A few weeks ago, I discussed Utah’s attempts to call porn a public health crisis. I don’t think such a designation is useful for a few reasons: (1) the Utah Legislature allocated no funds to combat the problem, (2) there is considerable debate about whether porn or sex addiction is a legitimate scientific condition, and (3) there are many other health issues more important than porn. Furthermore,
The state of Utah has recently declared pornography a public health crisis.13They also recently voted down science-based school sex education.14 This shows that they’re more interested in condemning porn than in supporting the healthy sexuality of their young people. It also helps explain why Utah has the highest per capita use of porn in the country, and one of the highest rates of unwanted pregnancy.
Let me first state that I am sad that many feel they are addicted to sex. Some high profile names include Tiger Woods, Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, and David Duchovny. It’s almost always men who claim addiction. It took me a while, but I did find two female “celebrities” whom I never heard of that claim sex addiction: Playboy model Nicole Narain, and beauty contestant Kari Ann Peniche.
Furthermore, I don’t want to minimize that some people experience problems with porn. Dr. Jonathan Alpert writes
In this age of celebrities and politicians coming forward with their claims of sex addiction following a cheating incident, I’m often asked whether sex addiction even really exists. My answer is both yes and no. According to the medical community, more specifically, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), it doesn’t exist. That aside, and looking purely at patterns of behavior and what’s going on inside the person’s head, well, that’s a different story.
Although not formally recognized by the medical establishment, there are troubling behaviors that resemble a compulsion. If you’re the person who is consumed by sexual urges, activities, and fantasies, and your behavior is directed at achieving the goal of sex at all cost, then you have a problem. If this continues despite such adverse consequences as getting in trouble at work for looking at pornography, running up credit card debt for sex services, contracting an STD, and even getting caught, literally, by your significant other with your pants down, then you definitely have a serious problem.
Substance abuse, food addiction, sexual compulsion — whatever the demon —similar mechanisms are at play: One feels depressed or anxious, stressed, or seeks a high and reaches for the bottle, drugs, food, or sex. Feelings are numbed, a high or thrill is reached, and the perpetual reward process in the brain is triggered. This powerful reward system targets the area of the brain that releases dopamine, the “feel good” neurotransmitter and the behavior is reinforced. Throw into the mix the often larger-than-life sense of entitlement and narcissism that runs amok in the world of celebrities and there’s even more potential for cheating, compulsive behavior, and ultimately the label of “sex addict.” However, it should be noted, claims of “sex addiction” seem to be the diagnosis du jour as society and Hollywood are quick to label celebrities who cheat as “sex addicts.” This sometimes is more of an excuse to gain public sympathy than it is fact. Addiction or not, with dedication, expert help, and lots of hard work, one can improve and learn healthy ways to cope and to make better decisions.
There are a few problems (or benefits, depending on which side of the label you are on) with the labels of porn or sex addiction. On the one hand, sex addicts claim that they are not responsible for their actions. Essentially they are saying that the compulsion takes away their free-agency, their ability to choose between right and wrong. Is that something a faithful Mormon or Christian can accept? Steven Cave writes that some scientists believe that free will is an illusion, whether or not one has any addictions or compulsions. Even the most moral people are incapable of free will or free agency.
The challenge posed by neuroscience is more radical: It describes the brain as a physical system like any other, and suggests that we no more will it to operate in a particular way than we will our heart to beat. The contemporary scientific image of human behavior is one of neurons firing, causing other neurons to fire, causing our thoughts and deeds, in an unbroken chain that stretches back to our birth and beyond. In principle, we are therefore completely predictable. If we could understand any individual’s brain architecture and chemistry well enough, we could, in theory, predict that individual’s response to any given stimulus with 100 percent accuracy.
This research and its implications are not new. What is new, though, is the spread of free-will skepticism beyond the laboratories and into the mainstream. The number of court cases, for example, that use evidence from neuroscience has more than doubled in the past decade—mostly in the context of defendants arguing that their brain made them do it.
If we accept the addiction model, I don’t think many of us are willing to suspend belief in free agency. Even addicts have free agency, although their ability to make good choices may be compromised a great deal.
For me the question isn’t so much whether Utah has a problem with porn, but (1) where does Utah fit within that problem, and (2) what are the best solutions to solve the problem? When looking at other forms of addiction and compulsion, the United States tried Prohibition of alcohol once, and it doesn’t work so well. Prohibiting alcohol was so bad that Utah cast the deciding vote to repeal Prohibition.
