Any old port in a storm. – English proverb
The belief that people can become “addicted” to things that do not produce chemical dependency (food, sex, the internet, etc) is fallacious in two ways. The first, which we have discussed before, is a confusion of the concept of addiction (physical and psychological dependence on a substance which affects biochemistry in such a way as to render normal physiological function impossible without the substance) with the related concepts of habituation (psychological reliance on a substance which is not physiologically addictive) and obsession (psychological fixation on a behavior). This confusion is exploited by “sex addiction” profiteers who intentionally confuse the normal changes in brain chemistry which result from pleasure or mood shifts with the abnormal changes produced by addiction. The second fallacy is just as important, but much more subtle, and it may be that the majority of those who employ it are just as oblivious to its wrongness as those who are deceived by it. It’s related both to a woman of limited options choosing sex work as the best of those options, and to the fallacy of universal mores, “the false belief that everyone feels the same way about sex as [the believer does]…the “no woman could willingly choose prostitution” crowd [adheres to a version of this and so imagines]…that those who choose sex work are ashamed of ourselves and hate our lives.”
Addiction rhetoric is based in the notion that a behavior like porn-watching or internet game-playing can be psychologically isolated from all others in the same way an addictive drug can be separated from other ingested substances. If a person is addicted to nicotine, that addiction is not affected by the food he eats or most other chemicals he ingests (with the obvious exception of those which interact with the same receptors in the brain). Simply put, the nicotine addict is drawn toward nicotine; the only choice involved is whether to give in to the craving or to endure the withdrawal symptoms. There are no foods he can eat, no medicines he can take, no activities he can engage in, which will wipe away those symptoms, though of course they might help to distract him from the discomfort they inflict.
Those who promote the “addiction” fallacy want people to believe that the same is true of porn; that the “porn addict” will suffer some sort of withdrawal if deprived of porn, and that no other stimulus (including actual sex) can ameliorate the effects of the “erototoxins” magically released by porn through his eyeballs. But this is arrant nonsense; while there are some people who become psychologically fixated on porn (or television, or World of Warcraft, or whatever), the vast majority of those described as “addicts” under this rhetoric are neither addicted, nor fixated, nor even obsessed; they simply indulge in their chosen activities more often than some external observer has decided is “good” or “proper”. This is where the universal mores bit comes in: just because Joe’s wife and preacher define his wanting sex every day and twice on Sunday as pathological does not mean it actually is; as long as he is happy and productive and does not harm anyone by his actions, nobody has the right to declare that there is anything “wrong” with him. Similarly, if a college student who is healthy and does well in school is perfectly happy spending 40+ hours a week on his Nintendo, what business is that of anyone else’s?
Obviously, this is not the case with all people described as behavioral “addicts”, and possibly not even most of them; a large fraction are unhappy with their obsessive behavior and would prefer to spend less time, money and energy engaging in it. But while the families of these people often paint the obsessive behavior as the cause of problems, more often the opposite is true: the reason for the obsessive behavior is that the person is unhappy with all the other aspects of his life except the “addiction”. Just as a woman with limited options may choose sex work as the best of the few options open to her, so the “addict” is often a person who is unhappy and dissatisfied with his life, and his so-called “addiction” is actually just the activity which best takes his mind off of his misery. If an outcast teen spends hours playing a fantasy game in which he is the conquering hero, who can blame him? If a pressured businessman with an unhappy marriage finds respite in porn, is it really such a surprise? In many cases, it isn’t that people are drawn to their fascinations, it’s that they’re repelled from everything else; the rest of their lives are so painful that those activities are the best of all options available to them. It may be that given the choice, the boy might prefer to be socializing with a group of accepting friends and the man to be having sex with his wife. But denied those choices, a behavior that gives respite from nigh-constant pain is as good a safe harbor as any.
Addendum
I received a request for clarification on one point, and I think it’s an important one so I’d like to include it here. I don’t mean to imply that hooking is anything like the behaviors wrongfully labelled “addictions”; what I’m saying is that the anti-whore crowd wants to pretend sex work is something people get drawn into by malefic forces (just as so-called “addicts” are supposedly drawn toward their obsessions), when in fact both are cases of people choosing the most attractive of the available options. The majority of sex workers choose sex work from a number of valid options, and even women of high opportunity cost (those with degrees and other advantages) consider it a rational economic choice for reasons I’ve explored at great length in this blog, so I wasn’t referring to them at all; my comparison was only with those who prohibitionists claim are “forced” into it, as they claim internet or porn aficionados are “forced” into their choices by “addiction”. I apologize for any confusion.
I often find myself agreeing with you, but on this one post, I agree with maybe 75% of it. Where I diverge from your well-thought out opinion is that sex or sexual habits cannot be an addiction on the level of other brain chemical altering addictions. I do feel that certain sexual experiences can radically alter the brain chemicals in such a way as to produce addiction. Speaking for myself and several of my blogger friends, I find that one thing that many of us “kinksters” have in common is a constant battle with depression. I feel that pushing certain sexual limits might be a way of countering whatever chemical things are going on in our cranium such that we defer or limit the chemical mix that leads to a depression. Your post spurred me to think more about this and maybe I’ll write my own post on it. If I do, may I repost yours?
