BYU Study on Pornography: "It’s not porn use, but rather the belief in porn addiction and the conflict with religion, which predict porn-related problems."

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

I can't speak for the entire industry, but the companies that my friends work for treat their workers with respect, and everyone is there because they want to be.

How do you know any of this?  Curious how you would know whether all the workers feel like they are treated with respect?  everyone is there because they want to be?  You simply don't seem to know what's inside these people.  Perhaps just repeating what friends have said as they've summarized what they think others in the industry feel? 

11 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

I'm not suggesting that Mormons should work in it, but as with the pork industry, the porn industry isn't inherently bad just because it's not "kosher".

Well I've only known a couple of Mormons have tried it and have come out saying it destroyed them. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, cinepro said:

I did fire someone because they sent a link to a "funny" pornographic video to another employee and accidentally copied me on it, but I think he just thought it was a funny video; I don't think he was addicted (I was looking to lose a few employees at the time and he just gave me an easy excuse).

My goodness...what a bonehead.  Copied the boss on a pornographic email?  are we sure he didn't have an excuse to get out?  "I need out of this job.  ooh...I'll send this pornographic vid to Jimmie and then act as I accidentally copied the boss...that's better than giving my 2 weeks isn't it?  Maybe I can collect unemployment..."

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Youth cannot participate in LDS ARP programs. I am unaware of any such groups for youth. ARP provides private counseling for youth and parents. If you are aware of any groups for youth, I would like to know about them. People in our groups are not those who watch porn 2 or 3 times a month. Nor are there people who use heroin, pot, cocaine, meth, or alcohol once or twice a month. People come whose lives are in chaos, who see no way out, and have tried and failed to deal with the problem on their own. Many people are ashamed that others would find out, so they don't come. That's too bad. 1-There's is nothing in our meetings that could remotely be called shaming the individual or making him/her feel hopeless and chained for life.

 

You can read exactly what is discussed in LDS ARP meetings. We do not report to anyone who attends or what is said. 

What do you find in these materials that pathologizes the problem, induces long lasting shame, and makes the individual feel somewhat helpless?

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/find-a-meeting?lang=eng  

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/bc/content/arp/content/manuals/ARPGuide_English_36764.pdf?lang=eng

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/spouses-and-families?lang=eng

CFR that youth can't participate in LDS ARP meetings. Show me the policy. Youth can participate but they must agree (like everyone else) to maintain confidentiality of the meetings.

Youth can and do participate on occasion. I'm a group leader. I see it. They are assigned by their bishops to come. The poor kids have deer in the headlights looks and just look mortified to be there.

1- I agree that the meetings are exceptionally welcoming, loving and kind. They are some of the best meetings I've ever attended in the church. But as the study points out, it is the belief that one is an "addict" that creates most of the problem. Assigning people to attend an "Addiction" Recovery Meeting reinforces and is in fact a kind of diagnosis by leaders who are untrained in knowing or understanding what addiction is. That is where much of the harm comes from.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Exactly. I don't know where this animus is coming from. It certainly has not been my experience with the program.

It's the inappropriate application and assignment of the program that often comes from untrained priesthood leaders who are diagnosing individuals as "addicts". As the article from the OP discusses, it is the inappropriate label and misidentification of an individual as an "addict" that causes more harm than the actual p0rn.

I've discussed with multiple bishops why they may want to be more circumspect about how they refer/assign individuals to attend an "addict" program. Many were using it as a one-size fits all kind of deal, which it is not. IMO  is often inappropriate to assign people to attend and is used like a checklist by leaders. It might look something like this.

-A man  confesses to the bishop that he occasionally views p0rn

-Bishop restricts man from sacrament, temple recommend, priesthood exercise etc until repentance criteria are met

-Bishop adds requirements for the sinner- attend church, read scriptures, avoid p0rn for X number of days, weeks, or months

-Another criteria may be something like attending 2 months worth of ARP meetings to show a repentant heart

 

Follow the checklist and you'll be forgiven.

I have actual issues with the program itself but if it is voluntary I think it can do a lot of good. But the misapplication of the program, and the misdiagnosis of individuals who are assigned to attend is a real problem IMO.

[rongo]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If you are basing your opinions on things you read years ago, I suggest you get up to date. You are not describing the program we have been participating in and working in for over 10 years. We know people (addicts and family members) whose very lives were saved by what you unfortunately call "training wheels." My son is one of them.

Perhaps you could look this over and try to find statements like the ones you made. I would be interested to see them.

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/home?lang=eng

The article is old, but I think that the principles are timeless. I agree with Trimpey that "Recovery is for people who do everything but quit . . . most programs teach people to keep addictions at bay, not to actually beat them. They're told they'll be addicts their whole lives and will only stay free a day at a time by adherence to a group . . . Addicts don't need a psychological inventory of what led to their abuse or a cookbook of recipes of how to be fixed . . . Recovery is not a process, it's an event. Disease or no disease, we [indulge] because we love it; when we get fed up, we quit."

This is not to say that ARP and the like are not valuable, even indispensable, for many people, but in my experience working with men and women struggling with pornography/masturbation, people in "recovery" never actually overcome their problem. They keep it at bay. I reject that it must be this way; I know people who have actually overcome.

I am very familiar with the ARP program, and have read the materials. That's why I was careful to say "in practice" and not "in writing or in theory." The ARP program, as written, does not promote cult-like dependency on the group or absolute powerlessness, but in practice, my experience has been that it does --- all with the best of intentions. 

When I work with people, I focus on the long game, and on small victories --- and on turning those small victories into more frequent and bigger victories. Always, people must be prepared for setbacks/backsliding, and I give them lifelines for this. I use a stock market analogy: there are ups and downs, but you are making progress if your trend is clearly upwards (conversely, it will be clear if your trend is downwards). On my wall I have two framed quotes. One is D&C 117:13, the gist of which is that our "sacrifice" in falling and getting up and falling and getting up again is sacred to the Lord. The "increase" (full freedom from the bondage of the sin) is important, and you will ultimately get there, but as you strive and imperfectly make progress, the Lord, who knows exactly what you are going through, feels that your struggle is sacred (the section is directed at Oliver Granger, who, though legally blind and elderly, was sent to Kirtland to settle church debt with creditors. His mission was a complete disaster, but in his call, he is told "and when he falls, he shall rise again, for his sacrifice is more sacred to me than his increase, saith the Lord"). I apply this to people's struggle with their weaknesses.