Utah put the amendment over the top even though Heber J. Grant, then president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had urged church members not to support repeal, noting for example that highway deaths had decreased greatly during Prohibition.
Despite the official stance of the church, many prominent Utahns argued that repeal was inevitable and a better alternative than the gangsterism, bootlegging, bathtub gin production, speak-easies and other illegal activities that mushroomed under the ban.
This is a perfect example of where the cure introduced other unintended consequences that Utahns decided that were worse than Prohibition itself. While Utah’s designation that porn is a public health crisis is pretty toothless, trying to ban porn, or even making it more taboo may is not helping and may make the problem worse.
Speaking of addiction, Portugal had a huge drug problem, and has looked at the failed US experiment with Prohibition, and wanted to see what would happen if the country legalized all drugs. Many in law enforcement were skeptical that this solution would help.
Nearly fifteen years ago, Portugal had one of the worst drug problems in Europe, with 1 percent of the population addicted to heroin. They had tried a drug war, and the problem just kept getting worse. So they decided to do something radically different. They resolved to decriminalize all drugs, and transfer all the money they used to spend on arresting and jailing drug addicts, and spend it instead on reconnecting them — to their own feelings, and to the wider society. The most crucial step is to get them secure housing, and subsidized jobs so they have a purpose in life, and something to get out of bed for….
The results of all this are now in. An independent study by the British Journal of Criminology found that since total decriminalization, addiction has fallen, and injecting drug use is down by 50 percent. I’ll repeat that: injecting drug use is down by 50 percent. Decriminalization has been such a manifest success that very few people in Portugal want to go back to the old system. The main campaigner against the decriminalization back in 2000 was Joao Figueira, the country’s top drug cop. He offered all the dire warnings that we would expect from the Daily Mail or Fox News. But when we sat together in Lisbon, he told me that everything he predicted had not come to pass — and he now hopes the whole world will follow Portugal’s example.
While Utah can always do better with regards to both porn and prescription drug abuse (we’re doing fabulously on alcohol), I don’t think that things here are so dire to declare porn a public health crisis. If the legislature were serious, Utah could at least offer better sex education in schools. Some schools in Europe already discuss porn as part of sex education. Denmark already has porn in the curriculum, and a Danish professor says discussion with teenagers about the industry would make them more critical consumers. Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett writes an opinion piece in the UK’s Guardian newspaper that Sex education without porn is not sex education.
Utah has been noted to have high porn use, but is it really that bad? This article puts Utah in perspective with the rest of the country.
Utah’s porn usage isn’t quite as overwhelming when compared to the majority of other states in the country. In 2015, the adult site PornHub recorded 16 visits per capita from Utah visitors, half of what Washington, D.C.’s rate. While Utah lawmakers reject LGBT-friendly laws, their citizens are hungry for lesbian pornography. It is the top search term in the state, but it’s also consistent with a majority of states in the country.
I watched a very interesting video on Netflix, The Big Picture, by National Geographic. Episode 3 discusses sex throughout the world. While they did state that Utah was the #1 consumer of “streaming porn” over the internet and they confirm the previous paragraph, it could be a lot worse.
When it comes to streaming porn, what is the most popular search term in the US?
Lesbian, and ironically that is true even in conservative Utah. The term “bondage” is most popular in West Virginia, (which is also popular in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, although Wyoming and Idaho have large Mormon populations.) While all types of porn viewing are bad, I’m glad that Utahns were watching lesbians rather than trying to learn ways to rape women via bondage methods. Maybe you will feel differently.
Where’s biggest hotspot for cheating on your spouse?
That would be the Muslim country of Turkey (58% have reported cheating on their spouse.)
Which country has the most sex per year according to condom maker Durex?
Despite all the complaints about sex on television, the United States is in the middle of the pack at 113 times per year. It’s not romantic Italy (106 times-ranked 20th), or France (120-ranked 6th), but Greece where participants claim to have sex 138 times per year. On the other end of the spectrum is Japan, dead last in number of sexual encounters at 45 per year. No wonder their population is shrinking.
What can Utah be proud of?
Utah can be proud that it is among the lowest in providing pornstars to the porn industry. Most come from California, Florida, Texas, and the Midwest. Utah can also be proud to be among the fewest to read the sex novel “50 Shades of Gray.” Apparently that is very popular in New England. Utah’s also low in strip clubs per capita (Hurley, Wisconsin has 6 strip clubs, or 1 for every 260 residents.) Las Vegas, Tampa Bay, and Portland were among the top cities with strip clubs.
Iceland has the highest number of number of children born to unwed mothers (66%), followed by Sweden (55%). Iceland also has the most sex partners (13%), followed by Finland (12.4%.)
