Debunking ‘Sexual Anorexia’: A Critical Look at Dr. Weiss’s Theory

Dr. Doug Weiss defines sexual anorexia as the “active withholding of emotional, sexual, and spiritual intimacy.” Unlike established terms like mismatched sexual desire, hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), or asexuality, Weiss’s definition attempts to frame intimacy issues as a deliberate and intentional act. However, this framing presents several problems.

Pathologizing Low Sexual Desire

Weiss’s concept pathologizes low or mismatched sexual desire by suggesting that individuals who experience this are intentionally withholding intimacy. Many people struggling with low desire do so due to emotional, psychological, or relational challenges—not from a conscious choice to withhold intimacy. By framing it as a deliberate act, Weiss unfairly shifts the blame to the individual rather than considering the relationship, individual and environmental dynamics that may be contributing to the problem. He also risks excusing more serious issues, such as emotional abuse, by not recognizing the complexity of desire and intimacy struggles.

Low sexual desire is not always a conscious decision; it often arises from stress, trauma, or deeper emotional struggles. Weiss’s approach oversimplifies these experiences, pathologizing individuals for something that is often beyond their control.

Inappropriate Comparison to Anorexia Nervosa

Weiss likens sexual anorexia to anorexia nervosa, an eating disorder where individuals obsessively restrict food intake to manage overwhelming feelings of shame and control. People with anorexia nervosa engage in compulsive behaviors driven by intense anxiety and trauma related to their body image. They often perceive themselves as fat despite being dangerously thin, and their actions are attempts to regain control over feelings of worthlessness.

This comparison is deeply flawed because intimacy and sexual issues, while serious, do not involve the same life-threatening dynamics as anorexia nervosa. Sexual desire challenges stem from a variety of factors, such as relational conflicts, stress, and trauma, but they lack the obsessive-compulsive control mechanisms present in eating disorders. By equating sexual anorexia with anorexia nervosa, Weiss minimizes the severity of eating disorders and overstates the impact of sexual problems, creating a false equivalence.

Assigning Blame to One Partner

Weiss’s framing of sexual anorexia places responsibility for intimacy issues on one partner, casting them as the “villain” in the relationship. This victim-villain narrative oversimplifies the complexity of intimacy problems, which are usually the result of both partners’ actions and emotions. Intimacy struggles are rarely one-sided; they are often deeply intertwined with the relational dynamics both individuals contribute to. By blaming one partner, Weiss risks exacerbating the emotional divide between couples, leading to more resentment and conflict rather than encouraging mutual responsibility and healing.

Overlooking Trauma and Emotional Abuse

Weiss’s focus on the intentional withholding of intimacy overlooks critical issues like trauma, anxiety, or emotional abuse that may underlie intimacy struggles. Many individuals with low sexual desire are not deliberately withholding affection, but are coping with unresolved trauma or emotional distress. In these cases, intimacy issues stem from psychological challenges rather than a conscious decision to control or hurt a partner.

Furthermore, Weiss’s theory fails to differentiate between withholding intimacy as a relational issue and as a form of emotional abuse. Emotional abuse can involve non-physical actions like withholding affection to isolate or manipulate a partner. By not addressing the possibility of emotional abuse, Weiss risks conflating normal intimacy struggles with abusive behavior and minimizing the seriousness of controlling dynamics within relationships.

Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes

Weiss’s theory also reinforces harmful gender stereotypes by often positioning women as the ones withholding intimacy, particularly when they are exhausted from childcare, work, or household tasks. Instead of acknowledging that stress and overwork can lead to decreased sexual desire, Weiss frames this as a form of intentional withholding. This perspective perpetuates unequal dynamics in relationships by suggesting that women should prioritize intimacy over their own well-being, reinforcing traditional, misogynistic gender roles.

Emotional Anorexia vs. Intimacy Anorexia

Weiss’s concept of sexual anorexia also fails to differentiate between intimacy anorexia and other emotional issues, such as emotional anorexia. Emotional anorexia refers to a person’s inability to express their feelings, often due to fear of shame or rejection. These individuals may not be withholding intimacy out of malice, but rather due to deep emotional struggles that make it difficult for them to connect. In such cases, labeling them as “intimacy anorexics” fails to address the underlying emotional challenges that are at play.

Ultimately, Weiss’s concept misses the root causes of low sexual desire, which often include relational pressures, guilt, lack of excitement, and power dynamics. By framing the issue as an intentional withholding of intimacy, Weiss oversimplifies the complexities of desire and intimacy, failing to address the deeper issues that contribute to sexual and emotional struggles in relationships.

Marisol G. Westberg