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!
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.