The other quote is a Daniel H. Wells quote from JoD 9, the gist of which is that we expect and look forward to exaltation to be in the next world, but exaltation is *now.* When we make progress, no matter how small, we are in the way of exaltation. He gives several life examples, such as a woman who doesn't keep a good house who begins being more organized and tidy, or a man who stops procrastinating and does what he has put off. Even if one backslides to old ways, the small progress in starting accrues merit, and is something to build on. 

My focus is on setting goals, following up and staying in contact, and assessing how it went and moving forward. Military analogy: taking a position, holding it, and using it as a springboard for expansion. Where previously taken ground is lost, take it back. I find in my experience that many people are capable, with God's strength and the repentance process, of making tangible progress and overcoming their habits over time.

I don't see any shame in a "training wheels" analogy. Sometimes they are needed for a time, but the goal should be to be able to ride the bike without them at some point. I remember a brother whose slip-ups were on business trips (pay-per-view or adult bookstores). He was very hard on himself, and a very good man, but he had a suspension of rational thought in the moment and was wracked with regret and guilt. We decided that his wife would always travel with him on business, without exception (they could afford it). My family would watch their three small children during those trips. This was using "training wheels," but what he needed was success --- business trips without slipping. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's the inappropriate application and assignment of the program that often comes from untrained priesthood leaders who are diagnosing individuals as "addicts". As the article from the OP discusses, it is the inappropriate label and misidentification of an individual as an "addict" that causes more harm than the actual p0rn.

I've discussed with multiple bishops why they may want to be more circumspect about how they refer/assign individuals to attend an "addict" program. Many were using it as a one-size fits all kind of deal, which it is not. IMO  is often inappropriate to assign people to attend and is used like a checklist by leaders. It might look something like this.

-A man  confesses to the bishop that he occasionally views p0rn

-Bishop restricts man from sacrament, temple recommend, priesthood exercise etc until repentance criteria are met

-Bishop adds requirements for the sinner- attend church, read scriptures, avoid p0rn for X number of days, weeks, or months

-Another criteria may be something like attending 2 months worth of ARP meetings to show a repentant heart

Follow the checklist and you'll be forgiven.

I have actual issues with the program itself but if it is voluntary I think it can do a lot of good. But the misapplication of the program, and the misdiagnosis of individuals who are assigned to attend is a real problem IMO.

We have a high councilor who, with his wife, was the ARP rep. In stake disciplinary councils, he would always insist on mandatory ARP participation for any offense. We had a council to consider rebaptism for a man in his 60s who had committed adultery years ago. He was ready for rebaptism, and the council was going well, and the man asked him if he had been attending ARP. He didn't know what it was, and when he insisted on that, I stepped in (our stake asks bishops to attend with the person) and said that in my counseling with him, he doesn't have an addiction and does not use pornography. The man insisted that "these things don't come out of nowhere, and everyone in the world can benefit from participating in ARP." I held firm that I didn't think this was applicable to his case, and that I didn't want that imposed as a term of rebaptism. His rebaptism was confirmed without that requirement.

I find this sentiment that "we all need ARP, even if we aren't addicts" to be fairly prevalent. A close relative is that leaders should attend meetings to "see what it's all about and how it works," which I think is very inappropriate for a lot of reasons. Among others, it gives a feeling like the group is being observed, and it widens the net of confidentiality beyond those attending because they want/need it.

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

The article is old, but I think that the principles are timeless. I agree with Trimpey that "Recovery is for people who do everything but quit . . . most programs teach people to keep addictions at bay, not to actually beat them. They're told they'll be addicts their whole lives and will only stay free a day at a time by adherence to a group . . .1-  Addicts don't need a psychological inventory of what led to their abuse or a cookbook of recipes of how to be fixed . . . Recovery is not a process, it's an event. Disease or no disease, we [indulge] because we love it; when we get fed up, we quit."

2- This is not to say that ARP and the like are not valuable, even indispensable, for many people, but in my experience working with men and women struggling with pornography/masturbation, people in "recovery" never actually overcome their problem. They keep it at bay. I reject that it must be this way; I know people who have actually overcome.

I am very familiar with the ARP program, and have read the materials. That's why I was careful to say "in practice" and not "in writing or in theory." The ARP program, as written, does not promote cult-like dependency on the group or absolute powerlessness, but in practice, my experience has been that it does --- all with the best of intentions. 

3- When I work with people, I focus on the long game, and on small victories --- and on turning those small victories into more frequent and bigger victories. Always, people must be prepared for setbacks/backsliding, and I give them lifelines for this. I use a stock market analogy: there are ups and downs, but you are making progress if your trend is clearly upwards (conversely, it will be clear if your trend is downwards). On my wall I have two framed quotes. One is D&C 117:13, the gist of which is that our "sacrifice" in falling and getting up and falling and getting up again is sacred to the Lord. The "increase" (full freedom from the bondage of the sin) is important, and you will ultimately get there, but as you strive and imperfectly make progress, the Lord, who knows exactly what you are going through, feels that your struggle is sacred (the section is directed at Oliver Granger, who, though legally blind and elderly, was sent to Kirtland to settle church debt with creditors. His mission was a complete disaster, but in his call, he is told "and when he falls, he shall rise again, for his sacrifice is more sacred to me than his increase, saith the Lord"). I apply this to people's struggle with their weaknesses.

The other quote is a Daniel H. Wells quote from JoD 9, the gist of which is that we expect and look forward to exaltation to be in the next world, but exaltation is *now.* When we make progress, no matter how small, we are in the way of exaltation. He gives several life examples, such as a woman who doesn't keep a good house who begins being more organized and tidy, or a man who stops procrastinating and does what he has put off. Even if one backslides to old ways, the small progress in starting accrues merit, and is something to build on. 

My focus is on setting goals, following up and staying in contact, and assessing how it went and moving forward. Military analogy: taking a position, holding it, and using it as a springboard for expansion. Where previously taken ground is lost, take it back. I find in my experience that many people are capable, with God's strength and the repentance process, of making tangible progress and overcoming their habits over time.

