Research finds that porn-related problems are predominantly caused by religious conflict. Clinically, this means people need help, but not necessarily with the porn.
If the concept of pornography addiction were true, then porn-related problems would go up, regardless of morality, as porn use goes up. But the researchers didn’t find that. In fact, they cite numerous studies showing that even feeling like you struggle to control your porn use doesn’t actually predict more porn use. What that means is that the people who report great anguish over controlling their porn use aren’t actually using more porn; they just feel worse about it.
[…]
It is noteworthy that in this research, and in the numerous commentaries in response, no one is defending the porn-addiction model. None of the researchers looking at data on porn-related problems have chosen to argue that an addiction model or treatment strategy is appropriate. To be sure, some researchers still defend a compulsive model, or suggest that pornography itself is too broad a concept to be neatly captured by a single theory. The editors of the Archives of Sexual Behavior invited commentaries on this article only from researchers, who must argue based on science, as opposed to anecdote. None of them argue that porn is addictive, that it changes the brain or one’s sexuality, or that the use of porn leads to tolerance, withdrawal, or other addiction-related syndromes. Put simply, while the nuance of porn-related problems is still being sussed out, the idea that porn can be called addictive is done, at least in the halls of sexual science.
It’s a little bit like how you can stop being a bastard by ceasing to be a cop. Being a cop isn’t addictive, it’s an active thing you choose to be. You must put in energy every day to get up and go do it. If you’re giga-addicted to alcohol and you don’t consume it you’re subject to a litany of addiction-related syndromes (like dangers of withdrawal with which I am unfamiliar). If you stop being a cop you might be subject to a crisis of identity or lack of income, but these would probably be more circumstantial than what they classify as addiction. I miss my dog when I go into the rooms where she used to sleep, but the lack of my precious baby angel doesn’t put me in danger of overloving another dog because my tolerance went down or something. I wasn’t addicted to my dog because she wasn’t addictive.
They conclude thusly (the finding was religiosity is the main predictor of reported problems with pornography consumption):
Helping people to consciously examine and consider their religious beliefs about sex, masturbation, and porn with modern, adult, self-determining eyes, may help them reduce the pain and suffering caused by this moral conflict.
If you call something addiction without the addictive nature, you do harm in the clinical sense (your first directive is to first do no harm). Your clients would be better served with the tools, techniques, and attitude of dealing with compulsions. It’s the same way you don’t just wipe an eating plate with bleach to disinfect it and instead use soap and water even though they’re both cleaning products.
in a medical context today, “addiction” implies substances, and it is only relatively recently that the field has been willing to consider whether behavioral addictions - sex, food, exercise, video games, or just the Internet in general - qualify as “true” addictions. Only in 2013 did the editors of the DSM… reclassify “pathological gambling” as a “gambling disorder” and place it alongside substance addictions. Critics worry that we are over-pathologizing everyday life; a former editor of the DSM has said that behavioral addictions should not be labeled as mental disorders “merely because we like doing them a lot and miss them when we stop.”
What’s missed in those debated is that these are not new addictions but rather a reemergence of an older way of looking at addiction, dating from the inebriety movement of the late 19th century. The movement cast a wide net, and a variety of behavioral problems were understood as inebriety, including habitual problems with many substances… The Journal of Inebriety, the flagship publication of the AACI used the word “addiction” for the first time in reference to chocolate.
Carl Erik Fisher, The Urge. His point in the book is that the strict medical definition of addiction is newer and has engendered a lot of debate among researchers and practitioners. Even though morphine is known to cause physical dependence, a lot of people who use it, even habitually, don’t end up becoming addicted, so it could be construed that there is a behavioral or psychological component as well, and that behavioral component could surface in other contexts. Addiction as a physical, substance-oriented phenomenon is just one perspective.
For sure. I’m reminded of the mice in isolation choosing drug water and mice who are otherwise fulfilled with stimulation, friends, etc. choosing the normal water instead. Physical dependency to a fulfilled mouse would probably be like dealing with a sprained ankle or a cold. They’re not going to keep hurting their ankle.
I suppose the argument is that, in the absence of physical harm and a lack of necessity for health, then one must question what the harm of the behavior is. This is to say that food isn’t an addiction because without it you can’t survive. With gambling, it’s clear that there’s a harm because you run out of money. With porn, you run out of cum. Do you or the people you care about give a shit? Is it getting in the way? Like are you missing appointments and classes to masturbate? Are you exposing others to adult material? If not and you don’t care, the psychologist doesn’t need to get involved. To my understanding a mental health professional is trying to alleviate the pain and symptoms of mental distress. If you’re not developing a physical dependency/physical harm, the compulsion isn’t distracting you, and you don’t feel incongruent for doing it, then the psychologist for whom this piece is written, needn’t concern themselves.
If you feel incongruent, it’s worth exploring with the “modern, adult, self-determining eyes” that the author mentions. Your solutions aren’t one size fits all. Maybe your path away from pain is saying that porn is… le good! or you believe there are more ethical sources of pornogrpahy so you only use that type you resonate with. But also, maybe, your relationship with pornography was a proxy for some other argument with a significant other or your #1 compulsion when you’re avoiding discomfort. Where if you make peace with the reason for the proxy the urge to use goes away as well. Maybe you lament doing it instead of being awesome, so you should escape your comfort zone before you jork peanits.
Did I do honor to what you quoted and elaborated on or did I walk away rambling?
Makes sense! I was just arguing that addiction, like many mental health issues, is socially situated and hasn’t always been associated simply with chemical dependency. Fisher meditates a bit on functional alcoholics who drink way more than is a good idea and yet continue to live functional lives and don’t seem to be bothered by their substance use, contrasting that with instances of akrasia, doing something you know (or feel) is against your better judgment anyway. With porn, it may not necessarily be a physical dependency but it might be an easy substitute to reach for in a way that results in going against one’s preferences or moral beliefs, and the current orientation of society around the issue is such that the ones with strong moral objections to porn tend to also be religious. Which I think aligns substantially with what you’re saying.
