Internet Porn Addiction Debate

[UVACoug]

Read an interesting column on the internet porn addiction debate this morning:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...graphy/276619/

This TED Talk on the same subject is also interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=wSF82AwSDiU

Both are biased towards recognizing the existence of internet porn addictions, but the Atlantic column recognizes that there isn't much hard science behind it. Both are decidedly non-religious.

I have seen a few people here claim that porn addiction isn't real ... or that if it exists, it is extremely rare. My personal experience tends to cause me to believe Wilson is more right than the others (especially the guy that claims that masturbation is what causes porn addiction). I would love to hear some other perspectives on this issue, cutting the religious factor out (I posted it here because I hoped the thread wouldn't devolve into a debate about the Church's backwards views about sexuality).

[Donuthole]

Read an interesting column on the internet porn addiction debate this morning:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...graphy/276619/

This TED Talk on the same subject is also interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=wSF82AwSDiU

Both are biased towards recognizing the existence of internet porn addictions, but the Atlantic column recognizes that there isn't much hard science behind it. Both are decidedly non-religious.

I have seen a few people here claim that porn addiction isn't real ... or that if it exists, it is extremely rare. My personal experience tends to cause me to believe Wilson is more right than the others (especially the guy that claims that masturbation is what causes porn addiction). I would love to hear some other perspectives on this issue, cutting the religious factor out (I posted it here because I hoped the thread wouldn't devolve into a debate about the Church's backwards views about sexuality).

There's already a master thread for discussion of punography-related issues. Please visit. If you'd like to skip past a lot of the initial church-related discussion and get right to the science and psychological theory, you can pick up at Rosebud's inaugural CUF post.

[Danimal]

The new psychiatric diagnostic manual was just released and here is what it says: "Thus groups of repetitive behaviors which some term behavioral addictions with such subcategories as "sex addiction" , "exercise addiction", or "shopping addiction" are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders". I think porn addiction fits within the group that they reference above.

There certainly are people who use porn in a way that interferes with their functioning (eg looking at it at work and getting fired), but my clinical experience is that most porn consumers don't fall into that category.

[LA Ute]

Read an interesting column on the internet porn addiction debate this morning:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...graphy/276619/

This TED Talk on the same subject is also interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=wSF82AwSDiU

Both are biased towards recognizing the existence of internet porn addictions, but the Atlantic column recognizes that there isn't much hard science behind it. Both are decidedly non-religious.

I have seen a few people here claim that porn addiction isn't real ... or that if it exists, it is extremely rare. My personal experience tends to cause me to believe Wilson is more right than the others (especially the guy that claims that masturbation is what causes porn addiction). I would love to hear some other perspectives on this issue, cutting the religious factor out (I posted it here because I hoped the thread wouldn't devolve into a debate about the Church's backwards views about sexuality).

This may not be a fruitful discussion for you. As DH notes, this subject has been covered here ad nauseum and the CS consensus has formed: The GAs talk about porn too much, and porn really isn't much of a problem anyway.

[wuapinmon]

but my clinical experience is that most porn consumers don't fall into that category.

It's a bingo!

[Jeff Lebowski]

This may not be a fruitful discussion for you. As DH notes, this subject has been covered here ad nauseum and the CS consensus has formed: The GAs talk about porn too much, and porn really isn't much of a problem anyway.

Poor LAU. Always so persecuted.

[dabrockster]

There's already a master thread for discussion of punography-related issues. Please visit. If you'd like to skip past a lot of the initial church-related discussion and get right to the science and psychological theory, you can pick up at Rosebud's inaugural CUF post.

I think I have decided, going forward, I will send you a BM before I start a topic. Just in case...

[OhioBlue]

The new psychiatric diagnostic manual was just released and here is what it says: "Thus groups of repetitive behaviors which some term behavioral addictions with such subcategories as "sex addiction" , "exercise addiction", or "shopping addiction" are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders". I think porn addiction fits within the group that they reference above.

There certainly are people who use porn in a way that interferes with their functioning (eg looking at it at work and getting fired), but my clinical experience is that most porn consumers don't fall into that category.

It might be questionable to quote the highly-criticized DSM-V, but in this case I think it's spot on. I'm with you, my clinical experience is that 99% of the time I hear 'addicted to porn' there's just no justification for the use of that term. That doesn't mean it can't have any adverse effects, like those cited in the posted links above.

[LA Ute]

Poor LAU. Always so persecuted.

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:

How Psychiatry Went Crazy
The "bible" of psychiatric diagnosis shapes—and deforms—both treatment and policy.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is often called the "Bible" of psychiatric diagnosis, and the term is apt. The DSM consists of instructions from on high; readers usually disagree in their interpretations of the text; and believing it is an act of faith.

