saying:
- Extract 5: “The funny thing is, when I’m dating someone I really care for, I never fantasize about them…Usually my thoughts center around a man I find fantastically attractive and very nice, i.e., a customer, a stranger on the street, someone I don’t know too well” (‘Beth Anne’).
- Extract 6: “By age twenty, still a virgin, I had had a succession of enchanting teen-age affairs – but since nice girls didn’t have sexual organs and certainly didn’t fuck, I didn’t even attempt to fondle a breast or introduce ‘French’ kissing. I didn’t even feel free to fantasize my latest love for masturbation purposes, usually resorting to her sister or one of her less attractive girl friends instead. One’s love had to be kept on a special Pedestal” (‘Don’).
Friday then goes onto speculate (in her book Forbidden Flowers: More Women’s Sexual Fantasies) that:
“One of the ironies of fantasy is that the hero of our erotic reveries is rarely the man we love. Perhaps it is the very fulfillment and satisfaction we get from him that leaves nothing to the imagination, and so we need these strangers in the night to people our imaginary sexual worlds. They bring us the excitement of the unknown”.
In an arguably more scientific piece of research, Seuntjens made reference to Dr. Brett Kahr’s 2007 book Sex and the Psyche that included reference to his British Sexual Fantasy Research Project comprising 13,553 participants and additional and in-depth face-to-face interviews with a further 122 people. Dr. Kahr made no direct reference to MFP but did note a more negative reason as to why some people do not fantasize about people they love:
“Many of the people whom I interviewed told me that they did not want to fantasize about the partner with whom they had had a row only hours before, the same partner who had spent all their money and had bored them with endless stories about their tedious work colleagues”.
Although the evidence presented by Seuntjens for the MFP was (at best) arguably anecdotal, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. If it does exist, the obvious question to ask why some people may ‘suffer’ from the MFP while others don’t. As Seuntjens concluded:
“If Freud intended the paradox primarily for the physical act of sex, the Masturbation Fantasy Paradox describes the phenomenon for the mental process of fantasizing. The Masturbation Fantasy Paradox, if it is a genuine phenomenon, may prove to be a special case of the more general paradox of love and desire so pointedly expressed in Freud’s dictum”.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Freud, S. (1912). On the universal tendency to debasement in the sphere of love’. ‘Contributions to the psychology of love II’ in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (1957), Vol. XI, London: Hogarth Press.
Friday, N. (1973). My Secret Garden: Women’s Sexual Fantasies. New York: Pocket Books.
Friday, N. (1975). Forbidden Flowers: More Women’s Sexual Fantasies. London: Arrow Books.
Friday, N. (1980). Men in Love, Men’s Sexual Fantasies: The Triumph of Love Over Rage. London: Arrow Books.
Fry, S. (1997). Moab is My Washpot. London: Hutchinson.
Hole, J. (1996). The Ultimate Aphrodisiac. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Kahr, B. (2007). Sex and the Psyche. London: Allen Lane
Moore, D. (2005). Diary of a Man. Dublin: Hot Press Books.
Pierre, J. (1992). Investigating Sex – Surrealist Discussions 1928-1932 (translated by Malcom Imrie). New York: Verso.
Seuntjens, W. (2013). The Masturbation Fantasy Paradox: An overlooked phenomenon? Journal of Unsolved Questions, 3(1), 9-12