• Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Reminder that “porn addiction” is not a thing. Sexual addiction is, porn addiction was invented by conservative/religious weirdos who think masturbation is “sinful.” Religions are especially glib about calling things “porn and addiction” without justification. They want you to think you’re sick, so they can provide you the “cure.”

    Just because you enjoy looking at porn and/or masturbating regularly doesn’t mean you have a sexual addiction. If you have trouble maintaining employment or relationships because of your habits, you might, and you should talk it over with a secular licensed psychologist to make that determination and decide the best way to address it.

    Edit: for anyone that wants to take umbrage at the fact that “sex addiction” isn’t in the latest DSM-V from 2013, here’s a 2019 review from psychology scholars: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=porn+addiction&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1701288070891&u=%23p%3DNjIPuUqk95kJ

    And one from 2020: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11094516847889822262&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en#d=gs_qabs&t=1701288571080&u=%23p%3Dz2RDDmDZK2AJ

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey, can you tell me where sex addiction is in the DSM-V? I can’t seem to find it as a diagnosis.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not to be pedantic, but the DSM is not the final word on the existence of different disorders. It is a tool to help doctors do their jobs.

        You won’t find Religious Trauma Syndrome in the DSM either, yet it is still recognized as a thing by a growing number of professionals. This example is still being discussed as to whether it should be its own category or if it should be rolled into CPTSD.

        So I would demure to the consensus of practicing psychologists, not the DSM.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The diagnosis in DSM-V are the consensus of professionals. Diagnosis appear in it once there’s sufficient clinical evidence of the <>, and the members come to a consensus.

          It is true that you won’t find e.g… scrupulosity in the DSM-V, but you will find OCD, and practitioners that deal with religious issues recognize that scrupulosity is a manifestation of OCD. Religious trauma would be more correctly seen as a cause of PTSD of CPTSD, rather than a distinct diagnosis of it’s own…

          Simply being a practicing psychologist and acting as though a thing is real is not sufficient proof that a thing is real; after all, you’ll find plenty of therapists–almost all of them treating therapy as a religious exercise–the will talk about addiction to pornography and masturbation, when the literature indicates that it’s not a problem in the way that they act like it is. Therapists in Utah will quite often act as though any use of pornography is evidence of an addiction to pornography (see also: Jodi Hildebrandt). Some therapists still insist that being homosexual or transgender are mental disorders than can be cured.

          • Telorand@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The diagnosis in DSM-V are the consensus of professionals. Diagnosis appear in it once there’s sufficient clinical evidence of the <>, and the members come to a consensus.

            I think it’s more accurate to say it’s a consensus, not the consensus. The consensus necessarily does and should change over time, and the DSM-V is a decade old.

            Religious trauma would be more correctly seen as a cause of PTSD of CPTSD, rather than a distinct diagnosis of it’s own…

            According to you and maybe the DSM, not necessarily the consensus of psychologists. It’s not a decided issue whether it should be a diagnosis of its own or not.

            Ultimately, maybe the woman in the article does have an addiction. Maybe she masturbates so much, she can’t function as an adult. I don’t know, but I know I’ve read a few studies, and they never used “porn addiction” (except to critique the notion), but they did use “sexual addiction.”

            Here’s one, and the relevant quote: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0%2C44&amp;q=porn+addiction&amp;btnG=#d=gs_qabs&amp;t=1701288070891&amp;u=%23p%3DNjIPuUqk95kJ

            However, despite all efforts, we are still unable to profile when engaging in this behavior becomes pathological. Common problems include: sample bias, the search for diagnostic instrumentals, opposing approximations to the matter, and the fact that this entity may be encompassed inside a greater pathology (i.e., sex addiction) that may present itself with very diverse symptomatology.