Viewing pornography contributes to sexual crime
This is a very common theory cited frequently both in literature and by people in general. The reasoning is often along the lines of “viewing porn gives men ideas and fantasies, so that they will then go out and assault a woman to play out their fantasies.” Sometimes you will even hear studies cited about the prevalence of a history of pornography use by sexual offenders. There are several problems that firmly establish this as a myth, not a fact.
- The official Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there was more than a 60% decline in sexual violence against females from 1995 TO 2010! - Female Victims Of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191226/reported-forcible-rape-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/
Many claim that the access to high speed Internet pornography have increased sexual crimes exponentially, but there is NO research or statistics that confirm these opinions. These claims are often made in opinion articles published in official journals. For example the opinion article The Public Health Harms of Pornography: The Brain, Erectile Dysfunction, and Sexual Violence in "A Journal on Sexual Exploitations and Violence" is often quoted as a "study", but in fact is not a study. These are often well intended individuals trying to create urgency around this topic by using fear, not facts.
While some of their concerns about sex crimes being underreported are valid, the lack of data is not an excuse to insinuate, fabricate or use fear to retain a narrative. It's crucial to find ways to improve the data and make wise and informed decisions off that data. However, the fact that ALL crime according to the FBI has reduced since the early 1990s seems to demonstrate consistency in the data. Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1993–2012
Furthermore, the fact that sex crimes have significantly decreased could be indicators that SOMETHING is working. By focusing on a narrative over facts, significant harm can be done to protecting woman and children. The drop in crime against women and children also doesn't reduce the importance of making the internet a safer place.
Finally, studies about sexual offenders and their pornography history is an example of confusing correlation and causation. Pornography viewing rates for males vary widely between surveys from near 50 percent (often for older males) to nearing 100 percent (for younger males). With these types of rates, it would be statistically surprising that most male criminals didn’t have a history of pornography usage; however, despite these rates, sexual offenders make up just .00279 percent of the population in the United States and its territories.
- Someone having fantasies does not mean that he or she is going to act on that fantasy. This is just as true for sexual fantasies as it is for all those fantasies we may have about work, recreation, or life. Statistics for rape fantasies among women (typically of being raped) are reported at being between 31 percent and 57 percent, and for men (typically of raping a woman) are between 13 percent and 54 percent. Women's erotic rape fantasies: an evaluation of theory and research
No one thinks that 50 percent of women actually want to be raped in real life, nor that 50 percent of men want to actually rape a woman in real life. So the idea that engaging in fantasies, even fantasies of violent or heinous acts, will result in people following through with those acts is patently false.
- Some people will push back on this and say that just because not everyone who watches porn engages in sexual assault doesn’t mean that porn doesn’t result in an increase, albeit a smaller one, in those crimes. This is also demonstrably false.
The introduction of the internet in the late 1990s can be considered the largest experiment on this issue to likely ever take place. Prior to the internet, access to pornography was generally limited to either Playboys or similar magazines that depicted nudity but not sexual activity or to videos that had to be ordered by mail, purchased at a sex shop, or rented from the local video rental store. The introduction of online pornography has increased access and use exponentially as it is now accessible easily, without cost, and, practically speaking, anonymously.
According to the claim that porn causes one to be more likely to commit sexual crimes, the dramatic increase in consumption of pornography due to the internet should have resulted in an measurable increase in sexual crimes. Instead, we have seen the opposite. The Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics shows a decline in the number of sexual assault victimizations of females from 1995 to 2010 by 58 percent. In other words, the amount of sexual assaults against women has gone down by almost 60 percent with the introduction and proliferation of internet pornography. A number of other studies have been done on the link between sexual crime and pornography availability, and they almost exclusively show a decrease in sexual crimes with a few showing negligible impacts. Pornography, public acceptance and sex related crime: A review
Porn will make people treat women as objects
This is a very common accusation, and often is accompanied by claims that the pornography viewer ends up viewing all women as inanimate objects with no emotions or feelings at all. It is an emotionally charged concept and can be difficult to talk about. What makes this myth particularly difficult to address is that in some ways it is true. Let’s start by defining objectification.
Ob·jec·ti·fi·ca·tion \əbˌjektəfəˈkāSH(ə)n\ noun: the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
The definition of objectification is notably lacking specific reference to both sexuality and to women. There is a reason for that: objectification happens in all sorts of aspects of life. Dr. David Ley commented on this phenomenon.
