I had so much confusion when i was first in AA about whether I was an alcoholic or not. I would go to a meeting and someone would say "I do XYZ because I'm an alcoholic" and I would think well I've never done that so I cant be an alcoholic. Then I would go to another meeting and someone would say "I do ABC because I'm an alcoholic" and I'd think well I did that so I must be an alcoholic. I would change my mind several times every meeting about whether i was an alcoholic or not.

Then I was introduced to the big book and I got to find out what an alcoholic is in terms of the way AA sees it and I was finally able to say "yes that is me".

As you say so much of what is talked about is the drama of drinking not the nuts and bolts of what makes us alcoholic. When I share my story I always make sure that I talk about my drinking in terms of the physical craving and mental obsession because I believe that the function of that sharing is to help someone identify with alcoholism not my particular experience of being an alcoholic. I need to talk about what we all share in common (that which we all relater to) not the things that are specific to me (which other people may or may not relate to).

I am so glad for the big book and the explanations of what alcoholism is. They removed the confusion for me and I try not to increase the confusion for anyone else!

>>> I have since come to understand that the rest of the stuff ie loss of cars, crashes, institutions etc etc are just the drama of drinking and not what makes me an alcoholic. <<<

IMO bottoms are an inside job. I lost jobs, relationships and many bank accounts but they only looked a bottom to a sane person. Not me, I drank anyway. It was not till I quit seeking sobriety that sobriety found me. I had to completely run out of Plan B's before the spiritual awakening unfolded before my eyes.

I know plenty of hard drinkers who drank more than I did but when some judge or other authority figure demanded they stop, they stopped on a dime. They may use meetings or fellowship to stay reminded, of the consequences of going back out, but they still have the power of choice. Something I lost a long time before I stopped drinking. That's why I say:

"Not-drinking has nothing to do with why I am sober today"

Wow! Thanks for this discussion and the responses to it - this is exactly how I feel and believe about my own alcoholism and recovery in AA. It's so important to me to attend meetings where the real message is carried - the solution, not the problem. I have a responsibility to carry that message clearly and concisely today too. I am the real alcoholic described in the book. What really helped make sense of it to me in the early days was the explanation at the beginning of Chapter 4 "We Agnostics" - the simple explanation of choice and control on p.44:

"We hope we have made clear the distinction between the alcoholic and the non-alcoholic. If, when you honestly want to, you find you cannot quit entirely, or if when drinking, you have little control over the amount you take, you are probably alcoholic. If that be the case, you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer."

I can assure you that if the book was written today the "real" would not be there. With all the advancement of learning more on the illness there is one thing that's clear either you are or your not there is no grey area.

Gaily you sound like your old self " It's so important to me to attend meetings where the real message is carried - the solution," Really?

Knock it off gjm, I find what you say unbelievable. Literally... you cannot assure me of how anything "might" be unless it is. And stop calling me "Gaily" - it's irritating. Were you in love with her or something? She doesn't seem to be here. Time to let go?

Real alcoholic is the farthest thing from a "grey area" you are going to get! Have you read about the real alcoholic? - check it out in the context of the book. It's not a dirty word or expression and it's not an insult to the other types of alcoholic either.

I asked you if you were Julie or this other Gail person or all three and you wouldn't give me an answer.Instead you told me not tobother with her or you. OMG I TRUSTED you. I was going on a retreat with this Julie who by the way the people who run it never heard of. and now I find you were lying to me allalong. What a fool I am to have trusted anyone here.

I asked you as a friend would come and ask another friend. That's what friends are supposed to do. Be able to talk to each other but your reply was "If you feel suspicious just don't bother with her or with me. " and then I asked you again and you IGNORED me.

As I understand it the real is not there to distinguish between different types of alcoholic., It is there only in the context of distinguishing between an alcoholic and the certain type of hard drinker described in the paragraph before. I don't think it is intended to be taken to mean there are alcoholics and real alcoholics, that wouldn't make any sense to me. I read it as saying that there are certain types of hard drinkers who may outwardly appear to be alcoholics but are not (by the definitions used in the big book which can be agreed or disagreed with) and then there are people who really are alcoholics.

I personally would never describe myself as a real alcoholic. I dont think it is necessary, I am an alcoholic.

Useless example just for fun - imagine I have a plastic strawberry and an actual strawberry. I might distinguish between the two by saying this is a plastic strawberry and this is a real strawberry. It doesnt mean there are different actual strawberries and some are just called strawberries and some are called real strawberries. The word real is used to describe the difference between an actual strawberry and something that is not an actual strawberry. Same as for alcoholism. The real is used to distinguish between alcoholics and something else not between different alcoholics.

Thanks Nicky for the clarification and yes I was using the 'real alcoholic' as illustrated in the BB. For me I am either an alcoholic or I am not, nothing in between. Once I accepted I was an alcoholic then I knew I could not employ half measures to seek my recovery.

G8

Yeah, what is that eh? The whole "you might be an alcoholic, but I'm a REAL alcoholic"? Hehe. Strikes me it's kinda the hasidics and orthodoxes arguing the point, bit of one-upmanship and shamelessness.

A friend once said to me "I don't call myself anything that would set me apart from other members of this fellowship". I get that and respect it, for me includes the words Real and Recovered, but I understand what they both mean to me and I understand what I have to do daily and why...

It's that Unity thing again...why do people take words and concepts out of context (IMO) and use them to create splits within the fellowship? Well-meaning but misguided?

Hey ho

P

Oh...no problem with what's been said here by anyone BTW, I'm just rambling :o)

P

Re my reply No.5. I made a howling error in an important choice of word - I meant to type different types of drinkers, not alcoholics, which is what is described in the Big Book, so apologies for any confusion!

I agree with Paul. I used to hear the "I'm a real alcoholic" and it would make me feel seperate and perhaps not quite qualified for my seat in AA. I questioned if I was a "real" alcoholic too...or not? Did I need to go back out and get a DUI? Lose a job? Get really sick?
Nope. I'm an alcoholic because how I react to alcohol, not the years I drank or the consequences.

I am the real alcoholic in the book, it is not for DUIs and such, it is because I am so powerless with alcohol. I see that people misunderstand for example of what stickywick has said. Not a special club but admitting that I am powerless so I say I am alcoholic and not mention "real" because it is not liked, but I know I am the one in the book.

Strangest thing I ever heard on this. A guy I was speaking to who said "I've been in this fellowship for 20 years and think I've only ever met 10-15 REAL alcoholics". Curiously enough, he got sober quite young and didn't have a particularly harrowing tale to tell about him and booze. Seems to me it was just a way he'd come tome think and talk about himself.

Curious - and a pitfall to look out for I think.

P