Sex addiction is simply a new name for the old evolutionary concept—the innate urge to impregnate as many females as possible. In this sense, every man is a sex addict or was one at some point in his life.....
Unlike addictions to alcohol, cocaine, and cigarettes, in which the craving is induced by external elements, sexual craving, by its nature, is an innate and natural phenomenon. And sex addiction is a specific situation—the frequency of erection and the intensity of orgasm—dependent on the person’s blood-level of testosterone. Man deals with that according to his physical, social, and financial conditions......
At the least advantageous end of the spectrum, a man simply masturbates. In the best circumstances, women throw themselves at him. But in between these two extremes reside garden-variety marriages wherein the wife may complain about the husband’s sexual demand, and the man may seek lovers and/or prostitutes.
I don't actually have a problem with denouncing the concept of "sex addiction". I've done it many times myself. But nor do I think there's a whole lot of reality in the idea that men and only men are these enormous victims of their outrageous desires that largely asexual women cannot even begin to understand. Or that a woman's expectation of monogamy from a man in exchange for monogamy from her is some sort of horrible oppression that stems from women's inability to understand that men like sex.
Back when bullshit, evidence-free assertions about human sexuality from evo psych bullshitters began in the 60s or roundabout, there wasn't any hesitation from these men in making wish fulfillment assertions about how men are naturally promiscuous and women are naturally monogamous, and therefore the only real relationship model that will work is one where men get to sleep around and women have to put up with it. Nowadays, there's a hesitation to come right out and say that women are naturally monogamous---probably because the immediate problem of who do "naturally" promiscuous men sleep with will come up---but that's the insinuation of articles like this. Feminists have forced evo psych bullshitters like Karasu to tacitly accept that women have a minimal, easily satisfied sex drive (he even painfully accepts that perhaps women might not want to castrate their husbands because we'd like to get laid oh so occasionally), but at the end of the day, they prefer to think of the world as one where men are just insatiable sexual creatures, and women put up with it because we are all prostitutes at heart, and we get paid off in actual cash or in wifely security.
I don't like the framework around "sex addiction" not because I think that every man is a natural dog who will fuck every woman he sees if given the chance, and that women are fools to expect otherwise (or have the duty to milk our men 3-5 times a day to stop him---most men wouldn't want that, either). I don't like it because the framework demonizes sex itself, even as those who push it deny that. Do I think people act out with sex? Sure, but it's usually in service of some other neurotic need. Call Tiger Woods a "sex addict" distracts from the more mundane reality. His type isn't actually that uncommon---ego monster plus a huge Madonna/whore complex. (Hard as it for the "all men are just dogs" crew to believe, but some men with serious Madonna/whore issues will even lose sexual desire for their wives or girlfriends, because they've been so conditioned to think fucking a woman is degrading her that they can't bring themselves to degrade someone they genuinely love.) The cure for a Madonna/whore complex is a little feminism, to stop thinking of sex as something men do to women that's degrading, and to think of it as a mutual sharing of pleasure between individuals, an understanding evo psych bullshit wards off. In fact, while theories like Karasu's tend to offer the belief that men will fuck anything that moves on the surface, they encourage Madonna/whore complexes by painting women as either wives or prostitutes, but always women who trade sex for goodies.
The cure for ego monster behavior? Beats me. Really seeing the people around you as human beings---something that evo psych bullshit also wards off, by actively fighting off seeing the real complexity of human nature---is probably really hard to do when you're a world famous celebrity and no one around you sees you as a real human being, either.
I will say this to evo psych bullshitters: Generalizing your experience (women not wanting to have sex with you unless you compensate them somehow) to all men and women tells people more about you than about all men and women.
I really enjoyed this sparky interview Tracy Clark-Flory did with David Ley, who has an upcoming book called The Myth of Sex Addiction, which is coming out right after Newsweek did a big cover story on "sex addiction", so lucky him. Good timing, David! I'm a known skeptic of the idea of "sex addiction", which really got its start in Christian right circles and is usually deployed in fucked-up ways, to either shame people who actually have normal-enough sexual desires that simply need healthy outlets or to rationalize cheating behavior, especially male cheating behavior, by casting it as a pathology. In the latter case, society uses "sex addiction" to deflect more serious questions about the role of marriage in our society, and particularly the way that male privilege comes into conflict with increasing expectations that monogamous standards of marriage be applied to men as well as women. In other words, "sex addiction" has grown up in no small part because it smooths over the cracks that have erupted as many men cling to male privilege while women have started to demand equal treatment. 
One of the less fun controversies I've stepped into at Double X was