Nobody wants to be seen as merely an object. We all want to be seen as a person, a unique being, with our own thoughts, feelings, needs, and desires. But, as usual, sexual objectification is, for some reason, treated as especially “wrong” compared to other types of objectification.
Our society, in fact, thrives on objectification. You don’t think telemarketers REALLY care about you as a person, do you? Objectification is not necessarily a bad thing. Surgeons commonly “objectify” their patients because it is easier to cut into them when the surgeon is not distracted by thoughts of this person’s feelings, future and past. Soldiers objectify their enemies to make it easier to attack or kill them. What do we tell a person who is afraid of public speaking? “Imagine your audience naked…”.
He then explains the other side to sexual objectification.
Research with pornography and objectification has actually shown that when we see someone as a sexualized “object,” there are some good sides to that. When we are sexualizing someone, we tend to see them as someone who experiences things in a powerful way. We see them as “experiencers,” who we can imagine “experiencing” sex with us. There was an old study years ago where people thought they were giving electric shocks to other people. Current studies on sexual objectification suggest that if that person were showing more skin, or was even naked, people would shock them less. Not because they want to get laid by that poor person, but because we believe, on the basis of that sexual objectification, that they would feel the pain more intensely than other people.
This is a far cry from the idea that objectification amounts to women being seen as a chair or a treadmill to be used for our enjoyment without consideration at all. In fact, Joshua Knobe, professor of philosophy and cognitive science at Yale University, notes that objectification isn’t really an accurate term for what is taking place. He and some colleagues conducted an experiment about objectification by giving male participants a picture of a woman who is either clothed or nude and posed normally, or nude and posed sexually. They then had participants rate the woman on how capable they thought she was of having agency (self-control and both planning and acting morally) and how capable she was of having experiences (feeling fear, desire, and pleasure). Based on their results, they found that men believed the woman posing naked and in a sexy pose was seen as having less agency but more experience than the woman who was just naked or clothed posing normally. From that data, they deduced that,
In short, it doesn't look like pornography is leading men to treat women as mere “objects.” Instead, we seem to be getting something that might be called animalification—treating a woman as though she lacks the capacity for complex thinking and reasoning, but at the same time, treating her as though she was even more capable of having strong feelings and emotional responses.”
Again, this is not the same as truly objectifying someone and seeing them as “an object.” Rather, as Knobe later puts it, “the problem here doesn't have to do with ignoring a person's mind but rather with focusing exclusively on just one part of that mind.”
This is something that we all engage in even during a sexual experience with a spouse. When we find ourselves moving towards orgasm and wanting our spouse to continue doing what they are doing or to just hold still for a moment or to stop something distracting because we are close to the point of climax, we are objectifying them, seeing them in that moment in the context of our own self rather than as a full person who may not want to stop what they’re doing. Hopefully though, when that moment of objectification has passed, we re-engage with them, attend to their needs, cuddle, and draw close again. In this way, objectification is functional similar to the way it is functional for a surgeon or soldier.
Yes, in consuming pornography, we only see part of a person. This isn’t a problem specific to pornography, it is simply an aspect of how we all function in various aspects of life and one that can, when taken to an extreme, be incredibly problematic. So we are then left with the question of whether the objectification in the context of pornography consumption devalues women uniquely in real life. And the answer is no.
In 2016, researchers from Ontario tested this theory. Specifically, they wanted to measure how pornography use impacted the attitudes of egalitarianism in men. They measured egalitarian attitudes toward women holding positions of power, women working outside the home, abortion issues (including under conditions like rape), and attitudes around the traditional family. What did they find? Those who used pornography held attitudes that were more egalitarian than those who did not use pornography. In other words, rather than pornography consumption being correlated with negative attitudes about women, it was correlated with positive, egalitarian ideas about women.
The idea that pornography objectifies women in any way that is unique from objectification that happens generally in life or is harmful to attitudes about women is a myth.
Viewing pornography will corrupt your sexual interest
There is no arguing that pornography will expose someone to sexual acts, behaviors, and ideas that they might not otherwise have. Viewing and even repeatedly seeking out this material has lead some to the idea that such exposure is ruining or corrupting their sexuality, perhaps even irreparably. Reasoning often accompanies the idea that the person is becoming “satiated” and developing a “tolerance” to more mainstream pornography and requires increasingly “intense” or “shocking” material to get aroused. Such a thought is quite frightening and consequently creates enormous concern. Fortunately, research has shown this to be completely false.