I don't see any shame in a "training wheels" analogy. Sometimes they are needed for a time, but the goal should be to be able to ride the bike without them at some point. I remember a brother whose slip-ups were on business trips (pay-per-view or adult bookstores). He was very hard on himself, and a very good man, but he had a suspension of rational thought in the moment and was wracked with regret and guilt. We decided that his wife would always travel with him on business, without exception (they could afford it). My family would watch their three small children during those trips. This was using "training wheels," but what he needed was success --- business trips without slipping. 

1- You really lost me with this first paragraph. When it comes to real addictions I think you are very wrong. Addictions are often the visible symptom of deeper problems. Suggesting that people don't need to understand the deeper problems isn't helpful at all. It's really quite counter-productive. Recovery is a process, not an event. The rest of your post seems to agree with that as you have outlined the process you lead people through. Recovery is not an event. People don't always indulge because they "love it". Again, your understanding on this seems very skewed and dangerous. There are many reasons people indulge and until the underlying reasons for the addiction are addressed, understood, or at least managed, the addict will not find lasting success. I think you are once again mistaking habits with addictions. I would really invite you to learn more about addiction. I have a few podcasts I can recommend if you are interested.

2- The behaviors you describe here are not addictions so using an addiction recovery model isn't very useful. You can't recover from an addiction if you are not an addict. That is why the mislabeling of "addictions" and the accompanying treatment plans is such a problem.

3-You seem to be talking about a process, not an event. I'm curious how you respond to individuals who backslide, or using your stock market analogy, dip in their success. It has been my experience that most priesthood leaders view the repentance process (whether and addiction or not) like an addiction recovery process wherein total abstinence is required for success. When such is the case, any backsliding or dip in success is a failure that continues to influence the individual. If, for example, you are working with someone with a p0rn/mstrbtion problem do you set restrictions on them until they are able to overcome the behavior? (Restrict sacrament/priesthood or temple participation etc). If they are doing well and you have removed the restrictions, but then they have another occurrence or backslide, are the restrictions put back in place. IOW- is there a punitive response to the backsliding from an ecclesiastical point of view?

[HappyJackWagon]

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

We have a high councilor who, with his wife, was the ARP rep. In stake disciplinary councils, he would always insist on mandatory ARP participation for any offense. We had a council to consider rebaptism for a man in his 60s who had committed adultery years ago. He was ready for rebaptism, and the council was going well, and the man asked him if he had been attending ARP. He didn't know what it was, and when he insisted on that, I stepped in (our stake asks bishops to attend with the person) and said that in my counseling with him, he doesn't have an addiction and does not use pornography. The man insisted that "these things don't come out of nowhere, and everyone in the world can benefit from participating in ARP." I held firm that I didn't think this was applicable to his case, and that I didn't want that imposed as a term of rebaptism. His rebaptism was confirmed without that requirement.

I find this sentiment that "we all need ARP, even if we aren't addicts" to be fairly prevalent. A close relative is that leaders should attend meetings to "see what it's all about and how it works," which I think is very inappropriate for a lot of reasons. Among others, it gives a feeling like the group is being observed, and it widens the net of confidentiality beyond those attending because they want/need it.

Fantastic!! Well done, Rongo. I am so happy to see this example of sticking up for someone and not requiring the arbitrary expectation of ARP attendance to delay his rebaptism.

That HC is a good example of many leaders I work with. The program itself states that it is not only for addicts but for any person who wishes to overcome a character weakness. In essence the program is a checklist version of the repentance process to help people access the atonement. In that way it can help people without "addictions". But the labeling of "addicts" is a problem. Saying it's for everyone is their version of saying the atonement is for everyone. OK...true, but that doesn't mean ARP should be required of everyone.

I totally agree with you about having leaders attend these meetings. These meetings are a safe place for people to share, be vulnerable, and be free of judgment. That is hard to do if they are being "watched" by leaders. I have had many situations where leaders have asked to come to watch. I have consistently told them they are not welcome to come as a leader to watch. I've told this to bishops, HC, and SP's. If they want to come in plain clothes and participate in the program, that is another story, but they are expected to maintain absolute confidentiality and that any kind of report to leaders, or use of information for any other purpose is inappropriate. I've actually been quite strident in defending the sanctity of the meetings and I think our SP has really appreciated that.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- You really lost me with this first paragraph. When it comes to real addictions I think you are very wrong. Addictions are often the visible symptom of deeper problems. Suggesting that people don't need to understand the deeper problems isn't helpful at all. It's really quite counter-productive. Recovery is a process, not an event. The rest of your post seems to agree with that as you have outlined the process you lead people through. Recovery is not an event. People don't always indulge because they "love it". Again, your understanding on this seems very skewed and dangerous. There are many reasons people indulge and until the underlying reasons for the addiction are addressed, understood, or at least managed, the addict will not find lasting success. I think you are once again mistaking habits with addictions. I would really invite you to learn more about addiction. I have a few podcasts I can recommend if you are interested.

We both think that pornography/masturbation habits are not usually/necessarily "addictions." Admittedly, I had that in mind in my post, not things like drug addiction, etc. 

You are correct that recovery is often a process. My reason for the first paragraph was to illustrate my agreement that when "recovery" is the be all and end all, there is often/usually no complete "recovery" (i.e., people are in recovery forever, always an addict, etc.).

Recovery can most certainly be an event. I think we all know people who simply stopped. My uncle stopped heroin and other drugs when he was in a motorcycle gang after a powerful spiritual experience. He later served a mission to Tennessee as an older missionary. Not everyone can do this, but it happens. I worked with a man in another ward who finally, after 27 years and three denied application to the First Presidency, was approved for rebaptism. He had to overcome drugs (methamphetamine and cocaine) as well as homosexuality and porn/masturbation, but the real breakthrough was finally overcoming the drugs. This helped greatly in other areas, and the other areas were impossible while drugs were still a problem. His finally stopping drugs for good was the breakthrough that punched through.

2- The behaviors you describe here are not addictions so using an addiction recovery model isn't very useful. You can't recover from an addiction if you are not an addict. That is why the mislabeling of "addictions" and the accompanying treatment plans is such a problem.

I know. I think that's why we agree that these usually aren't "addictions."  If people ask about it, I tell them about the ARP, but I don't generally require it.

