The working paper has hit the nail on the head. Thank you for naming the problem. When I first came into SA, I came into a very strong group. The group was my sponsor as there were no women sponsors available in SA. I knew I could stay sober going to this group every week. I came into the fellowship in March 1989. I had wanted SA sobriety for a long time before I knew that there was a group with this sobriety. For almost two years I had a strong SA group. For over four years I have not had a strong SA group. I go to the Unity Conference [in Los Angeles] yearly to witness what strength is and recommit myself to SA sobriety and recovery. The groups that were near my home were small and had no sobriety. Two groups died. Another group was down to one or two, sometimes three, people and no sobriety. Occasionally I went far from home — 30 miles. I didn’t feel a part of the group. Being a woman I didn’t feel comfortable fellowshipping with the group before and after the meeting. I called occasionally the few women in the SA fellowship. For my sanity I went to other fellowships and did not talk about “lust.” Then the oldtimers in SA started to drop out, move away. Only two are left…

I lost my sobriety after five years. The pain kept me coming to meetings. I felt embarrassed. To get back on track I knew I needed a home group. I selected a meeting that could be my home group and now I have six and one-half months of SA sobriety.

Getting involved with newcomers is not that easy. I am a woman and I need firm boundaries. I will not give a newcomer man my phone number. Only women newcomers do I give my number to.

Sponsorship. I have tried to sponsor women. Each has dropped out to pursue a relationship. I don’t know what I’m doing as a sponsor. Usually a woman has multi-problems besides lust. I encourage each to do their First Step inventory. Listening to their inventories certainly keeps me sober.

Steps. I work the Steps in other fellowships. I haven’t felt safe to work the Steps with a bunch of SA men. I have been attending S-Anon this year. The woman I asked to be my sponsor freaked out when I told her I was also a sexaholic. She rejected me for sponsorship. I am now praying for a sponsor in Al-Anon. S-Anon is talking about having a meeting for working the Steps. Sometimes I feel very lonely in the SA/S-Anon fellowship. I keep coming back because I have respect for the drug of lust and know I don’t stand a chance alone. I am working the Steps with a sponsor in my food program and my sponsor can relate when I discuss lust.

Being a single woman having relationships with people both in and out of program is important to me. I am learning by trial and error. I like the idea of group inventory. The stronger the group, the safer I feel. Prayer sustains me one day at a time. I like the working paper and have encouraged the Fellowship to read it. Group infection is a serious problem.

Tucson, AZ: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft of working paper Number 1: Practical Guidelines for Group Recovery. While we generally feel pretty good about the progress of SA in Tucson, we welcome your encouragement to strengthen our activities. To this end, we have decided to schedule a special “group inventory meeting” each month to review our operation and make appropriate improvements.

Our specific comments on the working paper are:

1. We enthusiastically endorse the purpose of the paper: to provide guidelines to help groups become more effective.

2. We support the wording of all of the 17 points, with the following exceptions:

• a. In point #4, rather than indicate a preference for book-study meetings, we suggest that it might be preferable to recommend that all types of meetings be structured and conducted to emphasize the “priority of solution over problem.” While “dumping” or “getting current” meetings may tend to emphasize the problem over the solution, the following meeting types would seem to be useful: Book-study/discussion; Step-study/discussion; Topic/Discussion; Problem/Discussion; Speaker/Feedback. In addition to the main content, all meetings might well include: Opening and Closing prayer; Introductions; Readings; Chips; Step Reports.

• b. Regarding point #6, we prefer to let newcomers participate freely in the discussion. This serves to involve them quickly in the fellowship, and the expression of their feelings usually leads to the definition of the problem and discussion of the solution and program tools that work for us. This process reminds all of us of “how it was, what happened, and how it is now” as we share our experience, strength, and hope.

• c. As for point #17, we suggest that every aspect of the program is spiritual, that SA is a spiritual program.

3. Finally, we suggest that the paper might be more effective if the 17 points were re-formatted into a smaller number of main points, such as: Focus; Orientation; Sponsorship; Meetings; Fellowship.

San Diego, CA: Working Paper Number 1 (March/May 1995) was extremely well written. I have 114 days’ sobriety and have been in SA since November 1994.