Over 2,000 people who identified as consumers of pornography were surveyed in this research. Fifty-eight percent were women and a little less than half were in a relationship. The survey asked them how arousing they found each of 27 different categories of pornography covering a broad range of mainstream and non-mainstream interests. While some identified as being aroused by non-mainstream pornography, they were also aroused by mainstream pornography. They also didn’t report being any less sexually satisfied than those who did not report being aroused by the non-mainstream pornography. This shows that consumption of pornography will not corrupt your sexual interests and cause you to not be interested in more mainstream sexual stimuli. It shows a lack of evidence (the closest science comes to disproving something) for the idea of satiation and tolerance in pornography consumption.
With that said, those who do view pornography often find themselves aroused by new things. The research discussed above would note that this is not a corruption of sexuality since mainstream sexual stimuli is still arousing. Rather, it is a discovery of increased breadth of sexual interest.
The most common way to conceptualize this broadening of interests is as a lovemap, which was developed by psychologist John Money in 1980. He and others have expanded on it ever since. The lovemap is the sum of those thoughts, ideas, fantasies, situations, traits, etc. that make up what we find to be seuxally arousing. The formation of this template begins with the hormones we are exposed to at birth and continues up into puberty. Money notes that the most vulnerable and critical years for lovemap formation is not teenagehood when sexual hormones are raging but rather the formative years of about five to eight years old. And after puberty, the lovemap has largely been formed and is extremely resistant to change.
John Money, a prominent psychologist and sexologist, introduced the concept of a 'lovemap' to describe the mental blueprint that shapes an individual's sexual desires and preferences. Born in New Zealand in 1921 and later working in the United States, Money was a key figure in the field of sexual identity and development. His groundbreaking work at Johns Hopkins University, where he was influential in the establishment of the first gender identity clinic, contributed significantly to the understanding of gender identity and sexual orientation.
Money's concept of a lovemap encompasses a variety of mental images, ideas, fantasies, situations, and traits that collectively define what one finds sexually arousing. He proposed that these lovemaps begin forming early in life, shaped by an interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors. Contrary to a sole focus on hormonal influences, Money emphasized the importance of early childhood experiences and societal interactions in the development of these sexual templates. He believed that while lovemaps start forming in childhood, they become relatively stable and resistant to change after puberty.
In counseling, explaining lovemaps can be akin to describing a subconscious sexual scrapbook, unknowingly compiled from a diverse array of sexual and erotic experiences. This scrapbook, though created without conscious awareness, forms the foundation of an individual's sexual identity. Gaining insight into its content, however, is not straightforward. It requires exploration, openness, and a certain level of sexual confidence. While individuals may have some awareness of their sexual preferences and fantasies, much of their lovemap remains unexplored, making self-discovery a key aspect of understanding one's sexual identity.
John Money's theories, including his work on lovemaps, have been influential in the fields of psychology and sexology. They have sparked considerable discussion and debate, contributing to a deeper understanding of human sexuality and its complex interplay with psychological and social factors.
The privacy and anonymity of pornography can expose the viewer to aspects of sexuality that they may not have explored yet. They can browse for taboo topics, fantasies, or imagery that they might otherwise not be able to explore. Whether that is going to end up being sexually arousing to them or not is based on their lovemap. They are essentially flipping to that page in their sexual scrapbook and finding out, “Wow, there’s a of great stuff that I like on these pages,” or “There are a couple of interesting things here, but not a ton of stuff,” or even “Huh, I don’t have any pages about that in my scrapbook.”
Once you find certain pages, you may end up spending time learning more about that, exploring there, diving into those pages; however, pornography exposure will not add pages to your scrapbook or tear pages out. It just might point out pages that you hadn’t really spent much time on before. In other words, viewing pornography isn't corrupting sexual interests; people are using pornography to explore the sexual interests they already have.
According to Matthew 5:27–28, lusting is evil.
You heard it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman/wife in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27–28
Probably one of the most misinterpreted Bible scripture used to teach chastity, biblical scholar Jason A. Staples (Ph.D., UNC-Chapel Hill), who is a historian of early Judaism and Christianity, has observed in his article “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages. Why misinterpreting this scripture is particularly dangerous;
The biggest problem with the way these verses are usually explained is that it misplaces the focus away from the will, from the commitment of the heart, towards a condemnation of the natural desires human beings are created having. Young men in many churches are effectively told that there is something inherently sinful in their sexual impulses.
