I got a lot of downvotes on Reddit for pointing out that there’s no scientific evidence supporting porn addiction. It’s just the latest version of religious indoctrination. ISIS was using that as part of their recruitment process: men who are sexually repressed are easier for them to manipulate.
As with most things, there are a lot of problems with the porn INDUSTRY that we as a society ignore, and instead tell individual people that all the ills are their own fault.
I guess it makes sense that the psychology community would push back against the claim that pornography fits a scientific definition of addiction. The same deal goes for sugar: many people talk about sugar being addictive, but it’s pretty absurd to classify sugar as addictive substance, and the article raises this point very explicitly:
That isn’t to say that people can’t use pornography compulsively, as you may compulsively eat donuts or bacon every day against the best interests of your heart
And that’s what most people usually mean when they’re addicted to it. So I wouldn’t say that it’s indoctrination or “hive mind”, it’s just how people use the word “addiction” in day-to-day, non-scientifically-precise ways. You’re absolutely right to point that out because people should not seek addiction treatment for porn consumption, but it’s also understandable to seek treatment for compulsive consumption of whatever. Just like sugar and junk food, while the science doesn’t say it’s addiction, it also presents endless evidence on the negative effects of common patterns of consumption.
Idk just because it’s “natural” to compulsively consume such both sugar and porn to classify them as non-addiction is a bit wishy washy and kinda stinks to me.
Humans literally have evolved to consume as much sugar as possible and same goes for porn because the human sexual response can’t differentiate between real or fake sexual stimulus. Humans see naked bodies, humans get aroused. No matter wether digital imagery or not.
because it’s “natural” to compulsively consume such both sugar and porn to classify them as non-addiction is a bit wishy
Well, that’s not the argument I’d make, nor does it seem to be the one presented by the sources for the article. I agree that this would be very wishy washy!
Same, I got in arguments about it. Quoting Wikipedia did not convince them.
Ask any psychiatrist and they will confirm porn is okay.
Imagine the mannosphere and incels being nofap. Imagine all that repressed energy, all this contradiction with their normal nature, just because of beliefs.
You mean like it doesn’t exist? Asking that as a genuine question since Terry Crews has talked about his addiction to porn and how it almost ruined his marriage, and it doesn’t seem like a crazy stretch to believe that you can be addicted to porn (or, maybe more accurately, addicted to getting off).
That being said, the NoFap community is pretty fuckin weird and unhealthy as a whole. The stuff like semen retention is unscientifically proven, and treating any orgasm (including from sex) as being bad is just plain dumb. There’s tangible health benefits to jacking off, and I would wager that it’s better to lay off the porn because of how much it can fuckin warp people’s minds about partners and sex (and to help curb an excessive whacking off habit - I mean like “this is interfering with my life” levels).
Nicole Prause, a neuroscientist who researches human sexual behavior at the University of California and the co-author of a recent study on NoFap, believes that there’s no objective basis for pornography addiction, an opinion supported by numerous peer-reviewed studies and experts in the field.
. “If the public uses terms like ‘I’m addicted to chocolate,’ that’s fine. I’m not gonna police language like that,” Prause explained. “But when you use it to refer to a disorder, it has a very specific meaning that pornography just does not fill.”
“Addiction” is a specific word with legal and medical meanings. “Porn addiction” is not recognized as an addiction.
Some porn, along with a myriad of other factors, can contribute negatively to an individual’s sexual health. Not all porn is crazy and unrealistic. Not all porn is unhealthy.
Some of the other quotes in the article address how most people who diagnose themselves with “porn addiction” actually have another underlying disorder, often depression or bipolar.
I don’t know Crews personally, but I can guarantee a licensed professional did NOT diagnose him with porn addiction. Because that’s just not a legitimate diagnosis. The world, and particularly America, has enough issues with mental healthcare. Making up fake disorders to self-diagnose hurts the medical community that’s actually trying to help people with real disorders.
Addiction has a very specific clinical meaning as is stated in the article. Porn usage doesn’t fit that meaning. That isn’t to say that someone cannot compulsively masturbate or watch porn. But, again as stated in the article and a lot of other literature, it doesn’t have the same physiological or psychological effects as an addiction. And most of the people doing something compulsively like that are doing it as a symptom of an underlying problem (likely depression in many cases), not as the cause of the problem itself.
In other words, crack and Xanax create a problem. Porn can be used in response to certain psychological problems.
I like Terry Crews. Wholesome guy. But he isn’t a doctor or scientist.
“Porn addiction” is actually more like “porn compulsion.” Colloquially, compulsions are often called addictions (“video game addiction” is also a compulsion, an addiction would be something like crack) but it’s worrying with porn because it’s treated as an actual addiction, and the theories behind the modern worries about “porn addiction” are pseudoscience by unqualified people (Gary Wilson and Marnia Robinson) with a very strict idea of what a sexual relationship should look like.