Nationwide, the average college student consumes 5 alcoholic drinks per week. During spring break when they head to popular destinations in Florida or Las Vegas, it can be 18 drinks per DAY! And while they’re drinking (83% are drinking more), there is 74% more sex, and 57% have sex with 2 or more partners. 60% know a friend who had unprotected sex during spring break.
But it’s not just Spring Breakers who are having more sex; Florida senior citizens are acting like spring breakers, and STI’s (sexually transmitted infections) are up 71%! Just 5% of these senior citizens are taking advantage of Medicare free screening. The host notes “Somebody needs to have THE TALK with grandma and grandpa.” That sounds like a serious public health concern.
But let’s get back to the evidence for sex addiction. Cambridge University did a study that many proponents of the sex addiction model promote. This article states 3 main findings:
Compulsive porn users craved porn (greater wanting), but did not have higher sexual desire (liking) than controls. This finding aligns perfectly with the current model of addiction, and refutes the theory that “higher sexual desire” causes compulsive porn use. Drug addicts are thought to be driven to seek their drug because they want – rather than enjoy – it. This abnormal process is known as incentive motivation, which is a hallmark of addiction disorders.
The other major finding (not reported in the media) was that over 50% of subjects (average age: 25) had difficulty achieving erections with real partners, yet could achieve erections with porn….
Finally, researchers found that younger subjects had enhanced reward circuit activity when exposed to porn cues. Higher dopamine spikes and greater reward sensitivity are major factors in adolescents being more vulnerable to addiction and sexual conditioning.
The results of the two Cambridge studies (study1, study2) and the Max Planck study (Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014), provide very strong support for hypotheses put forth here on YBOP from its inception in 2011.
How do others look at this study?
Antonia Crane: What happens to our brains when we watch porn?
Nikky Prause: Well, it’s pretty clear it’s a reward.
You mean like a Snickers bar or a cigarette?
And like cheese. And like pictures of puppies.
So we are depressed puppies, not necessarily porn-addicted ones.
Not exactly. What I mean is that seeing images of puppies would do a similar thing to our brains. It’s hard to have that conversation because people do say, “But the brain lights up just like cocaine.” It does have lots of overlap with it, but so do images of chocolate and puppies—the type of chocolate (or puppy) you like the most…I wish people understood that all that’s doing is saying, “I like it.” It’s not saying “I’m addicted.”
Is porn addictive?
No.
Is sex addictive?
There is less evidence. I don’t think it is, but I am not as strong on my no.
But so many people suffer from sex and love addiction or porn addiction and say they can’t stop the behaviors.
A lot of people think that, but we don’t have evidence for it. That’s the thing, if you are a member of the public and you Google this stuff, there are all kinds of counselors that are certain it happens and they write about it like it is fact.
On a message board for exMormons, an anonymous poster explained his own history of being told he was a porn addict by his church. “Most Mormon ‘porn addicts’ are not addicted at all,” he writes. “The ‘addiction’ is due largely in [part] to the taboo nature of it.” He asserts that some simply have higher sex drives than others, but the church refers to them as addicts.
“I realized this was true when a therapist suggested I attend a non-[Mormon] sexaholics anonymous group,” he said explaining he had been to LDS ones before. “I realized that my ‘addiction’ of 1-7 times/week would get me laughed out of such a meeting.”
Some experts believe labeling people as porn addicts actually is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and makes the situation worse, not better.
In January 2015, Joshua Grubbs of Case Western, published powerful research showing that seeing oneself as a porn addict was predicted not by how much porn one views, but by the degree of religiosity and moral attitudes towards sex. Now, Grubbs has published explosive follow-up research, demonstrating that believing oneself is addicted to porn actually causes pain and psychological problems, in contrast to the idea that identifying as a porn addict is a part of a road to recovery.
…..
Analyses confirmed that the self-perception as a porn addict predicted distress one year later, where either porn use or personality characteristics did not. If someone believed they were a sex addict, this belief predicted downstream psychological suffering, no matter how much, or how little, porn they were actually using.This means that the large-scale promotion of the concept of “porn addiction,” in the media, on the Internet, by self-proclaimed experts and by an industry that preys off of an unrecognized disorder, appear to actually be hurting people. By telling people that their use of porn constitutes a disease, they are promulgating suffering and anxiety, instilling into people that their use of pornography means there is something wrong with them, and that this use has potentially dire consequences.