Fisher meditates a bit on functional alcoholics who drink way more than is a good idea and yet continue to live functional lives and don’t seem to be bothered by their substance use
Absolutely sending me for a loop. Can I get a citation? I want to unravel the thread in my mind and see where it takes me. This is a really engaging perspective.
Hmm based on the last paragraph, it sounds like the argument has more to do with what the word addiction means which isn’t really productive in my view. I think certain things can be more addictive than others to people with different personality types
The author made a case for why such a distinction is important.
I will add something to the arguments made by the authors of this study: Having demonstrated that it is the moral conflict and self-identity of porn addict which is harmful, it is thus upon us to confront the social, media, and clinical use of this concept. It causes and perpetuates harm by focusing attention upon porn rather than the true cause: the moral conflict over one’s sexual desires. Clinicians who continue to promote the idea of porn addiction are, like those who promote age-regression hypnosis or recovered memory therapy, engaging in malpractice. Websites and advocacy groups that promote and encourage identification as porn addicts are doing harm to their followers, and can become like the hucksters promoting naturopathic treatment despite federal medical groups identifying such treatments as ineffective and potentially harmful. Ultimately, all should be held accountable for their inaccurate, outdated, and exploitative actions.
Chuds love to just blame somebody instead of interrogating a situation.
I mean, can’t anything be an addiction?
Their argument was no.
It’s a little bit like how you can stop being a bastard by ceasing to be a cop. Being a cop isn’t addictive, it’s an active thing you choose to be. You must put in energy every day to get up and go do it. If you’re giga-addicted to alcohol and you don’t consume it you’re subject to a litany of addiction-related syndromes (like dangers of withdrawal with which I am unfamiliar). If you stop being a cop you might be subject to a crisis of identity or lack of income, but these would probably be more circumstantial than what they classify as addiction. I miss my dog when I go into the rooms where she used to sleep, but the lack of my precious baby angel doesn’t put me in danger of overloving another dog because my tolerance went down or something. I wasn’t addicted to my dog because she wasn’t addictive.
They conclude thusly (the finding was religiosity is the main predictor of reported problems with pornography consumption):
If you call something addiction without the addictive nature, you do harm in the clinical sense (your first directive is to first do no harm). Your clients would be better served with the tools, techniques, and attitude of dealing with compulsions. It’s the same way you don’t just wipe an eating plate with bleach to disinfect it and instead use soap and water even though they’re both cleaning products.
Carl Erik Fisher, The Urge. His point in the book is that the strict medical definition of addiction is newer and has engendered a lot of debate among researchers and practitioners. Even though morphine is known to cause physical dependence, a lot of people who use it, even habitually, don’t end up becoming addicted, so it could be construed that there is a behavioral or psychological component as well, and that behavioral component could surface in other contexts. Addiction as a physical, substance-oriented phenomenon is just one perspective.
For sure. I’m reminded of the mice in isolation choosing drug water and mice who are otherwise fulfilled with stimulation, friends, etc. choosing the normal water instead. Physical dependency to a fulfilled mouse would probably be like dealing with a sprained ankle or a cold. They’re not going to keep hurting their ankle.
I suppose the argument is that, in the absence of physical harm and a lack of necessity for health, then one must question what the harm of the behavior is. This is to say that food isn’t an addiction because without it you can’t survive. With gambling, it’s clear that there’s a harm because you run out of money. With porn, you run out of cum. Do you or the people you care about give a shit? Is it getting in the way? Like are you missing appointments and classes to masturbate? Are you exposing others to adult material? If not and you don’t care, the psychologist doesn’t need to get involved. To my understanding a mental health professional is trying to alleviate the pain and symptoms of mental distress. If you’re not developing a physical dependency/physical harm, the compulsion isn’t distracting you, and you don’t feel incongruent for doing it, then the psychologist for whom this piece is written, needn’t concern themselves.
If you feel incongruent, it’s worth exploring with the “modern, adult, self-determining eyes” that the author mentions. Your solutions aren’t one size fits all. Maybe your path away from pain is saying that porn is… le good! or you believe there are more ethical sources of pornogrpahy so you only use that type you resonate with. But also, maybe, your relationship with pornography was a proxy for some other argument with a significant other or your #1 compulsion when you’re avoiding discomfort. Where if you make peace with the reason for the proxy the urge to use goes away as well. Maybe you lament doing it instead of being awesome, so you should escape your comfort zone before you jork peanits.
Did I do honor to what you quoted and elaborated on or did I walk away rambling?
Makes sense! I was just arguing that addiction, like many mental health issues, is socially situated and hasn’t always been associated simply with chemical dependency. Fisher meditates a bit on functional alcoholics who drink way more than is a good idea and yet continue to live functional lives and don’t seem to be bothered by their substance use, contrasting that with instances of akrasia, doing something you know (or feel) is against your better judgment anyway. With porn, it may not necessarily be a physical dependency but it might be an easy substitute to reach for in a way that results in going against one’s preferences or moral beliefs, and the current orientation of society around the issue is such that the ones with strong moral objections to porn tend to also be religious. Which I think aligns substantially with what you’re saying.
Absolutely sending me for a loop. Can I get a citation? I want to unravel the thread in my mind and see where it takes me. This is a really engaging perspective.
Hmm based on the last paragraph, it sounds like the argument has more to do with what the word addiction means which isn’t really productive in my view. I think certain things can be more addictive than others to people with different personality types
The author made a case for why such a distinction is important.
Chuds love to just blame somebody instead of interrogating a situation.