At least the Bible lists only 10 Commandments; the DSM grows by leaps and bounds with every revision. The first edition, published by the American Psychiatric Association in 1952, was a spiral-bound pamphlet that described 11 categories of mental disorder, including brain syndromes, personality problems and psychotic disorders. (The final category, "Nondiagnostic Terms for the Hospital Record," contained Dead on Admission, the one diagnosis that psychiatrists have ever agreed on.) The DSM-II (1968) made homosexuality a mental disorder, a decision revoked by vote in 1973. In the general excitement about that progressive decision, few noted that voting didn't seem to be the most scientific way of determining mental illness. Narcissistic Personality Disorder was voted out in 1968 and voted back in 1980; where did it go for 12 years? Doctors don't vote on whether pneumonia is a disease....

[Donuthole]

I think I have decided, going forward, I will send you a BM before I start a topic. Just in case...

Gross.

[SeattleUte]

This may not be a fruitful discussion for you. As DH notes, this subject has been covered here ad nauseum and the CS consensus has formed: The GAs talk about porn too much, and porn really isn't much of a problem anyway.

It's now the Anti-Pornography Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (APCLDS).

[Donuthole]

It's now the Anti-Pornography Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (APCLDS).

It would seem you've been cutting through a lot of aluminum cans over on UFNB5. Never fear. A few weeks here at our whetstone and you can regain your form. Glad to have you back.

[OhioBlue]

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:

Interestingly, the majority of DSM-V critiques address the over-pathologizing of the range of human difficulty. Like categorizing grief over the loss of a loved one as a Major Depressive Episode and thereby viewing otherwise normal reactions through the lens of disease, pathology, or medical condition.

Kind of like calling overuse of porn an 'addiction.'

[LA Ute]

Interestingly, the majority of DSM-V critiques address the over-pathologizing of the range of human difficulty. Like categorizing grief over the loss of a loved one as a Major Depressive Episode and thereby viewing otherwise normal reactions through the lens of disease, pathology, or medical condition.

Kind of like calling overuse of porn an 'addiction.'

Touché. I don't care if it is an addiction, it is a big problem for a lot of people. But I've probably been listening too much to the wrong people.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

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:

The reason he's semi-impotent has nothing to do with how he views porn, it has to do with how he views himself, i.e. completely oblivious to reality. Observe that this guy wrote an article, under his own name, about how he can't get an erection with women because he watches too much pornography. Take a minute. He thinks this is such a universal problem that far from feeling any shame, he should be applauded for exposing the dark secret of American men.

Run through it: does he want it to be true that he's impotent? No. He wants to be true that the reason he has sexual problems is the porn, in the same way that I have no doubt he believes the reason he can't find a job is Sarah Palin.

It is for this reason that I can make the following prediction with 100% certainty: if he never looks at porn again, if he never masturbates again, ever-- he will still have chronic sexual dysfunction. Pornography is a scapegoat.

On resistance to porn being futile:

This is the approach that fails us with social issues, "what can be done about it?" Nothing, you can't do anything about the porn, the porn is a fact of reality. You may as well uselessly ask what can be done about giraffes or misplaced modifiers. Porn is here, ubiquitous, and until the government finds a way to kill you over the internet there's nothing stopping you from blowing out your retinas. We can Thomas Aquinas this issue for another decade, and maybe it is a moral issue I have no idea, but I do know that it won't change reality. You can only change yourself, and if you can't change yourself you had no realistic possibility of changing the world anyway. Stop rationalizing.

And finally the money quote:

When you characterize porn as an addiction it tells you that it is hard to break free, that it is a struggle, that relapse is inevitable-- all things that have nothing to do with porn. But when you characterize online porn as junk food, the solution is obvious: don't eat it.

Easier said than done, I know, but the thing I find helps most people is to understand that you can't refrain from doing something you like. You can, however, change the person you are into the kind of person who doesn't even like that stuff. Sugar Smacks still taste the same as they did under Carter, but I don't know anybody who still eats them. Do the same for soda.

In medical school a lot of the guys (who went into ortho) went to the gym and would discuss with euphoria how much canned tuna they ate. "There's 15g of protein and zero fat!" they'd whisper to each other, and they'd sooner eat salamander eyes than lick a Dorito. That was the kind of guys they were.

This may not be a reassuring solution to some, but I can promise you that it is the only solution: you have to decide you're not the kind of person who wastes time on that. Condemning it, banning it, hiding from it-- all will lead to failure. Lust isn't the trigger, boredom is, idle hands are something or other, so the sooner you get a default activity, the better. 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.