The word iatrogenic describes illnesses or damages that are acquired as a result of treatment. If you go into a hospital for an appendectomy, and get a staph infection in the hospital, that’s iatrogenic harm. The porn addiction treatment model is iatrogenic, creating harm under the guise of providing treatment and support.
…
I’ve seen many vulnerable people call themselves a porn addict, with much shame and fear, despite using less porn than many other people. As with Grubbs’ research, I’ve found that this self-imposed label has much to do with moral values about sex and pornography, and often comes from an impoverished understanding of human sexuality. People walk into my office reporting this, and contact me online, after they’ve been shamed and labelled in online discussion groups. When one has little understanding that ALL people struggle at times with their sexual desires, it’s very easy to listen to moralizing proclaimers of doom, and declare one’s sexual desires to be abnormal and unhealthy.The large industry of intertwined media, therapists, coaches and advocates who have obsessively and gleefully promoted the idea that porn is addictive, claim that they help people by providing an explanation and an intervention for the problems related to porn. In response to Grubbs’ findings, it’s now their obligation to demonstrate empirically that their label, their treatments and their theories are beneficial. Because right now, the evidence suggests that their treatment is hurting people.
The people who are making money and fame from the idea of porn addiction may claim that science hasn’t looked at their theories the right way – or looked at the right people. They may try to discredit the work done by Grubbs, and challenge his findings. These proponents of porn addiction treatment will have to produce real research that supports their actual work, rather than mere extrapolations from other findings. Until then, the model of porn addiction is an unethical, harmful treatment which exploits people, just like the hucksters who sold snake oil and things like radioactive materials as medicine were engaged in harmful, dangerous and illegal practice.
Finally, here’s one more study that uses an EEG to measure brain waves.
Sex addiction may not be a real disorder, according to a new UCLA study.
Researchers measured brain waves in self-reported sex addicts. The scans revealed that their brain’s responses when viewing sexual pictures were not indicative of an addiction.
….
People are diagnosed with a sexual addiction, or hypersexuality, when they exhibit sexual urges that feel out of control, engage frequently in sexual behavior, have suffered negative consequences because of their sexual behavior and they are unable to stop their behavior.
Prause said these criteria could also indicate high sexual desire, which is not necessarily a disorder.
…
Prause and her team looked at the brains of 52 people, 39 men and 13 women between the ages of 18 to 39. All of them reported problems with controlling their urge to view sexual images. They were asked to fill out four questionnaires that reviewed their sexual behaviors, desires and compulsions. They also were asked to discuss the potential cognitive and behavioral consequences of their sexual behavior. The responses were similar to people who were currently seeking help for sexual addiction.
Then, the subjects looked at different photographs while having an electroencephalography (EEG) scan taken. The EEG measured brain waves, specifically electrical activity in the brain when cells communicate with each other.
Photographs were picked by researchers to evoke pleasant or unpleasant feelings. They included images of dismembered bodies, people cooking, people skiing and sex. Some of the sexual images were romantic, while others showed explicit heterosexual intercourse.
The researchers looked at so-called “event-related potentials,” the brain wave changes caused by looking at the photographs. They specifically were interested in the P300 response, which was how the brain responds 300 milliseconds after exposure to the picture. The response at this moment in time — which has previously used in other addiction and impulsivity studies — is higher when the person is stimulated by something that’s new or interesting to them.
The researchers hypothesized that the more addicted to sex a person was based on the results from the questionnaires, the higher their P300 response would be. However, they discovered that the P300 responses were not correlated to the severity of the person’s sexual addiction. Instead, their brain response was linked to their self-reported levels of sexual desire.
“Brain response was only related to the measure of sexual desire. In other words, hypersexuality does not appear to explain brain responses to sexual images any more than just having a high libido,” she said.
Robert Weiss, a sex addiction clinician and author, told U.S. News that this study doesn’t mean sex addiction isn’t a real problem.
“You can’t define an addiction by what a person eats, what kind of alcohol they drink or whether they play blackjack or craps,” Weiss said. “We look at their life and determine if a substance or behavior is negatively affecting the quality of their life to the point where they need help.”
One website claims that porn kills love, but
North American neuroscientists Prause and Pfaus recently published a study in which pornography use was related to greater sexual desire for one’s partner, not to ED or lower desire.8 An ocean away, European researchers Landripet and Stulhofer found that neither frequency of porn viewing nor changes in the frequency of use were related to erectile problems.9 Both published in a high-prestige medical journal, these two studies refute claims that watching porn desensitizes erectile function, which supposedly leads to decreased desire and arousal for partner sex.
