Internet Porn Addiction Debate

[ERCougar]

I forgot that statements even remotely critical of the board must be promptly personalized.

Meanwhile, here's a critique of the latest edition of DSM-IV:

Ugh.
His ridiculous analogy doesn't deserve the attention I'll give it here, but I'll just point that plenty of diseases have controversial diagnostic criteria that are decided by committees and, yes, votes.
And to his other point, would he feel better if the dsm had progressively gotten smaller (ironic that he's simultaneously ruing the elimination of a diagnosis)? What else did he expect as we learn about mental health? Did math 'go crazy' with invention of calculus?
Let's just go back to the Bible. then maybe we could put onanism into the dsm!

Geez, la...you're better than this.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[ERCougar]

My apologies if I've already linked this:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/hes_just_not_that_into_anyone.html

I've linked to this blog before, but I don't believe I linked to this article.

I thought this blog post was fascinating in many respects. First, I can't imagine how someone wrote an article in a widely circulated magazine about their personal sexual problems, and they didn't do it anonymously. Second, the blog post itself and the advice gleaned therein stands in stark contrast to the church's approach to this issue; namely, shaming people for this behavior basically does nothing to help them out. If they're consuming massive amounts of porn then the problem isn't so much the porn or that singular behavior itself -- rather it connotes some glaring personal deficiencies in their overall habits and behavior that leads to frequent and habitual behavior. If the underlying problems are not fixed, then the massive porn consumption will continue. I thought the discussion about efforts to lose weight clarified the point -- sheer will power and avoiding food is not as effective as behavior replacement.

Here are a few gems:

Regarding the line between recreational porn consumption and something more serious: "You have to approach porn like a bank heist: get in, get out, you got 15 minutes and someone tripped the silent alarm. Leave nothing behind." lol

Shortly after that is this:



On resistance to porn being futile:



And finally the money quote:

Great link and article.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Jeff Lebowski]

I forgot that statements even remotely critical of the board must be promptly personalized.

Please... You and I have been around the block on this a zillion times. You often take a minority viewpoint and there is nothing at all wrong with that. But when you find yourself with a minority viewpoint, please don't start whining about "echo chambers" as if you are somehow being unfairly picked on. Nobody has ever deleted any of your posts or otherwise stifled your opportunity to express your opinion here.

[LA Ute]

Ugh.
His ridiculous analogy doesn't deserve the attention I'll give it here, but I'll just point that plenty of diseases have controversial diagnostic criteria that are decided by committees and, yes, votes.
And to his other point, would he feel better if the dsm had progressively gotten smaller (ironic that he's simultaneously ruing the elimination of a diagnosis)? What else did he expect as we learn about mental health? Did math 'go crazy' with invention of calculus?
Let's just go back to the Bible. then maybe we could put onanism into the dsm!

Geez, la...you're better than this.

Just posting an op-ed. You guys can handle that. Is it not generally recognized within the psychotherapeutic community that the DSM is controversial? Anyway, here is a pretty balanced Huffington Post piece from today on the DSM. Excerpt:

Frankly, every new version of the manual (beginning with the first edition) has had its critics. It's always been viewed by some as "cookbook psychiatry" while others have found it immensely helpful in sorting through the myriad signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders. There's no doubt some people with agendas will misuse the manual for their own purposes, while others will find it useful. It certainly is not a "bible," as it's often referred to in courtrooms; and it will be subject to revisions as time passes and more research is conducted.

This op-ed is from a critic of DSM-5 who is a professor emeritus from Duke. It makes some reasonable points.

BTW, I am no anti-psychotherapy guy. I work with people in mental health all the time and follow many issues closely, partly because some of my family members suffer from mental illness. All I'm saying here is that the DSM is not holy writ, and everyone knows that -- or seems to.

[LA Ute]

Please... You and I have been around the block on this a zillion times. You often take a minority viewpoint and there is nothing at all wrong with that. But when you find yourself with a minority viewpoint, please don't start whining about "echo chambers" as if you are somehow being unfairly picked on. Nobody has ever deleted any of your posts or otherwise stifled your opportunity to express your opinion here.

For the record, I have never said, or even suggested, anything of the sort. You are inferring an awful lot there. I simply think there is an orthodoxy here that many do not see as orthodoxy, but simply as The Way All Smart Well-Informed And Reasonable People Think. (Porn is an excellent example.) Pointing that out, now and then, is about as far from whining as one can get. It doesn't hurt me that people have blind spots, and I don't point them out to make myself feel better. I'm just making a rhetorical observation. You seem to take great offense at that. Why not just let the discussion unfold?

[Pelado]

Just posting an op-ed. You guys can handle that. Is it not generally recognized within the psychotherapeutic community that the DSM is controversial? Anyway, here is a pretty balanced Huffington Post piece from today on the DSM. Excerpt:



This op-ed is from a critic of DSM-5 who is a professor emeritus from Duke. It makes some reasonable points.

BTW, I am no anti-psychotherapy guy. I work with people in mental health all the time and follow many issues closely, partly because some of my family members suffer from mental illness. All I'm saying here is that the DSM is not holy writ, and everyone knows that -- or seems to.

Is this kind of like when a guy says, "I have a friend who has a problem" when he is really just talking about himself?

[ERCougar]

Just posting an op-ed. You guys can handle that. Is it not generally recognized within the psychotherapeutic community that the DSM is controversial? Anyway, here is a pretty balanced Huffington Post piece from today on the DSM. Excerpt:



This op-ed is from a critic of DSM-5 who is a professor emeritus from Duke. It makes some reasonable points.

BTW, I am no anti-psychotherapy guy. I work with people in mental health all the time and follow many issues closely, partly because some of my family members suffer from mental illness. All I'm saying here is that the DSM is not holy writ, and everyone knows that -- or seems to.