As a devout Latter-day Saint, and Therapist who works primarily with sexual health and compulsive porn and sexual behavior, I have also seen the very real danger of Latter-day Saints misinterpreting this scripture in a way that harms them as individuals and harms their marriages. Jason A. Staples's observation hits home in a profound way. In reading the following you might be surprised to know he is not LDS. But he is addressing the danger of this misinterpretation to a general Christian audience. Beyond semantics and misinterpretation, he points out four major reasons why misinterpreting this scripture is harmful;
1. A great deal of self-defeat and guilt about sexual desire is a problem in much of the church. Young men are often entirely consumed with their efforts “not to lust,” as though focusing even more attention on the matter of sexual desire would actually help things!
2. In the same vein, I have even had married men talk to me about how they try not to “lust” for their wives! This stems from the misguided idea that if their desire for sex is simply because they’re “horny,” there’s something inherently wrong with that, something to feel guilty about. (In contrast, look at the way Paul approaches marital sex in 1 Cor 7; he seems to present it as the necessary and acceptable cure for “being horny.”) Talk about a way to take some of the joy out of marriage and substitute defeat and guilt!
3. Many young men simply give up the fight, reasoning that if they’re already guilty of sexual sin because of their thoughts, they might as well go ahead and enjoy the real thing. You’d probably be surprised how often this is the case.
4. Some who understand this passage to be a condemnation of lust actually reason that they can have extramarital (or at least premarital) sex as long as they “don’t lust.”
Staples continues by saying that we, unfortunately;
…emphasize this verse to men and (especially) adolescent boys, warning that if they so much as think of a woman in a sexual manner, they’ve already sinned, that they’ve already effectively done the deed with her. Such an interpretation often works hand-in-glove with the common idea that Jesus “intensified” the Law in the Sermon on the Mount, setting a higher standard in order to show that no person could actually live up to God’s standards, showing that a person could only be saved by recognizing the impossibility of righteousness and then receiving forgiveness (a complete misinterpretation of the Sermon on the Mount I will address at another time). So the common teaching is: lust (that is, sexual lust) is absolutely evil—equivalent, even, to the physical act of sexual sin.
Another key aspect of nearly all the common misinterpretations of this verse is a specific (mistaken) definition of the word “lust.” Specifically, many readers understand “lust” as specifically denoting misplaced or overly robust libido. For example, as one recent conversation partner explained to me, “I take lust to mean wanting something more than you should in an unhealthy way.”
Despite its popularity, this interpretation is imprecise, even flat wrong, and leads to surprisingly harmful consequences, making this verse a great candidate to start this series.
Staples continues by examining the nuance and significance of this misinterpretation by stating;
… the Greek word usually translated “lust” in this passage (ἐπιθυμέω; epithumeô) is precisely the word for “covet” (Hebrew חמד) in the Tenth Command in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which says:
‘You will not covet your neighbor’s wife. You will not covet your neighbors house or his field or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or any animal which is your neighbor’s. (Ex 20:17 LXX)’
Looks pretty familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, it’s essentially identical; since there’s no distinction between the words “wife” and “woman” in Greek, the word translated “wife” here is the same that is translated “woman” in Matthew (both English words translate the same Greek word γύνη; gynē).
It turns out that Jesus isn’t saying anything new at all in Matthew 5:27–28. Instead, he directly cites one of the Ten Commands to remind his audience that the Law not only prohibits adultery, it prohibits coveting with the same severity. This is not an intensification of the Law; it’s a reminder of what the Law already says. In addition, Jesus gives no indication that he regards the Law as too difficult to keep—he not only assumes that his followers can follow his interpretation of the Torah but commands them to do so.
Now that it’s clear that Jesus isn’t saying something specifically new here but is instead calling attention to the Tenth Command, the next order of business is to understand the tenth command and the concept of “coveting.” The first thing to understand is that when the Hebrew חמד or Greek ἐπιθυμέω are used as verbs in the OT, it denotes desire directed at obtaining the specific object in question and not merely the existence of the desire itself.
Strikingly, the nominal (noun-form) concept of “lust” or “desire” (even the sexual variety) is nowhere forbidden in Scripture, nor is it equated with sin—only the potential to sin: “Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then, when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin. And when sin is completed, it brings forth death” (James 1:14–15). Note that James clearly distinguishes between “lust” (that is, desire) at the stage of temptation and “sin,” which is the actual commission of an act.
Pornography is as addictive as drugs.
There is NO evidence that pornography is as addictive as drugs.
This myth is a result of fear-based media and well-intending people to emphasize the potential dangers of porn use. Often the media and certain 'experts' will quote from neuroscience research to support their statements.