Thanks so much!!!!
HH
You may certainly do so.
if only it worked better than it seems to. Eh?
>”Just as a woman with limited options may choose sex work as the best of the few options open to her”
Who doesn’t have limited vocational options? It’s just that the menu of possibilities is different for each of us, We all choose from the options life presents us, and we do the best we can.
I mean severely limited. Sex work requires nothing other than a few natural gifts and the capacity for learning, and that’s low-entry indeed; the equivalent male profession is warrior.
Nope. Sorry. Bullshit.
My addiction to chocolate is real. I NEED it! I will probably die without it, or at least suffer horribly.
😛
😉
I sometimes wonder about chocolate myself. How did the people of the Old World survive without it before Columbus?
one of chocolate’s primary active ingredients is Phenethylamine, which has several pharmacological actions in humans, among which are antidepressant and stimulant functions. It’s actions on brain receptors also mimic oxytocin.
This is why the reward response to confections containing sugar and cocoa mass (which also contains natural caffeine) is so intense for the majority of humans.
While Phenethylamine is not clinically addictive, caffeine is (mildly) although the detoxification process with caffeine is not severe.
So while it is possible to become addicted to the caffeine in chocolate, it ain’t crystal meth, no.
Plus it tastes so damn goooood. 😎😈
Addiction, in its most conservative use, has simply come to mean repetitive behaviour that causes harm or distress. In its most liberal use, it’s essentially just things that people like doing. The term hardly has any meaning at all any more.
I have to respectfully disagree with a lot of what you’re saying here, Maggie.
That’s a strawman. No one on the other side of this issue is saying that anything “magical” is happening. What they are saying – is that excessive use of porn can skew the “reward / pleasure” systems of the brain – in pretty much the same way that drugs do.
Personally, I’ve never been into “porn” – but there are a lot of behaviors that can elevate dopamine levels within the brain. My personal “demon” are dangerous activities. You name it – I have done it. Skydiving, bungie jumping, surfing the North Shore of Oahu in the winter time. I enlisted to become a submariner just because I thought it was the most dangerous thing I could do. When I got bored of that level of danger – I volunteered for Deep Submergence – just to increase the level of “risk”. As an E-9 in the Navy, I was basically an advisor to the Commanding Officer, a desk job – but I volunteered to fly gunner on SH-60’s supporting Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq. I didn’t have to do that because of my seniority – but we often got shot at and I found that both terrifying and exhilerating.
When Katrina hit – my house was severely damaged and I had to retire from the Navy to fix it. Once it was fixed, I needed a job so I contacted a military contractor and got a job doing security for U.S. bases in the “Sunni Triangle of Death”. The gave me the job – but my wife put the brakes on that one by giving me an offer I couldn’t refuse (i.e. “D-word”). Sooo … I took a desk job … making six figures and managing 13 IT professionals. I hated the job. I got depressed … I got FAT. I was clearly suffering from withdrawals.
I finally found another job – with a HUGE pay cut that could give me some excitement at a level of risk that was acceptable to my wife … and here I am.
I don’t know if you call it addiction. I don’t like the word because it seems to rob me of “free choice” – and no matter what happens – I AM, in the end, responsible for the things I do. But there is something going on here.
You say …
That guy though, is a rarity. A college student spending that amount of time and doing well in school must find his courses incredibly boring and easy. There aren’t too many of those in colleges these days.
I also think you’re off the mark when you say that those of us who engage in these types of activities are simply engaging in them because they’re the only thing that gives us pleasure. I always have been happy with my life … I love my life and all aspects of it – even the infatuation with danger. In my second half century of life though – I’m learning to manage that aspect a bit better though, on any hot sunny day you’ll probably see me screaming down I-10 at 130 mph on my motorcycle.
You’re still my numero uno blogger on the internet, and probably the smartest woman I’ve ever read, and someone I admire a lot … I just disagree with a lot you’re saying here today.
I’m rather offended by the accusation that I would use a straw man. Google “erototoxins” and then I’ll accept your apology. Some of these writers are claiming that sex and ONLY sex, a natural behavior, produces “toxins”, and that images without corresponding acts somehow produce higher levels of these mythical “toxins”. Just because they don’t actually use the word “magic” does not mean what they are describing isn’t a direct violation of the known laws of science, and that’s as good a working definition of “magic” as you’re likely to find.
You have my most gracious apology! 😉
However, I still have to take issue with the fact that it seems you’re going after the “erotoxin apologists” (for lack of a better term) – when I think they are the “fringe” element of the arguement for porn addctions. But … you’re right – those guys are kooks.