3-You seem to be talking about a process, not an event. I'm curious how you respond to individuals who backslide, or using your stock market analogy, dip in their success. It has been my experience that most priesthood leaders view the repentance process (whether and addiction or not) like an addiction recovery process wherein total abstinence is required for success. When such is the case, any backsliding or dip in success is a failure that continues to influence the individual. If, for example, you are working with someone with a p0rn/mstrbtion problem do you set restrictions on them until they are able to overcome the behavior? (Restrict sacrament/priesthood or temple participation etc). If they are doing well and you have removed the restrictions, but then they have another occurrence or backslide, are the restrictions put back in place. IOW- is there a punitive response to the backsliding from an ecclesiastical point of view?

It all depends on where they're at, what their particular habit/problem is, what their circumstances are, etc. And the Spirit, of course. Sometimes/often, punitive/negative sanctions are used for backsliding, but sometimes real progress (significant reduction in incidents, etc.) is sufficient even if it isn't technically perfect. People are different, and one size fits all doesn't work for all or in all cases.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

The article is old, but I think that the principles are timeless. I agree with Trimpey that "Recovery is for people who do everything but quit . . . most programs teach people to keep addictions at bay, not to actually beat them. They're told they'll be addicts their whole lives and will only stay free a day at a time by adherence to a group . . . Addicts don't need a psychological inventory of what led to their abuse or a cookbook of recipes of how to be fixed . . . Recovery is not a process, it's an event. Disease or no disease, we [indulge] because we love it; when we get fed up, we quit."

This is not to say that ARP and the like are not valuable, even indispensable, for many people, but in my experience working with men and women struggling with pornography/masturbation, people in "recovery" never actually overcome their problem. They keep it at bay. I reject that it must be this way; I know people who have actually overcome.

I am very familiar with the ARP program, and have read the materials. That's why I was careful to say "in practice" and not "in writing or in theory." The ARP program, as written, does not promote cult-like dependency on the group or absolute powerlessness, but in practice, my experience has been that it does --- all with the best of intentions. 

When I work with people, I focus on the long game, and on small victories --- and on turning those small victories into more frequent and bigger victories. Always, people must be prepared for setbacks/backsliding, and I give them lifelines for this. I use a stock market analogy: there are ups and downs, but you are making progress if your trend is clearly upwards (conversely, it will be clear if your trend is downwards). On my wall I have two framed quotes. One is D&C 117:13, the gist of which is that our "sacrifice" in falling and getting up and falling and getting up again is sacred to the Lord. The "increase" (full freedom from the bondage of the sin) is important, and you will ultimately get there, but as you strive and imperfectly make progress, the Lord, who knows exactly what you are going through, feels that your struggle is sacred (the section is directed at Oliver Granger, who, though legally blind and elderly, was sent to Kirtland to settle church debt with creditors. His mission was a complete disaster, but in his call, he is told "and when he falls, he shall rise again, for his sacrifice is more sacred to me than his increase, saith the Lord"). I apply this to people's struggle with their weaknesses.

The other quote is a Daniel H. Wells quote from JoD 9, the gist of which is that we expect and look forward to exaltation to be in the next world, but exaltation is *now.* When we make progress, no matter how small, we are in the way of exaltation. He gives several life examples, such as a woman who doesn't keep a good house who begins being more organized and tidy, or a man who stops procrastinating and does what he has put off. Even if one backslides to old ways, the small progress in starting accrues merit, and is something to build on. 

My focus is on setting goals, following up and staying in contact, and assessing how it went and moving forward. Military analogy: taking a position, holding it, and using it as a springboard for expansion. Where previously taken ground is lost, take it back. I find in my experience that many people are capable, with God's strength and the repentance process, of making tangible progress and overcoming their habits over time.

I don't see any shame in a "training wheels" analogy. Sometimes they are needed for a time, but the goal should be to be able to ride the bike without them at some point. I remember a brother whose slip-ups were on business trips (pay-per-view or adult bookstores). He was very hard on himself, and a very good man, but he had a suspension of rational thought in the moment and was wracked with regret and guilt. We decided that his wife would always travel with him on business, without exception (they could afford it). My family would watch their three small children during those trips. This was using "training wheels," but what he needed was success --- business trips without slipping. 

Thank you for the excellent response. I understand your position much better and see that we are generally in cahoots. 

My experience with our ARP groups is different than yours. Our long-range goals include becoming a former member of the group, to find total and complete healing both from addiction and from co-dependency, and to be in a position of health and spiritual strength that will allow us to help others. We also rejoice in the small victories. We sorrow with the failures and set-backs. Personally, I have found making an honest personal moral inventory (the good, the bad, and the ugly), making a list of everyone I have offended, and seeking to make amends to them have been the most consequential things I have ever done. Laying all that at the feet of the Savior brought the Atonement into clear and powerful focus in a very personal way. If that were all that I took away, it would be worth every moment.

Sometimes taking one day or moment at a time is all one can do to survive. That was a three-year process for Sister Gui and me when we were in the thick of the battle with our sons' addictions. I wish I could say that our family has arrived at that pristine event of complete recovery you describe and no longer needed our "training wheels." We certainly have had many "fed up" moments. Unfortunately for us and for many people we know, addiction is the gift that keeps on giving, sometimes in the most unexpected and unwanted ways. I hope some day I can think about our beloved son in his current situation and not feel profound sorrow. That would be a wonderful event. Even better would be to see him clean, sober, fully healed, warm, loving, coherent, responsive...but that "event" is up to him. I am powerless to make that happen. He's just not fed-up enough to make it happen. Maybe he will live long enough to get there.

Our most important goal is to become dependent on God, not on a group. The group is one good way to make that happen. For us, it was liberating to discover we were not alone. This is also the experience of many sisters who are coping with their husbands' addictions. We talk about things that could never be brought up in the usual Church meetings. Some things that are shared bring everyone to tears....both of sorrow and joy. We have found that the shame we feel dissipates completely. This has been another wonderful benefit of the training wheels.

I never dreamed I could be as open as I am about our experiences as I am now....freely sharing in firesides and meetings and here in front of hundreds of readers. The reason I participate so heavily when the topic of addiction comes up is the hope that something I say may motivate someone who is suffering either from their own addiction or that of a loved one. My message is that the Atonement of Jesus is the path to recovery. The ever-improving programs offered by LDS ARP can provide immeasurable help. In my case, they saved my life.