For example, one of the most widely misused/misquoted study is the 2014 Dr. Valerie Voon study, "Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours" which even the Church used to emphisize the 'danger' of porn viewing, in a press release that included "a call of action to parents," and that "letting children consume pornography freely was likeleaving heroin lying around the house, or handing out vodka at the school gates.” Cambridge Study confirms Danger of Pornography
However, this is NOT what Dr. Valerie Voon research found and,
“Voon is quick to caution against using her studies to leap to conclusions about the addictiveness of sex or porn. ‘Much more research is required,’ she explains."
Additionally other neuroscientists at the University of California, Los Angeles,
"observed that volunteers who believed they had a problem with porn reacted to the pictures with low levels of excitement in the brain, unlike other addicts faced with triggering cues.” These people may be having problems, but of some other type,” says Prause. “Addiction is not a good way of understanding it.” Can you really be addicted to sex?
What Dr. Voon study actually says is the following;
The current study has multiple limitations.
1. the study involved only (19) heterosexual male subjects.
2. there currently exist no formal diagnostic criteria for CSB and thus this represents a limitation for understanding the findings and placing them within the larger literature.
3. given the cross-sectional nature of the study, inferences about causality cannot be made.
4. the small sample and lack of a whole brain corrected approach is a limitation.
The current and extant findings suggest that a common network exists for sexual-cue reactivity and drug-cue reactivity in groups with CSB (compulsive sexual behavior) and drug addictions, respectively. These findings suggest overlaps in networks underlying disorders of pathological consumption of drugs and natural rewards. **While this study may suggest overlaps with substance-use disorders, further clinical studies are required to determine whether CSB should be categorized as an impulse-control disorder, within an obsessive-compulsive spectrum or as a behavioural addiction.
In more recent interviews, Dr. Valerie Voon has stated after having conducted more research that she
... takes a more moderate view. “I suspect (porn) probably doesn’t cause a ‘major’ cognitive risk,” she says in an email to The Daily Beast. But she adds there are potential issues with porn consumption for especially vulnerable populations. “I think one of the main issues would be that there may be a subgroup of people who may run into problems with compulsive use.”
Furthermore, Dr. Cameron Staley, LDS scientist and leading expert in the subject, has studied porn addiction his whole career and has stated that NO research supports porn addiction. In one interview he made the following observation;
“I believe the Adversary attempts to convince us that, ‘You are horrible, that you should never tell anybody, never reach out for help, don’t even use the Atonement, don’t talk to anybody—he wins. We shut down. We withdraw,” Staley says. “But if we view it as, ‘Oh wow, I’m doing something that’s inconsistent with my beliefs, let’s understand what’s going on, the Atonement still applies to me. I’m not a bad person, I’m just doing things that I don’t want to do.’”
According to Staley, religious people feel distress when viewing pornography “as high as other people that are viewing at really high rates,” even if they don’t view it as often. Through his research, he has also discovered that believing you are “addicted” may maintain unwanted pornography viewing in the future.
“Believing you’re addicted takes away the hope, and when we don’t have hope, we do things to soothe ourselves, and the one strategy these individuals have come up with to soothe themselves is viewing pornography,” Staley says. “That’s the cycle.”
Finally, some professionals have embraced the fear-based side of porn use as a core part of their business model.
What about all the science that supports sex/porn addiction?
The topic of sex/porn addiction and its validity is a complex topic, which is too often overly-simplified and forced into being an absolute - such as being an addiction or not.
“Addiction” is an overused term that has morphed into a general description of any impulsive behavior. But “addiction” has a very specific meaning in science and mental health. As a result, the general use of the term has caused much confusion. However, the confusion is not an issue of semantics alone. If it were semantics alone, this would not be a cause of concern. Rather, the issue is in applying effective methods and solutions; it goes to the core of accurately identifying the problem and the treatment.
For example, imagine going to the doctor and saying you have cancer, and the doctor immediately starts chemo and other invasive forms of cancer treatment. This treatment goes on for days, months, and years, only to discover you don’t have cancer at all. Some will exclaim, it's because you’re cured! Others will say the cancer is still there because you still feel sick. You go another round of chemo and invasive treatment. Some will say, well cancer is so dangerous that whether you had cancer or not, what could the chemo hurt? You might be thinking there is a malpractice case developing here since the doctor only relied on a personal report, failing in his duty to do his own diagnostics and assessments. You’d be right.
However, this is at the core of the problem with sex/porn addiction treatment. There is no robust standard for assessment. The Sexual Addiction Screening Test (SAST) is almost entirely subjective and moralistic (“moral incongruence”) and relies almost entirely on personal assessment and reports. Not an empirical assessment.
