220
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
220 points (95.8% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2063 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
Hey, can you tell me where sex addiction is in the DSM-V? I can't seem to find it as a diagnosis.
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.
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.
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.
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&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=porn+addiction&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1701288070891&u=%23p%3DNjIPuUqk95kJ
Maybe it’s a good thing that the DSM-5 shouldn’t be considered:
https://www.pchtreatment.com/dsm-5-issues/
I don’t deny that there are issues or that these may be issues, but your source is a company offering to sell an alternative means of mental health support, not an institution of psychological research or a professional organization of psychological researchers.
The fact that they brought it up as some kind of gotcha kind of shows they don't know what they're talking about.
I'm no expert, either, but I've at least read books from credentialed psychologists who said the same thing as that article. One even called it a "rule of thumb," a tool to help guide you in the right direction.
My thoughts the same. Almost every time I see the DSM-5 mentioned, it’s by someone using it as a defense in a made up argument.