IIRC, isn’t there a distinction between chemical and physical addictions? Like a chemical addiction is drugs, booze, tobacco, caffeine, sugar, etc., a physical addiction could be basically anything that isn’t making you chemically dependant, but becomes compulsory enough to interfere with your life/mental health (gambling, video games, porn, shopping, etc.). Or do I have that wrong? I honestly can’t remember how I came by that information.
People can be “addicted” to everything and anything. It just requires the “right” mindset to turn that thing into more than a habit. Saying people has innate tendency to be addicted to something is totally different, however. The latter also happens to be what matters in the medical field for obvious reasons.
I think it’s a lot like weed or video game addiction.
Is it going to send you to the hospital? Probably not. But if you let it take over your life to the extent that it’s detrimental, then using strategies that help people kick physical addictions can be effective.
These religious groups seem to hate a lot of things that appeal to basic pleasures, want to make you feel bad for wanting to feel good.
I mean a porn addiction is absolutely a thing, but it’s not an issue inherent to porn, humans can form a mental addiction to anything and porn can be an easy target. It’s just not porn itself that causes the addiction, since it’s not physically causing a chemical dependence, and porn addictions obviously aren’t anywhere near as prevalent as addictions to physically addictive substances. Porn addictions are certainly much much rarer than religious institutions act like they are, but they do exist, they’re just psychological in nature rather than physiological. And to reiterate, porn itself doesn’t cause addiction, or addictive behaviour if you want to be pedantic about it, but some people can form an emotional dependence on it just like they can form an emotional dependence on anything. If not porn then something else. But pretending they don’t exist at all is just ridiculous. The term addiction isn’t only used in one specific medical or physical sense and never has been, even in the medical community.
I feel addicted to porn and games as well. I feel weird when I’m not getting either one of these for a long time and I don’t see any way to get out of this. But I guess games addiction is still not that damaging to my mental health unlike porn where I start to fantasize intensely even if I get slightly distracted with such feelings. Then I try to make an elaborate scene in my mind with all sorts to kinks or fetishes that I like until I get enough dopamine out of it.
Porn addiction does not exist. No one qualified to diagnose addiction would diagnose you with that because it doesn’t exist. You’re delusional and self-diagnosing if you really think that.
I got a lot of downvotes on Reddit for pointing out that there’s no scientific evidence supporting porn addiction. It’s just the latest version of religious indoctrination. ISIS was using that as part of their recruitment process: men who are sexually repressed are easier for them to manipulate.
The scientific paper linked from the article, stating there’s no evidence for porn addiction, in case anyone would like to read more and missed it.
As with most things, there are a lot of problems with the porn INDUSTRY that we as a society ignore, and instead tell individual people that all the ills are their own fault.
There’s problems with pretty much every industry. Welcome to capitalism.
Removed by mod
I guess it makes sense that the psychology community would push back against the claim that pornography fits a scientific definition of addiction. The same deal goes for sugar: many people talk about sugar being addictive, but it’s pretty absurd to classify sugar as addictive substance, and the article raises this point very explicitly:
And that’s what most people usually mean when they’re addicted to it. So I wouldn’t say that it’s indoctrination or “hive mind”, it’s just how people use the word “addiction” in day-to-day, non-scientifically-precise ways. You’re absolutely right to point that out because people should not seek addiction treatment for porn consumption, but it’s also understandable to seek treatment for compulsive consumption of whatever. Just like sugar and junk food, while the science doesn’t say it’s addiction, it also presents endless evidence on the negative effects of common patterns of consumption.
Idk just because it’s “natural” to compulsively consume such both sugar and porn to classify them as non-addiction is a bit wishy washy and kinda stinks to me.
Humans literally have evolved to consume as much sugar as possible and same goes for porn because the human sexual response can’t differentiate between real or fake sexual stimulus. Humans see naked bodies, humans get aroused. No matter wether digital imagery or not.
Well, that’s not the argument I’d make, nor does it seem to be the one presented by the sources for the article. I agree that this would be very wishy washy!
Yeah, lay usage of addiction is like lay usage of theory. Very different meanings than the clinical or scientific usage of the terms.
Same, I got in arguments about it. Quoting Wikipedia did not convince them.
Ask any psychiatrist and they will confirm porn is okay.
Imagine the mannosphere and incels being nofap. Imagine all that repressed energy, all this contradiction with their normal nature, just because of beliefs.
That’s a good way to brew crazy people.
The basic mechanism of psychological addiction is there: a behaviour that creates an immediate reward.
You mean like it doesn’t exist? Asking that as a genuine question since Terry Crews has talked about his addiction to porn and how it almost ruined his marriage, and it doesn’t seem like a crazy stretch to believe that you can be addicted to porn (or, maybe more accurately, addicted to getting off).