Why is a moral incongruence bad? It’s important to consider our core values, including our religious values/faith, and commitments/covenants while assessing sex/porn addiction. However, if the assessment is done through the lens of morality, that individual will most likely self-assess more severely.
For example, if one perceives viewing porn with eternal consequences (a form of betrayal and adultery), that individual will most likely assess more severely than someone who does not view their porn use in the terms of morality. Ergo, the same treatment is given for an individual who viewed an Instagram model on occasion versus an individual presenting with frequent, out-of-control, prolonged exposure and engaging in illegal and risk-taking behavior.
Research on the moral perception of sex/porn and its impact on perceived behaviors is well documented:
Furthermore, the addiction model is essentially a one-size-fits-all approach, with variations depending on the treatment center. More effective treatment centers and approaches include assessment for comorbid diagnoses, but the treatment is usually the same.
ARP or Addiction treatment is the best way to recover or stop porn use.
The best and most current research on sex/porn addiction does not support the addiction model of treatment. The addiction model has been well studied and has been shown to have a success rate between 5-10%, which is less than doing nothing at all for treatment.
In one of the most comprehensive analyses of various alcohol abuse treatments, AA ranked 37th out of 48 treatment methods. It was well behind the most effective methods, which were brief interventions, motivational enhancement, and GABA agonist medication, but also well behind even such minimal interventions as case management (12th), acupuncture (17th), exercise (20th), and the no-intervention-at-all method, simply labeled self-monitoring (30th). —Saving Psychotherapy: How Therapists Can Bring the Talking Cure Back from the Brink by Benjamin E. Caldwell
If you are one of the 5-10% success rates, wonderful! The desire for improved treatment from porn use in no way discount the 5-10%. (Also, see; “The Sober Truth" and “Sex Addiction a Critical History”) Rather it’s impairative to find a way for MORE people to experience the success of those few in addiction treatment.
As Latter-day Saints we have an impairative to save souls. If you were given a more successful aproach, or if you were aware of a better way to treat porn use. Avoiding years of struggle that resulted in years of suffering being avoided. Wouldn't you do all you can to bring that to the many souls craving for more meaningful and lasting solutions? As such many trained professionals tend to suggest more effective treatment like A.C.T. or ACT-based treatment over the LDS Church’s Addiction Recovery Program (ARP), or other addiction-based models of treatment. Additionally, both “the science” and the “LDS Church” agree in discouraging the use of the addiction language and approach.
The Science: The most current and comprehensive scientific review of sex/porn addiction: Sexual addiction 25 years on: A systematic and methodological review of empirical literature and an agenda for future research
The LDS Church: What LDS Apostle Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said about porn “addiction” which is also in line with the scientific research:
In earlier times and circumstances, our counsel about pornography focused principally on helping individuals to avoid initial exposure or to recover from addiction. While those efforts are still important, past experience and current circumstances have shown the need for counsel addressed to levels of pornography use between the polar extremes of avoidance and addiction. It is helpful to focus on four different levels of involvement with pornography: (1) inadvertent exposure, (2) occasional use, (3) intensive use, and (4) compulsive use (addiction).
…
Once we recognize these different levels, we also recognize that not everyone who uses pornography willfully is addicted to it. In fact, most young men and young women who struggle with pornography are not addicted. That is a very important distinction to make—not just for the parents, spouses, and leaders who desire to help but also for those who struggle with this problem. Here is why.
First, the deeper the level of involvement one engages in—from inadvertent exposure, to occasional or repeated intentional use, to intensive use, to compulsive (addictive) use—the more difficult it is to recover. If behavior is incorrectly classified as an addiction, the user may think he or she has lost agency and the capacity to overcome the problem. This can weaken resolve to recover and repent. On the other hand, having a clearer understanding of the depth of a problem—that it may not be as ingrained or extreme as feared—can give hope and an increased capacity to exercise agency to discontinue and repent.
Second, as with any sinful behavior, willful use of pornography drives away the Holy Ghost. Some who have experienced this will feel prompted to repent. Others, however, may feel embarrassed and seek to hide their guilt through deceit. They may also begin to feel shame, which can lead to self-loathing. If this happens, users may begin to believe one of Satan’s greatest lies: that what they have done or continue to do makes them a bad person, unworthy of the Savior’s grace and incapable of repentance. That is simply not true. We are never too far out of reach from the Savior and His Atonement. — Recovering from the Trap of Pornography