What about Abstinence “pledges”? These may backfire and cause even more damage.
“…pledge breakers have higher risk of HPV and nonmarital pregnancy. As a set, the results are consistent with the argument that pledgers use condoms and contraceptives less consistently and highlight unintended consequences of abstinence promotion.”
What are your thoughts? Do you think sex addiction is real? Is the term of sex addiction a way of avoiding responsibility and free agency? What is to be done with people who seem to exhibit compulsive behavior? Is better sex education that includes discussion or porn use helpful?
The intertwining of the brain (both nature and nurture) and free agency (free will) is an interesting topic that has DEEP religious implications.
The more I read up on the scientific findings, the more I lead towards the brain having quite a bit more sway in things than I think LDS philosophy would like to give it. I do think we can guide our behaviors a bit and if we did not strive for our better selves, society would suffer. But if taken too far, the repression will come out somewhere/some time.
I think on the podcast StarTalk the host mentioned a friend was going through a sex change procedure. As they started the intense hormone therapy, the person could not believe just how much it changed the way they think. I remember the hosts words quoting the individual were something like, “The amount of change the hormones made to the way I think makes me question if I have any free will.”
And another quick example. I just listened to a scientific podcast where they discussed a person that was on the autistic scale and really had felt no empathy for others. He went in for some experiments of electromagnetic brain stimulation that the scientists expected to have effects only about 15 minutes. Well more than a year later the guy actually is having issues because his empathy has moved to the “very high” level of the scale. He has a hard time listening to others hard times without it nearly disabling him with emotional anguish.
Another great post, MH. I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t state this with any authority, but I think sex addiction MIGHT be real, however, not nearly as prevalent as some folks might claim. In terms of how your post connects with the Mormon aspect of things, I think two things, mainly:
1. Your questions about sex education and porn and compulsive behavior highlight to me the difficulties Mormons encounter when discussing any of this. IMHO, Mormons have some of the least healthy attitudes towards sex I’ve ever encountered, which means we don’t really talk about it at all except about the importance of avoiding everything having to do with it outside of what we do with a married partner. That kind of fear and avoidance, in part, is what makes it so difficult for Mormons and the church generally to have any kind of nuanced view or important conversations about sex. It’s certainly not the church’s job to educate its young people about sex, it’s the parents’ job, but we clearly have a hard time overcoming our fear of sex and the human body in general in order to have any kind of productive conversations.
2. Similar to your comments about the abstinence pledge breakers, I think one thing that leads to us being so unhealthy about sex is the law of chastity, which is essentially our version of an abstinence pledge that we expect all single people to make now and forever. See the recent stories about rape culture at BYU for one incredibly negative impact of mandating chastity. Many Mormon young people (a substantial percentage of whom will have pre-marital sex despite the church dictates against such a practice) have never heard a word about consent, birth control, condoms, STD prevention, etc. By taking such a hard line about chastity, by being afraid that any discussion of birth control, for example, will open the floodgates, so to speak, we’re actually putting our young people at greater risk, which means we’re not helping them, we’re endangering them. And we damage them even more when we don’t realize that in this extremely restrictive environment that the church has created, healthy desires become vilified, become “addictions” or “compulsive behaviors” when they’re really healthy desires, which means we’re further increasing the likelihood that our healthy, naturally sexually curious young (and older) people will guilt themselves into thinking they’re evil addicts instead of normal human beings. It’s incredibly sad and infuriating that the church doesn’t recognize this.
This reminds me of the recent John Oliver bit on how we tend to jump on any old study and treat it as if it were the ultimate word so long as it says what we want. Some of these are pretty easy to poke holes in. From the psychologist who is proof because she’s never seen it in her own practice to the study that used a small sample and treated all porn as if it should generate equal responses, we seem to just love anything that sounds scientific and gives us credibility in what we already believe.
This I laughed at – ““I realized that my ‘addiction’ of 1-7 times/week would get me laughed out of such a meeting.”” That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever saw one. These meetings aren’t competitions and have no low bar to attend. I’ve known people at alcoholic meetings who have never had a drink in their lives. They weren’t laughed out, but welcomed in. The struggle is recognized as being in common, no matter what the form it takes.
As to the OP question – I’d say it strongly depends on the person and circumstances involved. Some addictions start with an initial use of free agency, but many others come when the person has no say in the matter at all. I believe God knows exactly what choices were made and what times the choice was forced, and knows how to judge each circumstance and person individually, not based on some arbitrary measure.
Great post. It was packed with information.
You ask several really good questions. I’ll tackle just one.
