Isn’t heterosexuality also like alcoholism?

Some people are upset that Rick Perry apparently likened homosexuality to alcoholism in his 2008 book.

Here’s what he said:

“Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink,” he wrote. “And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.”

While I think the second statement is true on its face, I’m having trouble with the first. Once alcohol enters the body, is an alcoholic really any more “powerless” over it than a non-alcoholic? I think a good argument could be made that (at least in many cases) an alcoholic actually has more power over the alcohol. Alcoholics have dramatically increased tolerance for booze, so much so that your typical alcoholic can drink a normal person under the table and still sit there looking remarkably sober. Say what you want about the ultimately destructive effects of alcohol, but the more a person is able to resist the intoxicating powers of a substance, the more he has power over it. I realize that what I said is not in alignment with the 12 Step approach, but power is power. To say alcoholics are powerless over alcohol is not entirely accurate. True, alcoholics may seem to be unable to resist drinking,  but suppose they are merely unwilling for the time being? How is that powerlessness? As to those who embrace the 12 step program and ultimately quit drinking, well, isn’t that a form of power over alcohol?

I’n not alone in taking issue with the “powerless over alcohol” meme:

Step One: We admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.

“When they tell you that you are powerless, that just means that someone else gets the power.”— Remark of a cynic.

The A.A. First Step, where people are supposed to “admit” that they are “powerless over alcohol”, is a hoax.

People are not “powerless” over their desires to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or take drugs. Being sick, and having a messed-up life from too much drinking, is just that — being sick. It isn’t “powerlessness.” Having difficulties quitting is not “powerlessness”, it’s having difficulties quitting. Saying that your drinking has really gotten out of control doesn’t mean that you are powerless over it.

Quitting can be hard, extremely difficult and painful, but that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible, or that you can’t do it. Remember: When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

The “powerless” doctrine of Alcoholics Anonymous is one of their most central religious beliefs….

Etc.

I’m not knocking the 12 Step approach as a recovery tool, as I have known people for whom it worked very well. But that does not mean I can’t take issue logically with the idea that people are “powerless” despite clear evidence that many of them do indeed have power.

And just as alcoholics can learn to moderate their alcohol intake or  abstain from alcohol entirely, anyone who wants to could practice sexual moderation or abstain from sex entirely. There have always been celibate individuals. This goes to the very essence of free will.

But unless homosexuality is an addiction (which there is no evidence that it is) I am unable to understand the basis for the comparison with alcoholism. Whether they take the 12 Step approach or not, alcoholics usually get into treatment because alcohol has damaged their bodies and/or their lives, and they have realized that they must stop drinking.

How is that like homosexuality? Sexual desire is not an addiction, and acting on that desire is not dangerous unless a sexual disease is transmitted, but diseases do not inhere to sex; they require transmission by an infected person. Having sex with healthy persons does not normally cause the body to deteriorate, and while it is debatable whether the “addiction” model should be applied to sexual behavior, those who do apply it see sexual addiction as quite another thing from merely having sex:

Recurrent failure (pattern) to resist impulses to engage in acts of sex.

Frequently engaging in those behaviors to a greater extent or over a longer period of time than intended.

Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to stop, reduce, or control those behaviors.

Inordinate amount of time spent in obtaining sex, being sexual, or recovering from sexual experience.

Preoccupation with the behavior or preparatory activities.

Frequently engaging in sexual behavior when expected to fulfill occupational, academic, domestic, or social obligations.

Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, academic, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior.

Need to increase the intensity, frequency, number, or risk of behaviors to achieve the desired effect, or diminished effect with continued behaviors at the same level of intensity, frequency, number, or risk.

Giving up or limiting social, occupational, or recreational activities because of the behavior.

Resorting to distress, anxiety, restlessness, or violence if unable to engage in the behavior at times relating to SRD (Sexual Rage Disorder).

The above features are by no means limited to homosexuality, which by itself is no more of an addiction than heterosexuality.

So it would have been just as logical for Perry in his comparison to have said this:

…if someone is attracted to a person of the opposite sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the opposite gender.

I have no argument there. Does anyone?

And does it not also follow that if homosexuality is like alcoholism (because there is a choice to drink or not just as there is a choice to have sex or not), then so is heterosexuality?

The first step is to admit you are powerless.

UPDATE: Perry also stands accused of something his accusers deem worse than comparing homosexuality to alcoholism — his alleged assertion that gays should abstain from sex:

In “On My Honor,” Perry also punted on the exact origins of homosexuality. He wrote that he is “no expert on the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate,” but that gays should simply choose abstinence. Perry’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on whether he maintains this view.

Drawing a parallel between homosexuality and alcoholism is offensive enough, but I’m especially impressed by Perry’s assertion that gays should choose abstinence. In other words, as far as this Republican presidential candidate is concerned, gay people just shouldn’t have sex — ever. They should simply “make a choice” not to “engage in sexual activity.”

I noticed that no actual quote calling for abstinence was supplied. So rather than lambaste Perry for “saying” the above, I thought I should do my homework. So…. based on the above statement, I downloaded the Kindle Edition of On My Honor and spent over two hours reading it in detail. I try to be thorough, and I know how to read while searching for something like that, and I saw absolutely nothing resembling a call for gay abstinence.  I even used Kindle’s search feature. Zero results for the words “abstinence” or “abstinent” or “abstain.”

Perry can fairly be criticized for his past support of sodomy laws, and for other things, but fair is far, and it is not fair to say that he called for gay abstinence when he did not.

In fact, what he did say is a far cry from a call for abstinence:

The radical homosexual movement seeks societal normalization of their sexual activity. I respect their right to engage in the individual behavior of their choosing, but they must respect the right of millions in society to normalize their behavior.

While I can take issue with the above, I see no call for abstinence there.

So why put words in the man’s mouth?