I've posted about this in other contexts before, specifically about food addiction. But still this language superiority of limiting the term "addiction" to one and only one clinical definition is just silly.

The issue I have with always talking about what constitutes an “addition” is that too often the discussion stops there. We can just accept that in Church culture “compulsion” and “addiction” are synonymous. And with how language develops, that an okay thing. With “addiction” it doesn’t always mean clinical addiction that you can measure in the brain the same way you measure drug addiction. And this isn’t just true in the Church, this is true across all other discussions about “compulsion” and “addiction.” The media often uses the term addiction because that is how our language developed (I would read a history of the English language book to understand this more, I got a degree in English so we studied in depth how language changes over time). Just because it isn’t a clinical “addiction” doesn’t mean that society can’t use that word. The scientific meaning isn’t always the most correct, or most accurate meaning, specifically because it can limit out “compulsions” purely because people choose not to use the word compulsion.

This same discussion happens in the video game culture, where people argue for hours that there is no such thing as video game “addiction” because it is scientifically a “compulsion.” To see this discussion in a video game context I would recommend watching this youtube clip: https://youtu.be/Y5RSngCFpsc

So to say “there is no such thing as porn addiction” demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding of language, and how it develops in a society.


(Now that being said, people who watch porn twice a month don't, in my mind, have either an addiction, or a compulsion. They just like it. People who can't go three days without watching, well that might be a different case).

I think the biggest problem is that "addiction" is pejorative. It makes defensive walls pop up and then gerrymandering of semantics starts.

I'm not addicted to porn either. But Dallin Jr sure likes it.

I am, however, addicted to air. I can't seem to go more than a couple of minutes without it. But that's my lifestyle choice.

No, we (well, some of us) understand language and how it changes.
Some of us are just pointing out that if you start to call everything an "addiction," even when it isn't, the usefulness of the word is diminished.
And to try to sway "society" to make more accurate use of words doesn't show a lack of understanding...it shows the opposite. That perhaps we don't *want* the meaning of "addiction" to diffuse and become less useful or accurate. That we're trying to influence the changes in language that occur.

Such changes aren't inevitable, and they can be influenced. Publicly trying to persuade people to use accurate language doesn't mean we don't understand.

And yes -- there's no porn addition, nor video game addiction. They are indeed compulsions. That I would like the distinction between those words to remain (and remain useful) doesn't mean I don't understand language.

"Hied off" wrote:

>And yes -- there's no porn addition, nor video game addiction...

As Kerry once said, "Because I said so" isn't any kind of scholarly defense.

While I was dealing with my codependent issues (an addiction itself), I went to meetings and listened to men who had masturbated chronically and repeatedly to the point of self-injury... Others watched porn for hours on end to the point it interferred with other relationships. They couldn't stop or moderate.

Per Melodie Beatty, "Addictions are things we need to lie about."

Got some stuff you're fibbing about ex-Elder? Perhaps to yourself?

http://www.amazon.com/Out-Shadows-Understanding-Sexual-Addiction/dp/1568386214

Masturbation may or may not involve addiction/shame; same with porn viewing and essentially all are self-diagnosed and self-treated.

It amounts to a subtle form of abuse to inflict your denial on others.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Hied off" wrote:
>
> >And yes -- there's no porn addition, nor video
> game addiction...
>
> As Kerry once said, "Because I said so" isn't any
> kind of scholarly defense.

I didn't claim it was. That they're not addictions is the determination of the professionals in the medical and psychiatric fields, not me. I was just agreeing with the OP, who pointed out they're considered compulsions, not addictions, by those same professionals.

> Got some stuff you're fibbing about ex-Elder?
> Perhaps to yourself?

Nope. Honest to a fault. It annoys some people. I don't care :)

> http://www.amazon.com/Out-Shadows-Understanding-Se
> xual-Addiction/dp/1568386214

I'll take peer-reviewed science over popular books, thanks. :)

You don't know the difference "peer reviewed science" and tabloids like People magazine.

I first learned about sexual addictions thirty years ago when "Out of the Shadows" first came out, but unfortunately the narcissism that is so prevalent in Mormonism creates the sort of perceptual distortions you routinely put on display.

Hang onto that denial; it's doubtless more comforting than objective reality.

guy2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They just like it.
> People who can't go three days without watching,
> well that might be a different case).

