Research finds that porn-related problems are predominantly caused by religious conflict. Clinically, this means people need help, but not necessarily with the porn.
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.
Okay, I can’t find the exact passage I was thinking of (maybe I invented it), but there are a couple good spots to check out. I recommend reading chapter 11; see also this passage on page 15 (kindle edition):
…but today there is a rising recognition that all mental disorders exist on a spectrum, with no clear transition in the data that tells us where to draw the line between mild and severe issues. This is why the… DSM… has done away with the division between “substance abuse” and “substance dependence,” the latter of which was a stand in for addiction. “Spectrum” concepts have been gaining momentum… and the neurodiversity movement seems to challenge the notion that mental disorders are inherently pathological…
People use drugs for reasons; the banality of that statement is matched only by our constant lack of mindfulness to it. The message screams from the pages of addiction memoirs. Caroline Knapp describes how “liquor occupied the role of lovet or constant companion,” crating an illusion of emotional authenticity that seemed like it granted access to more meaningful feelings…
…
p 18:
…for example, there is a strand in addiction advocacy today that seems to replace “person with addiction” with “person with substance use disorder,” seeking a more compassionate and less stigmatized term. However, the terms are not really equivalent: “substance use disorder” included a huge swath of people who have substance problems but do not necessarily feel like they are struggling with internal conflict or self identify as addicted… (p.19) Harry Frankfurt distinguished between “willing” and “unwilling” addicts–both have an immediate desire to take a drug, but the willing is not conflicted about it, and the unwilling doesn’t want to have that desire…
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.
The book is The Urge - I’ll have to dig around later and see if I can find the passage I’m referencing; it’s been a minute since I read it.
Okay, I can’t find the exact passage I was thinking of (maybe I invented it), but there are a couple good spots to check out. I recommend reading chapter 11; see also this passage on page 15 (kindle edition):