The section on “Abstinence” on page 8 was good, but mention could be made of single members. In San Diego there is some trouble on that. Members are saying they have “X months of recovery,” but “X days of SA sobriety.” They see a difference between recovery and sobriety. Members with time in jail for exposing themselves and other unlawful acts are counting the time since they last did that as recovery, but want to live with an unmarried partner or go to porn booths, etc., [and still call themselves sober]. This is not a majority of members, but their presence is being felt as they have some time in SA. I find this confusing. In AA we follow the bottom line strictly, but SA appears to feel that sex addiction is different.

Personally, I want to treat sex addiction much like a bottle of booze. That makes it simpler for me. Is there a difference between recovery and sobriety in sex addiction? I feel the literature has to mention the requirement for singles to be celibate and explain why. For myself, I’ll continue to hold to the SA bottom line, which I understand to mean no sex with myself or anyone other than my spouse. Since I’m not married, this means no sex. Am I correct?

[Yes, you are. See Sexaholics Anonymous, p. 191. Ed.]

Birmingham, AL: Our group used this paper as our reading for a meeting recently. Then we all commented on it. We are a relatively new group, begun in the latter part of 1994. We average about four or five people at each meeting, of varying degrees of sobriety.

In general, the paper was well received. We noted that there were several things we were doing already, such as Step studies and encouraging phone calls. We agree that these things have been very important elements for keeping the emphasis on recovery.

It was noted that we did not emphasize sponsors as much in the group (although there has been some sponsorship within our group). One member commented that although he did not want to take the effort to become a sponsor, that it was something he should do for his own Twelfth Step. We intend to work an emphasis on sponsorship into the meeting format soon.

One member pointed out that the phrase “answering machines don’t count” (page 8) is unfair. We feel that making contact by answering machine can be of some value in making contact with sponsors and others. Of course, if the answering machine becomes an excuse for not making contact “person to person,” the value is reduced, and it can actually become detrimental. Perhaps it is best for each of us to keep this in mind and ask ourselves if we’re avoiding contact by using the answering machine.

We hope this will be of value in the preparation of this paper. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

San Jose, CA: By group conscience, the San Jose fellowship read and discussed the “working paper” from the SA Literature Committee. All attending members participated in this exercise which took two full meetings to complete.

While opinions varied on the application of this guideline appropriate to our group, we all agreed that this very timely paper provided helpful insights and convincing testimony as to the primary purpose of any group (i.e., recovery) and how to best work the SA program as a group.

Of special interest is the paper’s endorsement of “getting involved with newcomers” as the group’s capacity to carry its message is contingent on how well newcomers are challenged to do “the work it will take to survive.” For us this means attending lots of meetings, giving and receiving active sponsorship, working the Steps with a sense of urgency (do them faster rather than slower), practicing SA principles in all our affairs, and praying only for knowledge of God’s will for us and the power to carry it out (this is certainly a good “start” anyway). Admittedly, our group is attracting and retaining newcomers not at all, so we are keen to embrace the newcomer with a renewed sense of urgency and enthusiasm.

Not succumbing to the effects of “talking the walk” inertia, we opted to apply some of the suggestions made in the working paper:

• Effective immediately, we will use a book-study meeting format starting with Step Zero, we will make every effort to refrain from mechanically or ritualistically racing through reading the Steps and then “getting current” (as in the past) — but slowly and thoughtfully focus discussion on applying the respective Step in our “constantly new” life of recovery (and discovery/spiritual awakening with our Higher Power, others and ourselves!).
• Whenever a newcomer shows up, our book-study meeting will temporarily (fifteen minutes or so) convert into a newcomers meeting with the facilitator leading the group through pages 180 and 181 of the SA White Book (i.e., “What Do We Say To the Newcomer”); if the Spirit moves us, opportunities for First Step sharing may follow.
• Owing to our small size, we will meet for sixty minutes only (breaking from the SF Bay area standard of ninety minute meetings); we do this for two reasons:
  • We want to keep sharing “tight” and closely focused on the Steps and solution rather than loose and prone to lengthy “getting current” sessions often ill-grounded in the problem.
  • We want members to socialize after the meeting and affording an extra thirty minutes to do this promotes our fellowship, in particular, we find the rewards of real SA fellowship and are often realized by getting together in some small way either before or after the meeting — sometimes sharing a meal, dessert, a cup of coffee; other times recreating together as a group.
• Finally, we will conclude our meeting joining hands with each member expressing one insight gained from the meeting and/or one victory achieved / promise fulfilled working the Steps in gratitude to our Higher Power doing for us what we could not possible do for ourselves — followed by a member leading us in the Lord’s Prayer (or other suitable prayer). Amen!