Yes, I think some people use addiction as a way to avoid responsibility, but I believe that realizing the role of agency is a key part of the treatment of an addiction. Disclaimer: I’m simplifying dramatically.
In the substance abuse field one group of treatments are the Motivational Enhancement Therapies (MET) which focus primarily on increasing an individual’s motivation to change. There are a number of different treatment protocols, but in general, the therapist helps an individual realize that each time they use, they are making a choice that using is more desirable than not using and that motivation to change is increased by shifting the balance toward change.
One way this is done is by helping the person identify the choice they make each time they use. For example, an person who smokes might say that they are addicted and can’t quit smoking–that they don’t have a choice. The therapist might identify exceptions to this belief by asking about smoking in theaters or in church. Once exceptions are identified, the therapist can help the individual identify how they were able to choose not to smoke, for example, during grandmother’s funeral.
Interventions are put in place that increase these opportunities to choose: e.g., the person might decided “no more smoking in the house or car. If I want to smoke, I still can, I just need to go outside, or do it before or after my commute,” or “Every time I have an urge to smoke, set a timer for 10 minutes. Once the timer goes off, if I still want the cigarette, I can have it”. As the individual successfully makes these changes, their own self-efficacy increases and they are able to continue making the choice not to engage in the behavior. These small choices move them toward their goal of being a non-smoker.
One piece that is missing here is, of course, the very real impact of neurotransmitters that aren’t under conscious control. The reality is that many people, by the time they are faced with the choice to engage in a behavior or not, have already shut off the pre-frontal cortex–the “adulting” brain–and have passed control over to the older “reptilian” brain systems. They may feel that they don’t have a choice. In some ways they don’t. But we recognize that in any situations our choices can limit, but not eliminate, our agency (I’ve heard the metaphor of the freeway in Sunday School classes used to explain this concept). So how is this addressed?
As part of substance use treatment, the individual spends time identifying high-risk situations, situations that increase the likelihood that they will use, despite their goal not to (situations that decrease their ability to make an informed decision). They then develop plans to deal with those situations. E.g., the individual has quit drinking but is invited to a New Years party. They worry that they might feel pressure to drink and so they identify several options: skip the party, go to the party and only drink soda or water, or go to the party and have a single glass of champagne. The pros and cons of the options are evaluated and the individuals develops a specific plan.
By making choices about the situations they will allow themselves into, the individual can increase their capacity to make an informed choice–They’ve increased their agency.
As they progress through treatment, the individual comes to realize that they do in fact have control over the addiction and, as they exercise their ability to choose, they begin to feel empowered by the choices they are making and change becomes more rewarding than not changing.
Very interesting Ender2k. I can’t say I totally buy the argument that people don’t have agency, but I do think that for people who want to claim that addiction exists, it’s got to take away agency or free will. It feels a bit like a slippery slope argument.
Certainly I think that even if sex addiction cannot be identified in the brain, certainly there are behaviors that people have that are compulsive and need to be addressed. Behavioral techniques such as the one you’ve outlined are very useful.
This is a lot of good information.
Frank, it made me think of John Oliver’s bit also about scientific research…although for the sake of comedy, he cherry picks stuff too.
I guess as I think on these topics, I think that Pres Packer spoke truth:
“True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behaviors.
“The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than the study of behavior will improve behavior….that is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel.”
– Ensign , Nov 1986
I think that could go along with the Portugal experiment. Focus on education and positive elements to motivate good behavior, and the negative behavior is less appealing.
Faith requires knowledge of good, that motivates one to repent and change. Pounding the pulpit on sin and guilting others is not as productive for sustaining changes in individuals.
I don’t see porn as addictive, but a choice. Then again, I have even a smaller subset of data than clinicians that meet with a handful of subjects.
I’m interested in how psychology approaches this and it’s findings.
I think there are far worse things for Utah to fight to outlaw.
Thanks for writing this MH. It is interesting to follow.
I think it might be hard to get unbiased scientific research because there is a lot of disagreement about what it means to be “addicted.” People who are philosophically against the addiction-treatment model can find ways in which a brain response to porn differs from other addictions like drugs, and use that to claim its not an addiction. Or they can call it a “compulsion” which sounds like the same thing as addiction to me, but apparently has some kind of technical difference for the pros.
Addiction treatment models may not always work effectively and “iatrogenics” as you say, could be making the problem worse in many cases. But this is not an excuse to defend an obviously problematic behaviour that is consuming the sex lives of millions of people at the expense of their real sex lives. Porn IS a problem. 1 in 5 mobile searches are for porn? I’d say that’s a crisis. Human sexuality is not designed for this kind of overload. It’s no wonder that 56% of divorces involve one partner having “obsessive interest in pornographic websites.”
