From the mouths of sex columnists...

[flexagon]

From this week's Savage Love, an interesting quote:

Our bodies are our own...; they’re ours to use, abuse, and, since we’re all going to die one day, they’re ours to use up. Sane adults strike a balance between taking care of our bodies—eating right, drinking in moderation, getting exercise—while still allowing for pleasures that require us to eat poorly, drink in excess, and lie motionless for days at a time while we recover. The better care you take of yourself... the longer you’ll live, of course, and the more pleasures you’ll get to enjoy before you inevitably croak.

It's true, of course. I'm going to use up my body. It's interesting to think about having a choice of how (and how fast) to do so, without there necessarily being much of a moral aspect to it.

Sam, my occasional massage therapist, has told me many times that he doesn't regret all the damage his body took during his time as a competitive runner. The experiences were worth it to him. When I think of how I feel doing acro, or back walkovers, I can even understand -- I might do those things even if I thought they were slightly harmful. Is it really that different for someone to feel the same way about alcohol or cocaine or meth or risky sex?

Comments

[islenskr.livejournal.com]

I want to think about this some more, but the first thing that comes to mind is that with acro and running, it's *just* your body and just *your* body. Being addicted to alcohol, cocaine or meth affects you brain a whole not more and in much more negative ways, plus it can have the side effect of affecting people around you. Risky sex, while perhaps not negatively affecting your brain, can also have bad consequences for others.

I think there's a difference between using your body in a way that only has consequences for you down the road and using it in a way that negatively affects other people. And then there's the brain aspect.

*thinking*

[kaigex.livejournal.com]

Just to throw more thoughts on the brain fire...

I'm not sure there is a way to use your body such that you can ensure it doesn't negatively effect those around you. Even somebody that engages in clean living to the hilt and exercises regularly may well develop chronic conditions, blow out their knees, or otherwise damage themselves and thereby affect the lives of those around them. And, of course, somebody can engage in risky drugs, alcohol, and sex without necessarily becoming an addict.

Also, it seems there is a brain aspect either way since exercise itself releases lots of endorphins and that too influences the brain, no? (In fact, the endorphins stimulate some of the same opiod receptors that the drugs do....)

[kaigex.livejournal.com]

To add some thoughts to the brain fire...

I'm not sure one can ensure that any activity they engage in won't negatively affect other people. Even if somebody engages in clean living to the hilt and exercises regularly, they may develop chronic conditions, blow out their knees, or otherwise injure themselves. This could cause job problems, or just a general shifts in disposition that would be regarded as a negative change.

Also, there might be a brain aspect either way, as regular exercise releases endorphins which do indeed affect and influence the brain (and actually, they bind to the same opiod receptors many of the drugs do).

[bluechromis.livejournal.com]

Well, two thoughts - 1) Drugs require escalation, at least with any regular use. I can run 5 miles every day for years and still get that endorphin rush...heroin, not so much.

And it's that escalation that moves it into moral territory, because sooner or later you are going to hurt someone as you chase that elusive past.

Risky sex is an interesting one...what defines risky sex?

[kaigex.livejournal.com]

Not all drugs require escalation. For instance, marijuana and acid do not. Even cocaine, if somebody did it, say, weekly, would not. Movies are big on the ultra drug spiral, DARE likes to push it, etc., but it just isn't true. There is also something to cultural considerations; in the US many drugs have a very negative culture around them because those are the circles one has to move in to acquire them - not necessarily because the drug causes that itself. For instance, there are countries outside the US where cocaine is used as a recreational drug without the massive addiction you see here; hell, it was even a recreational drug in the US in the 20s...(but yeah, enough people couldn't handle it that it was outlawed).

On the flip side, somebody who is a kick-ass athlete and then starts to lose it with age might get obsessed with going to the gym, trying to relive that moment, and may well hurt those around them trying to catch that elusive past.

Oddly, Darren Aronofsky has a movie depicting each. Requiem for a Dream (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180093/) for the former, and The Wrestler (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1125849/) for the latter.

[bluechromis.livejournal.com]

True, I made some blanket statements. I agree with you about pot and acid. Not coke or alcohol or meth. There is fairly substantial research that shows functional changes to the brain's dopamine pathways after as little as one dose of cocaine. The same is true for nicotine. It is not addiction that is triggered, but a predisposition for addiction. A quick pubmed search for Ungless and Bonci will get you started finding papers. So in terms of "moderation," I think it's a lot harder, if not impossible, to achieve moderation with some drugs than it is the other things flexy compared them to.

And beyond moderation, if we look at "excess," I'm not sure that I agree that a former athlete who is obsessed with chasing their past will reach the same rock bottom as an addict. The potential for hurt is there of course, but I'm not sure I see much risk of holding up a convenience store to finance track workouts, for example.

You have a great point about the peripheral effect of the social drug culture on one's path here in the states. If doing a drug means you have to associate with particular people, you are going to get a self-selecting population who tend towards addiction...because the other people don't care enough to jump through the hoops.

Personally I'm pretty far towards the personal liberties side of the scale, and think drugs should be decriminalized for many reasons, but I wouldn't put the risk assumed upon taking some drugs regularly as similar to that of excessive/extreme exercise. There is obviously a spectrum, and in an ideal world everyone would just be appropriately informed about the risks they are undertaking.

At the end of the day, is the payoff worth it? I guess that's an individual choice as long as they have the cognitive and emotional faculties to reasonably make that choice.

[kaigex.livejournal.com]

The better care you take of yourself... the longer you’ll live, of course, and the more pleasures you’ll get to enjoy before you inevitably croak.

Living longer just means you live longer. Whether or not you get more pleasures out of living longer depends on how you make use of that time. Supposedly you can get a good life boost by consuming less than 600 calories a day...but thanks, I think I'll pass.