I'm not a mental health expert, but I think it's generally recognized that it's not perfect. Guess what? Nothing in medicine is. I would say it's only slightly more controversial than all kinds of areas where I make clinical decisions that laymen likely consider scientific and established, even pneumonia (also often not a clear cut diagnosis--the author betrays his ignorance with that one), and it's only more controversial because the field is still relatively new. And it still has to deal with homophobic idiots like this author, who still talks about mental illness and morality in the same breath. Medicine is all about consensus, based on the available evidence. When danimal speaks to dsm 4, he's not doing it in a 'holy writ' sort of way--he's pointing to a consensus of mental health professionals


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Jeff Lebowski]

For the record, I have never said, or even suggested, anything of the sort. You are inferring an awful lot there. I simply think there is an orthodoxy here that many do not see as orthodoxy, but simply as The Way All Smart Well-Informed And Reasonable People Think. (Porn is an excellent example.) Pointing that out, now and then, is about as far from whining as one can get. It doesn't hurt me that people have blind spots, and I don't point them out to make myself feel better. I'm just making a rhetorical observation.

Orthodoxy? What does that even mean in this context? What is as stake that would compel orthodoxy?

What is the objective of your constant whining about board culture .... err .... making these rhetorical observations about board orthodoxy? You think everyone will suddenly start taking your side? Wouldn't it make more sense to convince people based on reasoning and debate? You are an attorney after all.

You should take a cue from your (and my) amigo, Seattle Ute. He takes minority positions all the time but you never hear him complaining about being picked on. I have always admired that.

You seem to take great offense at that. Why not just let the discussion unfold?

Ha! Irony alert.

[MarkGrace]

When your wife walks in on you in the midst of an overhand tug and she moans, "you are pathetic!" she's really a vowel off, apathetic is more accurate and considerably more amenable to improvement.

ha!

[Eddie]

Just posting an op-ed. You guys can handle that. Is it not generally recognized within the psychotherapeutic community that the DSM is controversial? Anyway, here is a pretty balanced Huffington Post piece from today on the DSM. Excerpt:



This op-ed is from a critic of DSM-5 who is a professor emeritus from Duke. It makes some reasonable points.

BTW, I am no anti-psychotherapy guy. I work with people in mental health all the time and follow many issues closely, partly because some of my family members suffer from mental illness. All I'm saying here is that the DSM is not holy writ, and everyone knows that -- or seems to.

I was going to respond to this. But then I saw that ER already did - essentially saying what I was trying to figure out how to day in a better way than I could've.

I'm not a mental health expert, but I think it's generally recognized that it's not perfect. Guess what? Nothing in medicine is. I would say it's only slightly more controversial than all kinds of areas where I make clinical decisions that laymen likely consider scientific and established, even pneumonia (also often not a clear cut diagnosis--the author betrays his ignorance with that one), and it's only more controversial because the field is still relatively new. And it still has to deal with homophobic idiots like this author, who still talks about mental illness and morality in the same breath. Medicine is all about consensus, based on the available evidence. When danimal speaks to dsm 4, he's not doing it in a 'holy writ' sort of way--he's pointing to a consensus of mental health professionals


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Yeah - DSM isn't seen as holy writ and the perfect tool for diagnosing all things mental health related. It is understood that it will be updated as more information comes to light through further research. But to imply that it is controversial is far from the truth. It is generally accepted as the most up to date information available.

[LA Ute]

Orthodoxy? What does that even mean in this context? What is as stake that would compel orthodoxy?

What is the objective of your constant whining about board culture .... err .... making these rhetorical observations about board orthodoxy? You think everyone will suddenly start taking your side? Wouldn't it make more sense to convince people based on reasoning and debate? You are an attorney after all.

You should take a cue from your (and my) amigo, Seattle Ute. He takes minority positions all the time but you never hear him complaining about being picked on. I have always admired that.

Ha! Irony alert.

We could go a long way with with an irony analysis of your post. Anyway, I don't know what makes you think I feel picked on. That's absurd. But then maybe you think the story of the emperor's new clothes is about a little boy who felt picked on when he noted that the emperor wasn't wearing anything?

Is this kind of like when a guy says, "I have a friend who has a problem" when he is really just talking about himself?

Well, my wife thinks I am sometimes acting a little nutty, but she doesn't want to give me that excuse for my behavior.

Also, ER and Eddie, I am in way over my head talking about DSM. I am just a peanut gallery observer of such matters. So I will shut up and talk about other stuff. (I realize that may not be comforting.)

[Indy Coug]

What? We're talking about this shit again? Oh, never mind, I was thinking about punography.

[woot]

Ugh.
His ridiculous analogy doesn't deserve the attention I'll give it here, but I'll just point that plenty of diseases have controversial diagnostic criteria that are decided by committees and, yes, votes.
And to his other point, would he feel better if the dsm had progressively gotten smaller (ironic that he's simultaneously ruing the elimination of a diagnosis)? What else did he expect as we learn about mental health? Did math 'go crazy' with invention of calculus?
Let's just go back to the Bible. then maybe we could put onanism into the dsm!

Geez, la...you're better than this.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Also of note is that the bible has hundreds and hundreds of commandments. This author seems to have avoided reading it. There's one story that involves 10 specific commandments, but, like, it's just one story.

[SoCalCoug]

I forgot that statements even remotely critical of the board must be promptly personalized.

Meanwhile, here's a critique of the latest edition of DSM-IV:

Didn't what books made it into the Bible come about by some sort of a vote?

[CardiacCoug]

Here's what I tell my boys: Porn and masturbation are like picking your nose. If you do it, never do it in public and keep it to a minimum -- not because it's that bad for you but because you should have better things to do.