Nate at 5:39:
I think you’re spot on about the difficulty of actually diagnosing addiction. Even professionals can disagree about it. Sex addiction in particular seems difficult. I’ve always thought being addicted to sex is like being addicted to food. It’s a pretty strong biological drive and that’s what makes it more difficult to diagnose in my opinion. We don’t, for example, feel a naturally strong drive to collect bottle caps, so it’s perhaps easier to recognize and diagnose that particular behavior when it becomes extreme. I don’t know.
Your comment about people’s “real” sex lives makes me think that porn isn’t really the problem.
I’ve always thought that if a person can’t tell the difference between real sex/intimacy and porn, that’s the person’s problem, not porn’s problem. There’s obviously a reason why they call porn actors and actresses “actors and actresses.” It’s not real and no one involved in the industry believes its real and I don’t understand how anyone with any kind of experience with physical intimacy can mistake porn for the real thing. So to my way of thinking, it’s really about educating people and, ironically, encouraging them to have more, healthy “real” sexual experiences, not fewer, so that they can, through their own experience, begin to be more aware of the differences between fantasy and reality, porn and “real” sex. But that can only happen if, sticking just to the Mormon context, we encourage healthy sexual development and experiences and stop stigmatizing sex. This is another situation, IMHO, where the law of chastity does much more harm than good.
I posted on your site MH but thought I would post here too seeing as some of the above quotes is from me about an extended family member.
I know sex addiction and porn addiction is real. My extended family member lost control of his agency due to his addictions to porn and sex and it was the cause that destroyed many lives even one death.
It absolutely drives me mad when people honestly can question whether sex and porn addiction is real. I have seen firsthand how sex and porn have conditioned people over the course of a few years to become slaves to their addictions. Its effects are identical to drug addicts. Instead of buying milk for the family they spend it on another porn video or instead of taking care of the yard they spend days on end trying to find that next satisfying set of images and text to fulfill their fantasy. They literally cant stop! It completely consumes them. If thats not an addiction then we need to redefine addiction!
Heres a challenge- go to http://www.lds.org and see if there is even one article that states sex and porn addiction isnt real.
But no, we wont do that because LDS prophets dont know anything about morality…
Thats the attitude and trap we are falling into. Our prophets have prophesied about the dangers of porn addiction for decades- its real, it is a true addiction.
MH, are you censoring my posts on your blog?
Nate, “Or they can call it a “compulsion” which sounds like the same thing as addiction to me, but apparently has some kind of technical difference for the pros.” Since you have a big habit of conflating definitions of all words, this doesn’t surprise me at all. Words have meaning, and you should make an attempt to quit conflating definitions.
Are you actually defending the idea that it is ok to make the problem worse? I’d rather fix the problem than make it worse. Did you not read the paragraphs on Prohibition, in which the solution increased crime?
Rob, I dare you to find a GA with a degree in sexology. I’d love to see the study on LDS.org where a GA shows porn to a patient and counts erections. This post is on the science of addiction, and I’m not aware of any GA mentioning the words “sex addiction” in General Conference, let alone creating a scientific study on porn. If I’m wrong, please provide a link. GA’s don’t have degrees in theology, archaeology, sexology, or history, so I’d question their expertise when they make pronouncements outside their area of expertise (which seems to be primarily business, education, and law.)
You are welcome to have faith in GA’s, but quit trying to conflate faith with science. I don’t mind you sharing your faith, but quit conflating the two. This discussion is primarily here to discuss science and its implications on free agency. It is not a testimony bearing session. If this discussion is driving you mad, you need to step away. Apparently you missed the last line of this comment.
Nate, I strongly agree that “addiction” is a very vague term, so it’s hard to say whether sex/porn addiction is a real thing. I’m a licensed psychotherapist with experience tearing people with drug problems. I tend not to use the word “addiction” because it’s so vague. But neglecting work or family due to drugs? That’s a clearly defined behavior that we can change. Needing to drink more to get the same buzz? That’s a specific phenomenon that we can work with.
You’re also right that for some people in some situations, porn can lead to serious emotional and behavioral problems, regardless of what word we use. It can be habit-forming, just like drugs, food, or pretty much any other behavior.
The therapies that I tend to use most start with observing and describing. Instead of using words with so much emotional baggage like “addict,” we just observe the facts of our experiences and describe them in neutral terms. I think that kind of radical acceptance of the way things are is necessary before real change can happen.