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

We have a high councilor who, with his wife, was the ARP rep. In stake disciplinary councils, he would always insist on mandatory ARP participation for any offense. We had a council to consider rebaptism for a man in his 60s who had committed adultery years ago. He was ready for rebaptism, and the council was going well, and the man asked him if he had been attending ARP. He didn't know what it was, and when he insisted on that, I stepped in (our stake asks bishops to attend with the person) and said that in my counseling with him, he doesn't have an addiction and does not use pornography. The man insisted that "these things don't come out of nowhere, and everyone in the world can benefit from participating in ARP." I held firm that I didn't think this was applicable to his case, and that I didn't want that imposed as a term of rebaptism. His rebaptism was confirmed without that requirement.

I find this sentiment that "we all need ARP, even if we aren't addicts" to be fairly prevalent. A close relative is that leaders should attend meetings to "see what it's all about and how it works," which I think is very inappropriate for a lot of reasons. Among others, it gives a feeling like the group is being observed, and it widens the net of confidentiality beyond those attending because they want/need it.

What you describe is antithetical to the ARP program. The brother over-stepped big time. No one should be compelled, but invited. If there are real addictions involved, participation in a recovery program should be part of the repentance process, but the goal would be to heal, not to punish. This is where training, knowledge, wisdom, and inspiration come in. We are not allowed to proselytize or target individuals when we train leaders or present to members. We describe our meetings and offer them as a resource. These are explicit instructions from Family Services. We often see reactions in the faces of listeners that reveal we have struck home, but we leave to them to seek out the program. Sadly, many choose not to, perhaps out of fear or shame.

I believe everyone would benefit from studying the 12 principles of recovery. They are simply the practical application of the Atonement of Jesus. I believe addiction affects everyone. We all have someone we love who is being impacted by it.

We have had a very few priesthood leaders visit groups but only with the advanced approval of every member. Never has one asked to attend to "check up" on someone. We never report names of participants to anyone.

On the other hand, our son was given a court-mandated sentence including frequent and regular attendance in a recovery program and 12-step meetings. It was rather pricey. After three months, his class graduated from the program. They celebrated by getting stoned on marijuana. At the 12-step he simply hooked up with other users to share the wonders of substances. Eventually to save his life and our sanity we had to put him in an involuntary program that was open-ended. It took almost 10 months. Now that was pricey! But it was effective. He stayed sober for several years and took his group meetings seriously. However, all this went away after a tour of duty in Afghanistan. He has the tools he needs if he ever gets fed-up enough to get better.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[mapman]

I just want to say that I really appreciate that we've been able to discuss this topic here in a civil way. I know that this issue is personal for a lot of people. I've enjoyed reading the different perspectives on this, and I hope that we will continue to get a better understanding of issues so as to be able to help people in need.

Darren asked me a while ago about how porn is different than drugs. I've never done drugs so I can't compare the two from personal experience. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on how addictions physically work, but I did some research. The study from OP says this on the topic: "Some have argued that classification for addiction should be widened to behavioral addictions, such as excessive sexual activity (including pornography use), because the brain’s reward pathways are being activated in similar ways to those who suffer from substance addictions (Hilton & Watts, 2011)... On the other hand, researchers have suggested that pornography use is best left classified as sexual compulsivity, or hypersexual behavior, rather than addiction, because of inconsistencies between how the brain responds to pornography use as opposed to substance addictions (Prause & Pfaus, 2015)."

The second article cited you can read here: http://www.smoa.jsexmed.org/article/S2050-1161(15)30057-X/pdf. I didn't see any comparisons with substance addictions, but it talked about the effects of heavy porn use on the brain, which I guess would look different from someone with a drug problem. My knowledge is limited, so if anyone knows how to interpret this better, I would be interested to learn about it.

I guess that just from my own observations I think that compulsive sexual behavior is more like an eating disorder, as was mentioned by another poster. Most people don't get compulsive about food or porn, but when it happens it is a real problem that can really screw up your life. Obviously food is probably a bad comparison, since there is nothing unethical with consuming food, but I think the effects they can cause on behavior are similar. The point of the study from the OP is that it isn't the porn itself that makes people compulsive, but rather that it is related to shame or self-hate or other contextual emotions, and so labeling it as an addiction isn't helpful and might actually make it worse. To go back to the comparison with eating disorders, they aren't caused by the food but contextual emotions, often shame about their body or things like that.

Edited May 3, 2017 by mapman

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CFR that youth can't participate in LDS ARP meetings. Show me the policy. Youth can participate but they must agree (like everyone else) to maintain confidentiality of the meetings.

Youth can and do participate on occasion. I'm a group leader. I see it. They are assigned by their bishops to come. The poor kids have deer in the headlights looks and just look mortified to be there.

1- I agree that the meetings are exceptionally welcoming, loving and kind. They are some of the best meetings I've ever attended in the church. But as the study points out, it is the belief that one is an "addict" that creates most of the problem. Assigning people to attend an "Addiction" Recovery Meeting reinforces and is in fact a kind of diagnosis by leaders who are untrained in knowing or understanding what addiction is. That is where much of the harm comes from.

I was instructed explicitly by my LDS Family Services regional director that youth were not to attend meetings when I asked about it. As a regional coordinator, I passed that on to the 7 stakes I represent. Since it was verbal rather than written, I can't satisfy your CFR.  That was good enough for me, but I will ask him again to clarify. We seem to be talking past each other.

To make my position perfectly clear, casual use of substances or pornography, while unhealthy and potentially very dangerous, does not constitute addiction. I have provided multiple posts of the seven criteria for addiction and pointed that if at least three of them are  present over a period of a year, there is a definite problem. So far, that has been ignored.

The Church and Family Services is making training of leaders more effective. If stake FDSFS representatives took their callings seriously and leaders would listen, many problems could be resolved.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

What you describe is antithetical to the ARP program. The brother over-stepped big time. No one should be compelled, but invited. If there are real addictions involved, participation in a recovery program should be part of the repentance process, but the goal would be to heal, not to punish. This is where training, knowledge, wisdom, and inspiration come in. We are not allowed to proselytize or target individuals when we train leaders or present to members. We describe our meetings and offer them as a resource. These are explicit instructions from Family Services. We often see reactions in the faces of listeners that reveal we have struck home, but we leave to them to seek out the program. Sadly, many choose not to, perhaps out of fear or shame.