Final thought, the San Jose group wholeheartedly thanks the SA Literature Committee for all their concern and effort in preparing and distributing this gem of a working paper and daily pray that its swift acceptance and enthusiastic application by SA groups everywhere will mean the difference between remaining in the problem content with pseudo-sexuality and pseudo-fellowship and “leading people through the Steps into their own spiritual awakening, God-connection, and eventual independence.” Committed to the latter, the San Jose SA Fellowship is now excited, encouraged, and hopeful in carrying our collective message of recovery to unrecovered sexaholics who still suffer. Again, thanks for your guidance and being part of the solution!

Unknown Location: … Our last quote from the White Book is from the Preface, p. ix, “Sexaholics Anonymous is based on the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous.” We respectfully request that you take a good look at the group problems you propose to overcome, and apply the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous to the rigid, pushing, advice giving, and controlling direction [in which] this working paper is leading SA as a whole. It saddens us to realize that we were doing fine, we had almost five years of success (happy healthy recovery) by not knowing that in order to be SA, we had to comply with your definition of sobriety or join one of those “other groups.” …

Quebec, Canada: There is no doubt in my mind that this is by far the best ever written article on the powerful spiritual ways and means of coping and overcoming this deadly dis-ease called sexaholism.

The core of the article is really “permanent victory over lust is impossible without God.” This is the only solid and proven approach. It invites all sexaholics to stop fooling around with human methods and human therapies and pray to God directly and be answered.

Unknown Location: I very much enjoyed “Practical Guidelines for Group Recovery” and am returning now to SA meetings and will follow the principles of the program. I thank the Literature Committee for their hard work and dedication. I also feel very grateful that I have a program of recovery.

Davenport. IA: … We had long discussions regarding some of the material suggested relative to newcomers. There was concern that some of the language was a bit harsh and too judgmental. We believe that it is true that our purpose is not to be “nice” to the newcomer in the sense of accepting whatever they say or do and stifling the program message and principles. It is possible to show hospitality (be nice?) and still be open and honest about this program and about what we hear and see before us.

We would suggest that the last two sentences in the first paragraph on page 5 entitled “Get involved with newcomers” be deleted. We are not sure any of us is possessed with sufficient wisdom to judge a newcomer’s seriousness, particularly on first meeting. … We believe this material should be stated in a more positive manner. This paper stresses in several places that the Steps take work. Why should this be any less true for the Twelfth Step?

We also believe that much of what is said about working with newcomers applies to those of us already in the Program. Perhaps this reflects a difference between those blessed with long-term recovery and those who are in earlier stages of recovery. We need to put the recovery of all of us above our being nice, not just that of the newcomer. All of us need to listen and take direction. There is a risk of SA developing a division between “those that got it” and “those that don’t.” Aren’t we all in need of a daily reprieve from lust? Doesn’t this include the long-term sober oldtimer as well as the slipper?

We agree with the need to actively encourage sponsorship, contact among members outside of meetings, doing First Step Inventories, and progressively working the Steps. As it says on page 7, in a different context, we must take action. It does take action to live in the solution, and we appreciate the powerful reminder of that which we have experienced as a result of our discussions of this working paper.

… We are grateful to the Literature Committee for drafting this paper and for opening this dialogue and we intend no criticism of anyone by any of our responses. …

San Diego, CA: … Excellent paper. Believe it “hits the nail on the head.” Good ideas on format changes. I have been self-centered with the program, using it for my own sobriety and not helping others very much. This focus (working paper) may help me, as it says in the AA Big Book, “If [sex] is very troublesome, we throw ourselves the harder into helping others.” Solution over problem is a great idea. I’m not sure this can be “policed.” I believe it has to be done by the oldtimers continually setting the example and talking to sponsees on a regular basis. …