I think the clinical definition calls for a view frequency of 2 days and 5 hours 16 minutes for it to be less like a simple pleasure, and more like a compulsion.

Then once the viewing frequency gets to be more than 21 hours and 52 minutes, it is full on addiction.

Or something like that......

But , fortunately, I have never heard a compulsive porn watcher referred to as a 'pornaholic'. The 'aholic' suffix added to anything annoys the hell out of me(eg. 'workoholic') because the suffix is actually ic, as in alcoholic, When holic is added to the activity, it is actually using part of the root word, alcohol but it is ubiquitous.

I'm a chronic RfMaholic.

At least I , thankfully, have never heard of someone being referred to as a 'pornoholic'. I have serious difficulty with other compulsions described with the 'alcoholic' suffix. Workoholic, for example, is widely used. The actual suffix is simply 'ic', added to the word alcohol, Hence, the above example would be simply, 'workic', or 'sexic', in the case of 'sexoholic', which I have also heard used. By tacking on 'oholic', to any compulsive behavior is, technically, incorrect because part of the word, alcohol, is used. This has long been a pet peeve of mine! But, somehow, 'oholic' has become an accepted suffix. The dictionary I have, however, spells it 'workaholic' and its definition is: "a compulsive worker". It seems that there is a "12-step" program for most any compulsion/addiction these days: Shopaholics Anonymous; Sexaholics Anonymous"; Overeaters Anonymous, etc., ad nauseum.

Well, I have a degree in journalism with a minor in English and I'm a professional editor. And I happen to disagree with you.

I don't think it's clear to use "addiction" when one means "compulsion." The words have very different definitions. They are not interchangeable. Why say the one that now has (through the evolution of language, which we agree, is a living, changing thing) two acceptable definitions when the one word with a single definition is the one you mean? Isn't it more clear to use the singularly defined word? I think so.

It's why I don't say "since" when I mean "because."
It's why I don't say "over" when I mean "more than."

My job my entire adult life has been about clarity of the language.

Just this morning, I got this in a business email from my credit union. She was trying to put a lien on my homeowner's insurance and had sent the request to the wrong company. And I quote, "Yeah, that would defiantly be why. My apologies, I should of double checked..." Can anyone else tell me what's wrong with that sentence?

(She meant "definitely" not "defiantly" and "should have" not "should of.")

Did I know what she meant? Sure. Do I think she's a goddamned moron? Absolutely. Am I now a little bit worried that a loan officer at my credit union has such a poor command of English? You bet your ass I am! Words mean things. Language matters.

dogzilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I have a degree in journalism with a minor
> in English and I'm a professional editor. And I
> happen to disagree with you.
>
> I don't think it's clear to use "addiction" when
> one means "compulsion." The words have very
> different definitions. They are not
> interchangeable. Why say the one that now has
> (through the evolution of language, which we
> agree, is a living, changing thing) two acceptable
> definitions when the one word with a single
> definition is the one you mean? Isn't it more
> clear to use the singularly defined word? I think
> so.
>
> It's why I don't say "since" when I mean
> "because."
> It's why I don't say "over" when I mean "more
> than."
>
> My job my entire adult life has been about clarity
> of the language.
>
> Just this morning, I got this in a business email
> from my credit union. She was trying to put a lien
> on my homeowner's insurance and had sent the
> request to the wrong company. And I quote, "Yeah,
> that would defiantly be why. My apologies, I
> should of double checked..." Can anyone else tell
> me what's wrong with that sentence?
>
> (She meant "definitely" not "defiantly" and
> "should have" not "should of.")
>
> Did I know what she meant? Sure. Do I think she's
> a goddamned moron? Absolutely. Am I now a little
> bit worried that a loan officer at my credit union
> has such a poor command of English? You bet your
> ass I am! Words mean things. Language matters.


This! Spelling/grammar errors are a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one :)

And I left the program in good standing and couldn't return for financial reasons; I also did a grad program in addictions through the U of U Department of Social Work...

You're right, language is a living thing and is routinely subject to imprecision and "misuse" at the highest levels. It also "evolves" with words acquiring new meaning, and it amounts to "tilting against windmills" to try to impose one's will on the rest of the world.

That reality is Serenity Prayer stuff for me...

Science, however, is another matter, and the reality of sexual addiction is that "we carry our own drug supply" in that area, and moderating one's behaviors becomes impossible in most instances (although many "substitute" one addiction for another).