Talk:Sex Addicts Anonymous

The details about the questionnaire this group uses needs to be made clearer. Since no criteria for sex addiction exists in the DSM, I don't think it is sufficient to say "corretctly differentiates sex addicts from a control group". Some mention needs to be made of what definition of sex addiction this questionnaire is assessing. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesStewart7 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 July 2007.

That's a fair point. There were three groups in the study: self-identified sex addicts, court-determined sex offenders, and a control group. The results of the questionnaire correctly differentiated the self-identified sex addicts and court-determined sex offenders from a control group. I cleared up the language in the article. —

Craigtalbert 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

COSA is also a programming language ("Complementary Objects for Software Applications")[3]. There doesn't seem to be a specification or implementation yet, and some think it isn't to be taken seriously, so I'm not sure about its notability.--87.162.32.198 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"by several men who wanted a greater sense of anonymity than what was provided in other twelve step programs for sex addicts." Not sure this is correct - needs a reference. "SAA screens new members before giving them meetings times or locations, this is commonly called "12th Stepping."" - incorrect, some meetings don't require this. "SAA members are likely to have a history of sexual abuse during their childhood, and more substance abuse problems than control groups.[6]" - The reference for this does not refer to SAA but to sex addicts in general. A new reference needs to be found, or this sentence removed. 23 Nov 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.65.177 (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that there is no credible evidence to suggest SAA members, as opposed to sex addicts in general, are victims of childhood abuse. In any event, this sentence doesn't seem to be particularly informative about the organization, so I'm going to remove it. Belchfire (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To address your concerns:

1. When more than one sentence is supported by the same source, rather than repeating the same footnote several times, it is common to put it at the end of the last sentence in the group supported by that source. The information you are looking for is on page 121 in Clinical Management of Sex Addiction. I added some detail to the reference to make this clearer.
2. Just because some meetings do not do it, does not make it "incorrect." Rewriting it without using vague terms of size is difficult. Vague terms of size are unnecessary and redundant - "some," "a variety/number/majority of," "several," "a few," "many," "any," and "all." For example, "All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green." If you can qualify it without adding vagueness, or
   weasel words
   , have a go at it.
3. Plant, Miller and Plant (2004) cites Hunter (1990), which focused specifically on SAA members, as well as several others that focused on the general population. It is good for context, but I added the Hunter citation as well. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your points 1 and 3 seem valid. The problem with point 2 is that most people reading that sentence would infer it refers to SAA as a whole. Thus the practical information content of the sentence is incorrect. I am not proposing modification but removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.13.45 (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that all SAA groups do it would be incorrect, saying some SAA groups do it adds additional vagueness. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point one, the answer is "mostly, but not always" in that

Text-Source integrity

must be maintained. Once text from a different source is inserted within the referenced sentences, the orgininal text must be linked to the proper reference. E.G.:

1. Maecenas sed diam. Eget risus varius blandit sit amet non magna.^[1]
2. Maecenas sed diam^[1] Pharetra Parturient et?^[2] Eget risus varius blandit sit amet non magna.^[1]

— Safety Cap (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true that in Treatment Resources for the Paraphilic and Hypersexual Disorders, it lists SAA as an organization that treats hypersexuality, but it's not true that the organization identifies itself that way, it and definitely misleading to say that it's only for people who Identify as sex addicts (The only requirement for S.A.A. membership is a desire to stop acting out sexually). I think it may be okay to list treatment resources in the Hypersexuality article, but stating that SAA is an organization "for people with hypersexuality" is incorrect according to SAA's traditions. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel discussion located at talk:Sexual Compulsives Anonymous#Hypersexuality who identify as ____

— James Cantor (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting edit summary (No, that's a repeat of the same problem. "Their addictive sexual behavior" asserts in WP's voice that they DO have an addictive behavior, which fails WP:NPOV again. Return to talk?

This is absolutely untrue, it's saying without the disparaging language "describes itself as providing" and "from what it calls sex addiction" the purpose of the organization. You're assuming that everytime someone uses a word like "addiction" or "compulsion" they're using some strict clinical definition, and this is not true. These words existed colloquially long before the DSM ever existed, you can't prevent people from using them just because they're frowned upon in insular realms of academia. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]