Mh,
You are an ignorant individual.
If we let science dictate our morals we would all go to hell.
Now I’m curious… How many GA’s have gone on record saying that sex and porn addiction ARE real? I know a lot of them have warned about aversive consequences of impulsive sexual activity (and I strongly agree with that message). But have any of them actually called it an addiction and then given an operational definition of what addiction means?
Woah! Not “tearing people!” It should say “working with people.”
Rob, I’m still wallowing in my ignorance waiting for that link on porn addiction from the GA sexologist you promised from LDS.org.
Galileo was once called a heretic for the evils of science he promoted. I’m sure you would have excommunicated him for his insolence. It took 350 years, but now the Catholic church says his arrest was in error and the pope was wrong. It may take you the same amount of time on this issue…
If I’m so ignorant, quit reading and responding to my ignorant posts and comments. Obviously I have nothing useful to say to you. I’ll try to ignore you from now on, but you can certainly help the situation.
MH,
You are the one who created a post by quoting what I said. I have a right to defend myself. Its sad that you censor me on your own site because you cant handle a real discussion.
Rob,
This post isn’t about you. (I guess you’re a narcissist.)
Since you are offended, I just deleted your comment from the OP and it made no difference to my overall point. (Besides, the OP was too long. Thanks for help with editing.)
Once again, this post isn’t about you. It’s about the science of addiction. If you have something to add that is science related, feel free to post. If not, I won’t continue to pile on as others have done in the rape post, and the feminism post. Truly you are an offensive person, and I’m sorry you felt the need to comment on any of my posts. I’ll be more careful to steer clear of your offensive opinions in the future, as I don’t want to wallow in the mud with such an offensive person.
MH,
You never asked for science. You asked for peoples opinions. You might actually have a decent discussion here if you werent so disrespectful.
Rob,
First, I know porn use can sometimes cause significant consequences. I know of someone–an LDS member–working for a large company in CA who got fired for viewing porn while at work.
Someone could become psychologically depressed and use porn as an escape OR guilt and shame associated with porn could cause depression.
But, there is a substantial difference between a chemical dependency (whether it be alcohol or drugs) and a porn habit. Chemical dependencies can and do cause real physiological (physical) reactions which can be and are fatal when someone is going through withdrawals.
And, it doesn’t matter what church leaders say about classifying porn as an addiction or not. They aren’t scientists or medical drs. Just as I don’t ask my plumber for medical advice or use my dr. as a spiritual advisor, I don’t look to church leaders about scientific/medical explanations. They have different areas of expertise and function.
Lois,
So, you probably go to scientists to tell you your morality.
Doctors actually have called pornography an addiction. Its not up to just the APA to designate something an addiction before it really is. They said for decades that cigarettes werent an addiction then decided it was. So, was it not an addiction before they decided it was an addiction?
Rob
“So, you probably go to scientists to tell you your morality.”
No of course not.
I think it is pretty clear the point I was trying to make:
“Just as I don’t ask my plumber for medical advice or use my dr.(Or SCIENTIST) as a spiritual advisor,”
Duh
Lois,
So, as long as scientists say porn isnt an addiction or bad for us were good to go look at lots of porn. Is that what you are saying?
Nobody is saying porn isn’t bad, but there is no science supporting the idea of addiction.
rational faiths recently released this episode of their “Ask a Mormon Sex Therapist” series with Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife, which touched on some philosophical ideas of how porn as addiction does not really mesh with taking ownership of our sexual choices. (Podcast here, the porn segment is roughly the first half http://rationalfaiths.com/100-ask-mormon-sex-therapist-part-14/ )
She talks about how we use the idea of addiction to reduce our responsibility for our choices how we like to simply have the Church tell us what to do rather than claim our own choices and growth (especially in sexual choices). One interesting anecdote was shared by Brian (he claims he will post links to documentation) of how Pres. H. J. Grant, when faced with beer and coffee “addictions” overcame them by choosing to allow himself to drink, but also allowing that he could choose not to drink. When the drink was not absolutely “forbidden”, he found apparently found it easier to not drink than when he treated it as “forbidden”. Sister Finlaysen-Fife talks about how this can be seen in dieting and relationship to “junk” food. The basic idea behind the questioner’s question and much of the response seems to suggest that porn use might be better controlled by not labeling it an addiction.
I know this is an old post, but this link for LDS people explains the difference between shame and guilt, and why shame feeds pornography.
https://byrslf.co/the-naked-people-in-your-ipod-f770a27fdb59#.qhy9mrm75