Now … to the more mainstream view of the other side of the arguement …
The theory is … porn produces “dopamine spikes” in the brain – which feel good and therefore encourage the user to consume more porn. These dopamine “spikes” tend to continuously occur and keep dopamine elevated above normal baselines – well above normal baselines. Further – if the individual is engaged in HOURS of watching porn – this represents a prolonged period of elevated dopamine.
Now, the body also has “dopamine receptors” – and these receptors become desensitized when dopamine levels are elevated for prolonged periods. This is a well studied fact – it’s basically the same thing steroid users experience with their androgen receptors – they become desensitized – so future steroid “cycles” require MORE of the exogenous hormone to accomplish the desired anabolic effect due to low sensitivity of the androgen receptors.
In the case of porn users – their only answer to the receptor problem is to seek more extreme and stimulating types of porn. It’s not uncommon for a completely hetero male to seek out “tranny porn” or “animal porn” to get dopamine levels high enough to stimulate the desensitized dopa receptors.
None of this has anything to do with “erototoxins”. This is all pleasure / reward stimuli that is excited by porn in some of the same ways drugs do.
There are thousands of testimonials online from young men who have gone through this. Most of them complain of sexual dysfunction which goes away after a long period of abstinence from porn. Almost all of them claim to go through “withdrawal” symptoms which include depression and an almost non-existent desire for sex until the receptors are “reset” – which can be months later.
Is this “addiction”? I don’t know – and don’t really care. I’m not “into” terms of that nature because they seem to rob the individual of some of the responsibility for his actions. I will always believe that the rational human mind can easily overcome these kinds of “obsessions”. I will agree with you that porn differs from substance abuse in that … in the case of the latter – there are actual exogenous compounds introduced to the body which the body becomes dependent on – this in addition to the dopamine manipulation. There are no such compounds introduced with porn use – only the dopamine increase.
I’m way the fuck out on a limb here – so please don’t cut the branch too harshly. I’m no expert on this subject – but I have a read a lot on it … since it used to be a regular topic between myself and the Mormon chaplain on my last ship. We were both interested in the problems of young men. They are different from when I was growing up and staring at the JC Penny catalog lingerie section – that was all you had back then. Today, a kid can get ahold of explicit HD porn and saturate his brain with it to his heart’s content and … it has an impact. And not a good one I think.
You should withdraw that apology. Representing the fringe position as the mainstream view is a strawman argument.
Nick,
While I agree that porn causes brain damage meme is not mainstream science, it does seem to have some currency among SoCon politicians. For one example, Rick Santorum was going to – if elected – pull an Ed Meese and aside from the social damage argument was making the “porn causes brain damage” argument.
You are jumping on my last nerve. You may think rudeness is acceptable, but I do not. Consider yourself warned.
Just to clarify, Maggie—your post was directed towards “asmallnotch”, not “krulac” (who apologized)—correct?
Definitely. Krulac is always polite, even when he disagrees with me. I have no problem with disagreement; in fact, I’m really pleased that so many of my readers think for themselves. But I’m not going to allow somebody to rudely insult me in my own “home”.
Sexual arousal happens in the brain. Porn is just a convenience or shortcut to attaining the correct mental state.
When I was younger and lacked easy access to porn (Al Gore had not invented the Internet yet), I simply resorted to my imagination. I created fairly elaborate erotic fantasies which I constantly reviewed, expanded, and improved. It did not take long before I had a mental library of such mental movies that I could call up at will. They are still with me now, grown to Cinemax proportions.
So, can you be “addicted” to something that resides purely in your imagination and is subject to your own will? Is a chess master who can play games in his mind “addicted”? Is an author or artist who is driven to write or paint “addicted?”
With regard to the young men who become “dysfunctional” after extended exposure to porn, that is not addiction. Quite the opposite. They have simply become jaded, just as someone who guzzles his favourite dish to the point of nausea will temporarily lose interest not in just that dish, but probably in food in general. This is a reflection of that person’s greed and poor impulse control.
True pathological obsession is not the same thing as a simple Pavolovian response to pleasurable stimuli. Obsessive behaviour relates to some deeper mental or even physical problem. And while porn, just like many other triggers, can become the subject of an obession, it is never the root cause.
On the other hand, someone addicted to a drug (for example) can never have too much. Hence the risk of fatal overdose. No one becomes bored with cocaine or meth.
I might even point out that by the popular “addiction” criteria, I’m addicted to blogging.
I don’t think the people who claim the existence of “erotoxins” would particularly like the results of a truly scientific study on the long term effects of sexual pleasure and sexual abstinence.
I think this is one of those posts where I can say that I agree with everything.
I’d say more, but I’ve gone nearly twelve hours without porn AND I CAN’T STAND IT!
Or was that cutesy music? Yeah, yeah I think it was cutesy music, not porn. Sorry, my bad.
[scoots off to listen to some Puchi Moni]
[…] [This post was helped to creation by The Honest Courtesan's post "Any Old Port."] […]