I believe everyone would benefit from studying the 12 principles of recovery. They are simply the practical application of the Atonement of Jesus. I believe addiction affects everyone. We all have someone we love who is being impacted by it.

We have had a very few priesthood leaders visit groups but only with the advanced approval of every member. Never has one asked to attend to "check up" on someone. We never report names of participants to anyone.

On the other hand, our son was given a court-mandated sentence including frequent and regular attendance in a recovery program and 12-step meetings. It was rather pricey. After three months, his class graduated from the program. They celebrated by getting stoned on marijuana. At the 12-step he simply hooked up with other users to share the wonders of substances. Eventually to save his life and our sanity we had to put him in an involuntary program that was open-ended. It took almost 10 months. Now that was pricey! But it was effective. He stayed sober for several years and took his group meetings seriously. However, all this went away after a tour of duty in Afghanistan. He has the tools he needs if he ever gets fed-up enough to get better.

So sad  That's such a tough thing to deal with.

[HappyJackWagon]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was instructed explicitly by my LDS Family Services regional director that youth were not to attend meetings when I asked about it. As a regional coordinator, I passed that on to the 7 stakes I represent. Since it was verbal rather than written, I can't satisfy your CFR.  That was good enough for me, but I will ask him again to clarify. We seem to be talking past each other.

To make my position perfectly clear, casual use of substances or pornography, while unhealthy and potentially very dangerous, does not constitute addiction. I have provided multiple posts of the seven criteria for addiction and pointed that if at least three of them are  present over a period of a year, there is a definite problem. So far, that has been ignored.

The Church and Family Services is making training of leaders more effective. If stake FDSFS representatives took their callings seriously and leaders would listen, many problems could be resolved.

FWIW- I don't think the issue of youth is mentioned at all in the ARP Admin Guide so I think it is up to the Regional Coordinator, like you said. It appears our coordinator simply gave a different answer than yours  

[Bernard Gui]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

FWIW- I don't think the issue of youth is mentioned at all in the ARP Admin Guide so I think it is up to the Regional Coordinator, like you said. It appears our coordinator simply gave a different answer than yours  

I just received this confirmation from the LDS Family Services regional director....the policy is that group meetings are for 18 years old and older. Youth are not to attend.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I just received this confirmation from the LDS Family Services regional director....the policy is that group meetings are for 18 years old and older. Youth are not to attend.

...for your area.   

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, mapman said:

I just want to say that I really appreciate that we've been able to discuss this topic here in a civil way. I know that this issue is personal for a lot of people. I've enjoyed reading the different perspectives on this, and I hope that we will continue to get a better understanding of issues so as to be able to help people in need.

Darren asked me a while ago about how porn is different than drugs. I've never done drugs so I can't compare the two from personal experience. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on how addictions physically work, but I did some research. The study from OP says this on the topic: "Some have argued that classification for addiction should be widened to behavioral addictions, such as excessive sexual activity (including pornography use), because the brain’s reward pathways are being activated in similar ways to those who suffer from substance addictions (Hilton & Watts, 2011)... On the other hand, researchers have suggested that pornography use is best left classified as sexual compulsivity, or hypersexual behavior, rather than addiction, because of inconsistencies between how the brain responds to pornography use as opposed to substance addictions (Prause & Pfaus, 2015)."

The second article cited you can read here: http://www.smoa.jsexmed.org/article/S2050-1161(15)30057-X/pdf. I didn't see any comparisons with substance addictions, but it talked about the effects of heavy porn use on the brain, which I guess would look different from someone with a drug problem. My knowledge is limited, so if anyone knows how to interpret this better, I would be interested to learn about it.

I guess that just from my own observations I think that compulsive sexual behavior is more like an eating disorder, as was mentioned by another poster. Most people don't get compulsive about food or porn, but when it happens it is a real problem that can really screw up your life. Obviously food is probably a bad comparison, since there is nothing unethical with consuming food, but I think the effects they can cause on behavior are similar. The point of the study from the OP is that it isn't the porn itself that makes people compulsive, but rather that it is related to shame or self-hate or other contextual emotions, and so labeling it as an addiction isn't helpful and might actually make it worse. To go back to the comparison with eating disorders, they aren't caused by the food but contextual emotions, often shame about their body or things like that.

What do you think about inserting eating or pornography instead of substances in this set of criteria?

Quote

  Quote

What Are the Official Criteria For Addiction?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (Fourth Edition) Text Revision, which is the current official text on which diagnoses are based, and contains the criteria for addiction and other mental health problems. However, the DSM does not define addiction specifically. Rather, problems which fall under the umbrella of addiction are dispersed throughout the manual.

The criteria for addiction to alcohol and drugs are typically diagnosed using the criteria for substance dependence. There are seven criteria for substance dependence. To be diagnosed, the person would have to have at least three of the criteria within the same year.

The first two criteria, tolerance, and withdrawal, are central to “physiological dependence” on a drug. A person can be diagnosed with substance dependence either with or without the “physiological dependence,” although a person is at greater risk of medical problems and relapse if he does not have “physiological dependence.”

The seven criteria for substance dependence are:

(1) Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:

(a) A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect.

(b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.

(2) Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following: (a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance (refer to Criteria A or B of the criteria sets for Withdrawal from specific substances). (b) The same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.

(3) The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.

(4) There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.

(5) A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (such as visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (such as chain smoking) or recover from its effects.

(6) Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use.

(7) The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.

Source:

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Text Revision, Fourth Edition, (Copyright 2000). American Psychiatric Association.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

Another set of criteria for substance addiction. Can they be applied to pornography use?

Quote

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/addiction/signs-of-addiction.php

A symptom is something the patient senses and describes, while a sign is something other people, such as the doctor notice. For example, sleepiness may be a symptom while dilated pupils may be a sign.

Substance dependence - when a person is addicted to a substance, such as a drug, alcohol or nicotine, they are not able to control the use of that substance. They continue taking it, even though it may cause harm (the individual may or may not be aware of the potential harm).

Substance dependence can cause powerful cravings. The addict may want to give up (quit), but finds it extremely difficult to do so without help.

