BijouBlog

It's not porn (not really a strange addiction), and it's not my strange addiction. What is it? The series My Strange Addiction on the The Learning Channel. Everyone seems to be baring privates, or in this case, mostly eating publicly what they are doing privately, on TV these days, but what I find most fascinating is the eating. Yes, people addicted to eating objects one would not consider to be food. And we aren't talking about the sexual fetishes of eating/drinking piss/cum and the like that often appear in porn movies, though, recently, the show featured a woman addicted to drinking her own urine, which sometimes tasted "lemony" (she claimed it was a type of holistic therapy for cancer).

Here's the rundown on the eating strange objects episodes, and of course you can obtain more information about these episodes on-line  (http://.howstuffworks.com/tv/my-strange-addiction) : eating toilet paper; eating chalk; eating the insides of couch cushions; eating laundry detergent; eating household cleanser; eating glass; and eating cigarette ashes. Sounds gross, revolting, and other adjectives that mean approximately the same? Perhaps so, but perhaps not that unusual, in many cases.

What's disturbing, in my view, is that many of these addicts are socially, psychologically, and economically marginalized, such as minority women or gay men, many of whom have suffered serious traumas. For example, Crystal has been eating household cleanser everyday since she was twelve; her shame, embarrassment and concern for her health have caused her to keep this a secret. She said in a later interview that she thought she was "cleaning herself out" after suffering physical and sexual abuse as a child. Adele, an African-American woman, suffers from Pica, a disorder found most commonly in toddlers and pregnant women who lack certain nutrients, causing them to crave non-nutritive substances like chalk, coins, batteries and even dirt. Sometimes this addiction is caused by stress, and Adele admits her first time happened during a very emotional period in her life, when her parents were on the brink of divorce.

Not that these addictions are solely, or ultimately, class-based cause or effect, but where are the wealthy white upper middle-class men in this scenario (the ones who still hold the power)? Perhaps they can't come out with these types of issues because of their position in the society, or they have recourse to private (and expensive) psychological assistance, or they haven't experienced the level of trauma these women have suffered (including never having experienced hunger, forgive my self-righteousness). There's also perhaps the stigma, at least in certain social strata, of divulging such private matters in any public media, much less the specific "trashy" association of appearing on reality TV.

Or, more significantly, perhaps the powerful suffer from an addiction based on power (harming others), rather than powerlessness (harming one's self). I'm thinking of Larry Craig and his bathroom escapades, or, more overtly, Bernie Madoff and his colossal ponzi scheme. Note that Craig and Madoff were involuntarily outed; Adele and the others like her voluntarily submitted their addictive behaviors to the scrutiny of the public.

The key to a possible cure in many cases of addiction that are ultimately psychological (rather than organic) is moderation, founded on a respect for the self, integrated with a respect for others, a concept that proves elusive in a culture of narcissism. Everyone wants to be a celebrity; everyone wants, and attempts to imitate, the power and fame associated with such celebrity. And it's so easy to do so.

I'm concerned that someone on youtube is already eating poisonous couch cushions for their celebrity moment. I'm even more concerned that Madoff-like schemes, like the recent "Diamond Bar PTA mom" ponzi scheme in California, continue to devastate the livelihoods, and hopes, of many Americans.

The National Geographic Channel has recently been airing a series called Taboo, focusing on topics ranging from religious practices that involve extreme bodily pain (of course, having been taught by pre-Vatican II Catholics who often focused on graphic details in the passion of Jesus, not really that strange, at least to me?!) to obesity (why is fatness taboo?), to “strange love.” The one episode focusing focusing on “strange love” that has garnered some media attention is the real-life "Lars and the Real Girl" relationship, when a man in the United States falls in love with a sex doll (see http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/taboo/4599/Overview).

But I do wonder if, in this culture of sexual differentiation, we need to even rethink the words “strange” and/or “taboo” in attempting to define sexuality and sexual practices. Taboo basically means a prohibition; if one violates the taboo, one somehow disrupts the moral order of the specific society. In most traditional cultures, the social and moral basis for sexuality is procreation in the structure of heterosexual marriage. Anything that diverges from that norm is taboo unless, and I thinking of Catholic and also Buddhist monasticism, physical sex is denied in a quest for some form of religious goal. Thus, most taboos seem to focus on sex, obviously, as sex is a fundamental human dynamic, and the basis for human relationships. Even relationships that deny physical sex (I am thinking, as above, of a celibate monk and his relationship with God), are often defined by such denial and then often develop practices, such as flogging oneself, that can be interpreted as as a sublimation of (or, one might argue), an attempt to transcend sexual desires.

Given that in many Western societies, traditional sexual taboos, such as the one against homosexuality, seem to be gradually fading, how does on determine what is a sexual taboo in this pluralistic dynamic? A person taking the broad utilitarian view would say, “As long as what I am doing doesn't hurt anyone,” or a more libertarian one, “It's private and between consenting adults. Mind your own business.” Yet what used to be a private act (even that other sexual bugaboo, masturbation) is obviously now quite public, as anyone can post a video of a cowboy boot stomping a can for a specific sexual audience that shares this "stomping" fetish on youtube. (Basically a free-for-all!) How could one, even try to rank, in this situation, which one is perhaps “better” for or less “harmful” and to either the private psyche or the public good?

But perhaps one can posit something of a ranking or norm based even in a pluralistic potpourri. In this culture, we place a primary value on our sex/love relationships with another person; in fact, many of us define ourselves by that specific relationship. We don't usually tend to define that relationship in the context of a broader, ideological framework. Thus, today, a couple can live together and not feel compelled to marry (in fact, they tend to do so more and more in the West, and often even produce children, before marriage). As a result, it becomes more difficult to us to understand, as in the case of the man in love with the sex doll (or, on that other show, Strange Addiction, the woman in love with the Berlin Wall), that an object can become the focus of a sexual relationship, or that one can claim that their primary love relationship is with Jesus or God or Buddha or Mother Earth. These taboo relationships, interestingly, seem to be based more on a conscious ideology. Something of a reversal, perhaps, from the more traditional taboo dynamic?