Talk:Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous

}}

Notability
There are reliable sources discussing Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous. See,. If someone could please rewrite the article using them, I would greatly appreciate it. If not I will get to it as soon as I can. &mdash; Craigtalbert 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
The entire article is written based on the premise that sex and love addiction are real constructs. As noted on the sex addiction page there is no medical consensus sex addiction actually exists. Article should be modifed to reflect this. Perhaps something like "recovery of sex addiction" could be changed to "recovery of postulated sex addiction" or similar. — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesStewart7 (talk • contribs).
 * The organization is based on the premise that sex and love addiction are real, and the article describes the organization. There is no POV issue. — Craigtalbert 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article could be modified to better reflect the fact that these are the views of the organisation only eg first sentence could be "Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous (SLAA) is a Twelve Step program that aims to treat sex addiction and love addiction." Replacing "recovery from" with "aims to treat" makes it more clear that these goals reflect the beliefs of the organisation.JamesStewart7 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the changes seem fine. I don't know why saying the SLAA book is used as standard literature is compromised by "weasel words." I'm going to remove that unless an explanation is posted. -- Craigtalbert 12:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC
 * Please just state who approved the book for what purpose. If the SLAA approved it for use as opposed to some other ruling body just say that JamesStewart7 02:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reworded it to make it a little clearer that it's approved by SLAA rather than some outside entity. — Craigtalbert 02:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm fairly happy with that change and the POV of the article in general now. -- JamesStewart7 10:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing the medical opinion issue tells us is that mainstream medical practice and SLAA differ in their views. To assume that medical practitioners are correct and SLAA wrong would be a little naive. If medical practice had solved the problem, SLAA would never have been created, or grow in member numbers. 82.31.207.100 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Restoring large portions of the article that were removed?
Large portions of the article were removed in 14 June 2007, without discussion here. I think the old version contained quite a lot of useful material. See See for the 11 June 2007 version.

At Wikipedia we prefer to improve material over removing it. Is it okay to put it back? If not, which parts should not be restored?

Perhaps we can add a "Critism" or "Arguments against..." section to address the NPOV issue.

The problem with missing sources in the June version is solved in the current version.

193.10.114.153 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The NPOV issue is resolved.


 * The article, and many other twelve-step program articles, were deleted around June of 2007, for failing to meet notability requirements; they didn't cite reliable sources for the information in them. I rewrote this article and a lot of the articles on twelve-step programs after they were deleted using reliable sources. See the discussion Coelacan's talk page for details.


 * I started the rewrite with the versions of the articles as they were before the deletion (I retrived them from answers.com which mirrors a lot of wikipedia articles). Any information you add back, you'll need to make sure it cites a reliable source -- as defined by wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Codependency vs. Love Addiction
The links for love addiction in this article go to codependency, which I don't think is accurate. Love addiction, as I understand it, is an addiction to the 'rush' of being 'in love,' and is separate from behaviors that characterize codependency. For instance, a codependent may become enmeshed with an alcoholic (which is where the term originally came from) and remain in relationship with him or her when all good sense tells them that they should leave the alcoholic. This is 'classic' codependency. A love addict, on the other hand, will leave their 'person of addiction' whenever the 'rush' wears off, and may or may not exhibit the classic signs of codependency. If I were more knowledgeable about specific differences, I would start a bona fide 'love addiction' page, but I don't think I'm the right person to do so... MinervaK (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * -- Scarpy (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pia Mellody's book "Facing Love Addiction" (1992) addresses the question of the difference between codependency and love addiction. She asserts that codependency is an underlying psychological disease process that can lead to love addiction, but that not all love addicts are necessarily codependent, and vice-versa. MinervaK (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Off my watchlist
Related to discussion regarding SCA, I am also removing SLAA from my watchlist. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Section removed
I have removed these contentious claims:


 * Sex and love addiction have been rejected as diagnoses by the American Psychiatric Association. There is little evidence that SLAA and similar such 12 step programmes work. Modern clinical sexology views SLAA as a form of conversion therapy, attempting to suppress individual's erotic selves in order to fit with Christian teaching around sexuality.

That paragraph used these references:
 * https://www.silvaneves.co.uk/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/6089?opendocument&part=9
 * Not reliable: Psychology Today blogs are considered WP:SPS

It comes down to this: Who is Silva Neves, and why are her opinions on the nature of efficacy of SLAA important enough to include in this article? Looking at the claims, this may be an edit done with a conflict of interest. SkylabField (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I’ve looked in to this more. “There is little evidence that SLAA and similar such 12 step programmes work” — that’s pretty disingenuous.  There hasn’t been much research in to the efficacy of sex/love based 12-step programs at all, so we could equally state that “There is little evidence to contradict the idea that SLAA is highly effective”.  If one wants to make a claim like that, please provide a medically reliable source supporting it, i.e. one with a DOI.


 * “Modern clinical sexology views SLAA as a form of conversion therapy, attempting to suppress individual's erotic selves in order to fit with Christian teaching around sexuality” A quick Google search doesn’t find any evidence to support this assertion. Anyway, it’s not necessary with Wikipedia policy to prove a negative.  To support this assertion, we need more than a single book as a reference.  SkylabField (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * “Sex and love addiction have been rejected as diagnoses by the American Psychiatric Association”. Again, a disingenuous claim.  It’s called “Compulsive Sexual Behavior” in the research community, and is considered a real issue.  For example, from, we have this quote: “Although the clinical phenomenon of compulsive sexual behavior (CSB; also conceptualized as ‘sex addiction’, ‘hypersexuality’, ‘sexual impulsivity’ or ‘out-of-control-sexual-behavior’) has been described and theorized about in the literature for decades (e.g., Barth & Kinder, 1987; Carnes, 1983; Coleman, 1991; Goodman, 1992; Grubbs et  al., 2020; Kafka, 2010), it has only recently received formal recognition as a clinical disorder.”  It would be more accurate to state “Sex and love addiction is called “Compulsive sexual behavior” among clinicians” or what not.  SkylabField (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The claim: >>Modern clinical sexology views SLAA as a form of conversion therapy, attempting to suppress individual's erotic selves in order to fit with Christian teaching around sexuality<< also directly contradicts what (a 2021 paper, so recent, as well as a WP:MEDRS) states: “participation in ‘S’ groups has long been recommended as an adjunct to therapy by clinicians who specialize in treating CSB (e.g., Carnes, 2000; Parker & Guest, 2002; Rosenberg, Carnes, & O’Connor, 2014; Schneider & Irons, 2001; Weiss, 2015; Ziff, 2019), with some recommending integrating 12-step-related tasks and principles into therapy and treatment plans (e.g., Carnes; 2000; Stein & Carnes, 2017).” SkylabField (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)