The signs and symptoms of substance dependence vary according to the individual, the substance they are addicted to, their family history (genetics), and personal circumstances.

Signs and symptoms of substance addiction may include:

• The person takes the substance and cannot stop - in many cases, such as nicotine, alcohol or drug dependence, at least one serious attempt was made to give up, but unsuccessfully.
• Withdrawal symptoms - when body levels of that substance go below a certain level the patient has physical and mood-related symptoms. There are cravings, bouts of moodiness, bad temper, poor focus, a feeling of being depressed and empty, frustration, anger, bitterness and resentment.
• There may suddenly be increased appetite. Insomnia is a common symptom of withdrawal. In some cases the individual may have constipation or diarrhea. With some substances, withdrawal can trigger violence, trembling, seizures, hallucinations, and sweats.
• Addiction continues despite health problem awareness - the individual continues taking the substance regularly, even though they have developed illnesses linked to it. For example, a smoker may continue smoking even after a lung or heart condition develops.
• Social and/or recreational sacrifices - some activities are given up because of an addiction to something. For example, an alcoholic may turn down an invitation to go camping or spend a day out on a boat if no alcohol is available, a smoker may decide not to meet up with friends in a smoke-free pub or restaurant.
• Maintaining a good supply - people who are addicted to a substance will always make sure they have a good supply of it, even if they do not have much money. Sacrifices may be made in the house budget to make sure the substance is as plentiful as possible.
• Taking risks (1) - in some cases the addicted individual make take risks to make sure he/she can obtain his/her substance, such as stealing or trading sex for money/drugs.
• Taking risks (2) - while under the influence of some substances the addict may engage in risky activities, such as driving fast.
• Dealing with problems - an addicted person commonly feels they need their drug to deal with their problems.
• Obsession - an addicted person may spend more and more time and energy focusing on ways of getting hold of their substance, and in some cases how to use it.
• Secrecy and solitude - in many cases the addict may take their substance alone, and even in secret.
• Denial - a significant number of people who are addicted to a substance are in denial. They are not aware (or refuse to acknowledge) that they have a problem.
• Excess consumption - in some addictions, such as alcohol, some drugs and even nicotine, the individual consumes it to excess. The consequence can be blackouts (cannot remember chunks of time) or physical symptoms, such as a sore throat and bad persistent cough (heavy smokers).
• Dropping hobbies and activities - as the addiction progresses the individual may stop doing things he/she used to enjoy a lot. This may even be the case with smokers who find they cannot physically cope with taking part in their favorite sport.
• Having stashes - the addicted individual may have small stocks of their substance hidden away in different parts of the house or car; often in unlikely places.
• Taking an initial large dose - this is common with alcoholism. The individual may gulp drinks down in order to get drunk and then feel good.
• Having problems with the law - this is more a characteristic of some drug and alcohol addictions (not nicotine, for example). This may be either because the substance impairs judgment and the individual takes risks they would not take if they were sober, or in order to get hold of the substance they break the law.
• Financial difficulties - if the substance is expensive the addicted individual may sacrifice a lot to make sure its supply is secured. Even cigarettes, which in some countries, such as the UK, parts of Europe and the USA cost over $11 dollars for a packet of twenty - a 40-a-day smoker in such an area will need to put aside $660 per month, nearly $8,000 per year.
• Relationship problems - these are more common in drug/alcohol addiction.

 

[MormonVideoGame]

18 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

 They only appear to be having fun. The film "stars" are ACTRESSES, not real women necessarily having a lot of fun.  Drugs are rampant. 

It is obvious they are actresses, it has very bad acting, you can tell it is fake. The WWE has acting too, I am not sure what your point is. 

Bytheway, many actresses do enjoy their job and have fun. Some don't, but others love it.

It is a myth that all actresses hate their job, not all of them do it just for a paycheck. 

18 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Legal porn is still human trafficking.  Legality does not change that. 

CFR 

Edited May 3, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Assigning people to attend an "Addiction" Recovery Meeting reinforces and is in fact a kind of diagnosis by leaders who are untrained in knowing or understanding what addiction is. That is where much of the harm comes from.

So we agree there is currently no porn addiction in the medical field? 

Here is some research 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051115300107

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26893127

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26185674

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Another set of criteria for substance addiction. Can they be applied to pornography use?

See credentials https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/name/Roger_W_Libby_PhD,LMHC,CST_Seattle_Washington_32471

[pogi]

3 hours ago, mapman said:

"Some have argued that classification for addiction should be widened to behavioral addictions, such as excessive sexual activity (including pornography use), because the brain’s reward pathways are being activated in similar ways to those who suffer from substance addictions (Hilton & Watts, 2011)... On the other hand, researchers have suggested that pornography use is best left classified as sexual compulsivity, or hypersexual behavior, rather than addiction, because of inconsistencies between how the brain responds to pornography use as opposed to substance addictions (Prause & Pfaus, 2015)."

The bold part is not suggested anywhere in the study.  This study was more interested in the correlation of P use and ED.  No correlation, in case anyone was worried 

What it did show as correlative was the amount of P use with higher sexual arousal during viewing (the more you watch, the more it affects you), and higher desire for both partner and solo sexual behaviors.  It also found a correlation between increased P use with "many negative mental health outcomes" including depression and alcohol consumption. 

According to the second article, the more you watch P the more your brain shrinks in some places,

Quote

This finding is particularly interesting in light of a very recent publication associating the hours of VSS viewing per week with a smaller ventral striatum [19]. The latter acknowledged an association between the amount of VSS consumed with depression and alcohol consumption...

The first article corroborates this.  The article is found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

4 hours ago, mapman said:

...but it talked about the effects of heavy porn use on the brain, which I guess would look different from someone with a drug problem. My knowledge is limited, so if anyone knows how to interpret this better, I would be interested to learn about it.

The first article shows that not only do "natural addictions" (food, sex, P, etc.) use the same reward pathways as exogenous drugs, but they can cause identical anatomical shrinkage in parts of the brain. 

Quote

But it’s become clear that neuroadaptation—that is, changes in neural circuitry that help perpetuate the behavior—occurs even in the absence of drug-taking.