That being said, the NoFap community is pretty fuckin weird and unhealthy as a whole. The stuff like semen retention is unscientifically proven, and treating any orgasm (including from sex) as being bad is just plain dumb. There’s tangible health benefits to jacking off, and I would wager that it’s better to lay off the porn because of how much it can fuckin warp people’s minds about partners and sex (and to help curb an excessive whacking off habit - I mean like “this is interfering with my life” levels).
“Addiction” is a specific word with legal and medical meanings. “Porn addiction” is not recognized as an addiction.
Some porn, along with a myriad of other factors, can contribute negatively to an individual’s sexual health. Not all porn is crazy and unrealistic. Not all porn is unhealthy.
Some of the other quotes in the article address how most people who diagnose themselves with “porn addiction” actually have another underlying disorder, often depression or bipolar.
I don’t know Crews personally, but I can guarantee a licensed professional did NOT diagnose him with porn addiction. Because that’s just not a legitimate diagnosis. The world, and particularly America, has enough issues with mental healthcare. Making up fake disorders to self-diagnose hurts the medical community that’s actually trying to help people with real disorders.
Addiction has a very specific clinical meaning as is stated in the article. Porn usage doesn’t fit that meaning. That isn’t to say that someone cannot compulsively masturbate or watch porn. But, again as stated in the article and a lot of other literature, it doesn’t have the same physiological or psychological effects as an addiction. And most of the people doing something compulsively like that are doing it as a symptom of an underlying problem (likely depression in many cases), not as the cause of the problem itself.
In other words, crack and Xanax create a problem. Porn can be used in response to certain psychological problems.
I like Terry Crews. Wholesome guy. But he isn’t a doctor or scientist.
“Porn addiction” is actually more like “porn compulsion.” Colloquially, compulsions are often called addictions (“video game addiction” is also a compulsion, an addiction would be something like crack) but it’s worrying with porn because it’s treated as an actual addiction, and the theories behind the modern worries about “porn addiction” are pseudoscience by unqualified people (Gary Wilson and Marnia Robinson) with a very strict idea of what a sexual relationship should look like.
which is why this social phenomenon dovetails so well with extremist religious sentiment
IIRC, isn’t there a distinction between chemical and physical addictions? Like a chemical addiction is drugs, booze, tobacco, caffeine, sugar, etc., a physical addiction could be basically anything that isn’t making you chemically dependant, but becomes compulsory enough to interfere with your life/mental health (gambling, video games, porn, shopping, etc.). Or do I have that wrong? I honestly can’t remember how I came by that information.
It’s “psychological” not physical, but otherwise yeah, I learned it the same way.
Removed by mod
People can be “addicted” to everything and anything. It just requires the “right” mindset to turn that thing into more than a habit. Saying people has innate tendency to be addicted to something is totally different, however. The latter also happens to be what matters in the medical field for obvious reasons.
I think it’s a lot like weed or video game addiction.
Is it going to send you to the hospital? Probably not. But if you let it take over your life to the extent that it’s detrimental, then using strategies that help people kick physical addictions can be effective.
These religious groups seem to hate a lot of things that appeal to basic pleasures, want to make you feel bad for wanting to feel good.
I mean a porn addiction is absolutely a thing, but it’s not an issue inherent to porn, humans can form a mental addiction to anything and porn can be an easy target. It’s just not porn itself that causes the addiction, since it’s not physically causing a chemical dependence, and porn addictions obviously aren’t anywhere near as prevalent as addictions to physically addictive substances. Porn addictions are certainly much much rarer than religious institutions act like they are, but they do exist, they’re just psychological in nature rather than physiological. And to reiterate, porn itself doesn’t cause addiction, or addictive behaviour if you want to be pedantic about it, but some people can form an emotional dependence on it just like they can form an emotional dependence on anything. If not porn then something else. But pretending they don’t exist at all is just ridiculous. The term addiction isn’t only used in one specific medical or physical sense and never has been, even in the medical community.
I’m anti-religion and been addicted to porn. Your views are pretty extreme as well. Not everything is a religious conspiracy.
I feel addicted to porn and games as well. I feel weird when I’m not getting either one of these for a long time and I don’t see any way to get out of this. But I guess games addiction is still not that damaging to my mental health unlike porn where I start to fantasize intensely even if I get slightly distracted with such feelings. Then I try to make an elaborate scene in my mind with all sorts to kinks or fetishes that I like until I get enough dopamine out of it.
Is fantasizing a bad thing? Imo its fine as long as it doesn’t impede normal functioning, whatever that means to you.
I feel lost at such times and couldn’t focus on what someone else is saying like in lectures
Big “As a gay black man…” energy over here lol
Porn addiction does not exist. No one qualified to diagnose addiction would diagnose you with that because it doesn’t exist. You’re delusional and self-diagnosing if you really think that.
Define addiction