Quote

This attention to process (or natural) addictions requires focus on metabolic dysfunction in the mesolimbic salience pathways. Just as exogenously administered drugs cause downgrading of dopamine receptors in the nucleus accumbens in addiction, evidence supports endogenously functioning neurotransmitters causing similar pathology

Quote

 …the work presented here provides evidence that, in addition to drugs of abuse, natural rewards induce ∆FosB levels in the Nac…our results raise the possibility that ∆FosB induction in the NAc may mediate not only key aspects of drug addiction, but also aspects of so-called natural addictions involving compulsive consumption of natural rewards.

Quote

sexual experience has been shown to induce alterations in medium spiny neurons in the nucleus accumbens similar to those seen with drugs of abuse.

Another good article to consider: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26393658

Quote

 The review leads to the conclusion that Internet pornography addiction fits into the addiction framework and shares similar basic mechanisms with substance addiction. Together with studies on Internet addiction and Internet Gaming Disorder we see strong evidence for considering addictive Internet behaviors as behavioral addiction. Future research needs to address whether or not there are specific differences between substance and behavioral addiction.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

So we agree there is currently no porn addiction in the medical field? 

Here is some research 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051115300107

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26893127

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26185674

See credentials https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/name/Roger_W_Libby_PhD,LMHC,CST_Seattle_Washington_32471

In response to article #1:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27235125

Did you even read articles #2 and #3, or are you just posting stuff here hoping that nobody will read the articles?  One is about ED and the other says:

Quote

Despite the growing body of research linking compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) to substance addictions, significant gaps in understanding continue to complicate classification of CSB as an addiction.

In other words, the body of evidence is "growing" to link CSB to substance addictions.  The lack of understanding makes it difficult to classify, which is why it is not YET recognized in the DSM.  It doesn't mean that it won't be classified as such some day.  For all practical measures, they are the same.  I have a friend who was a hard-core drug addict.  He told me that by far, cigarettes and porn are the most difficult to quit.  He still uses both to this day but has sobriety from hard drugs and alcohol that he was addicted to. 

Your video is a therapists opinion and is laughable.  Technically he is correct, it is not yet recognized by the DSM... "Sex is a good thing" No kidding!  So is food and the internet, but some people get terribly addicted. 

Did you read these yet?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26393658

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

 

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by pogi

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Did you even read articles #2 and #3, or are you just posting stuff here hoping that nobody will read the articles?  

Yes I did.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In response to article #1:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27235125

Thank you for giving me a scientific paper, but Gola M. is wrong. Read the response to the response of article 1. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051116301867

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In other words, the body of evidence is "growing" to link CSB to substance addictions.

It says, "growing body of research linking compulsive". Just because it is growing doesn't mean it is a lot, or most of the research on that subject. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In other words, the body of evidence is "growing" to link CSB to substance addictions.  The lack of understanding makes it difficult to classify, which is why it is not YET recognized in the DSM.  It doesn't mean that it won't be classified as such some day.  

I agree, but it also doesn't mean it will be classified in the future. Speculating about the future is a waste of time. As of today there are simply not enough evidences or reasons to classify it as an addiction. So what I said "there is currently no porn addiction in the medical field" is completely true.  

According to a paper published in J Sex Med, ""pornography or porn addiction" is not a formally recognized disorder and there is disagreement among researchers regarding its definition or even its existence"

Please read "No, Dopamine is Not Addictive" 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201701/no-dopamine-is-not-addictive

and read "The Misleading “Sexual Addiction” Label" 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201701/the-misleading-sexual-addiction-label

So like I said, being so-called addicted to porn is like being addicted to video games, ancient scripture studies, movies, MDDB

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have a friend who was a hard-core drug addict.  He told me that by far, cigarettes and porn are the most difficult to quit.

I don't make conclusions by reading personal stories on the internet. There are a lot of personal stories in the ex-mormon reddit. 

Dr.Marty Klein (Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist and Certified Sex Therapist for over thirty years) wrote, "Putting aside the rare instances of people watching three hours of porn every night (a clearly self-destructive behavior that’s often more about the internet than about porn)" 
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/skeptical-of-the-porn-skeptics/

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 So is food and the internet, but some people get terribly addicted. 

You realize that we didn't evolve to use the internet or to eat at Mcdonalds? 

Edited May 4, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Yes I did.

Thank you for giving me a scientific paper, but Gola M. is wrong. Read the response to the response of article 1. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051116301867

It says, "growing body of research linking compulsive". Just because it is growing doesn't mean it is a lot, or most of the research on that subject. 

I agree, but it also doesn't mean it will be classified in the future. Speculating about the future is a waste of time. As of today there are simply not enough evidences or reasons to classify it as an addiction. So what I said "there is currently no porn addiction in the medical field" is completely true.  

According to a paper published in J Sex Med, ""pornography or porn addiction" is not a formally recognized disorder and there is disagreement among researchers regarding its definition or even its existence"

Please read "No, Dopamine is Not Addictive" 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201701/no-dopamine-is-not-addictive

and read "The Misleading “Sexual Addiction” Label" 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201701/the-misleading-sexual-addiction-label

So like I said, being so-called addicted to porn is like being addicted to video games, ancient scripture studies, movies, MDDB

I don't make conclusions by reading personal stories on the internet. There are a lot of personal stories in the ex-mormon reddit. 

Dr.Marty Klein (Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist and Certified Sex Therapist for over thirty years) wrote, "Putting aside the rare instances of people watching three hours of porn every night (a clearly self-destructive behavior that’s often more about the internet than about porn)" 
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/skeptical-of-the-porn-skeptics/

You realize that we didn't evolve to use the internet or to eat at Mcdonalds? 

I remain somewhat perplexed as to why a man who claims to be a member of the church never misses an opportunity to promote pornography and similar "activities".

I ask this question sincerely - do you honestly think that Heavenly Father looks down on his children who have chosen the so-called career of performing sexual acts with random people, having those acts filmed and sold for profit, and for the sexual gratification of the viewers - that Heavenly Father is pleased?

I suspect that you will refuse to answer the question, and will instead throw your usual snit.

But I have no doubt that our Heavenly Father's response is not one of approval or of joy in such a choice. Or even a nonchalant..."eh, no harm done".  I can only imagine the response being that of a heartbroken father, knowing the dark path they are choosing and wishing to spare them the heartache and devastation ahead.