WICHITA, Kan. – There’s little doubt in my mind if I had a conversation of any real depth or length with Natasha Helfer Parker — a Mormon counselor who offers therapy for LDS individuals, couples and families in and around Wichita, Kan. — we would pretty quickly disagree on any number of subjects.

One thing upon which we would not disagree, however, might come as a bit of a surprise: Like me, Parker thinks the terms “pornography” and “addiction” are being thrown around these days in casual ways that aren’t accurate, helpful or constructive.

I missed Parker’s post about pornography and addiction when she first published it late last year, but discovered it recently when it was referenced in a post by a Mormon blogger who observed “Men aren’t the only Mormons who struggle with porn.”

Writing in response to a woman struggling with her reaction to the revelation of her husband’s self-proclaimed porn addiction, Parker started with points I don’t believe I’ve ever heard issue from the mouth of anyone who is openly anti-porn.

“First, it is usually helpful to think about how you and your spouse are defining pornography versus erotica,” Parker wrote. “I have found that the term ‘pornography’ is used rather loosely in Mormon culture. It often unnecessarily shames any visual stimuli that may result in arousal (i.e. costumes on Dancing with the Stars, lingerie ads, etc.). If everything that could be arousing is condemned, then secrecy, shame and fear naturally arise, feeding compulsion, impulsion and maladaptive disorders instead of helping to quell them.”

My reaction to reading this, in two words, was: “Holy shit!”

True, implicit in Parker’s distinction between pornography and erotica is the opinion one is OK (erotica, obviously) while the other is not, but I’ve become so accustomed to critics of pornography acting as though there’s no qualitative difference between the works of Viv Thomas and Max Hardcore, or Erika Lust and Rob Black, I’m honestly stunned to see one of porn’s critics even acknowledge that not all porn is created equal.

Parker wasn’t finished surprising me, however. She also advised caution about using the word “addiction” in reference to porn consumption — another clear departure from the over-the-top rhetoric typically favored by porn’s harshest critics.

“It is also important to understand how you and your spouse are defining the term ‘addiction’ when applying it to pornography use,” Parker noted. “The addiction label can be shaming and even counter-productive when it is misused, as often happens in Mormon culture.”

Parker further observed that when the scientific medical community was last given the opportunity to include porn addition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diorders, it declined to do so, instead including compulsive pornography viewing under its “impulse control” category.

[Side note: To date, the only behavior not involving substance abuse recognized in the DSM as an addiction is gambling — and even that designation is not without controversy among neurologists, toxicologists and others who conduct clinical research on controlled substances and physical addiction.]

As Parker observed in her post, the “impulse control” category of the DSM “only addresses behavior that violates the rights of others,” citing pyromania, oppositional defiance and kleptomania as examples. While “internet gaming disorder” made its way into a section called “conditions for further study” (i.e. conditions that may be reconsidered as possible addictions pending further investigation), neither sex addiction nor pornography addiction were tagged for further study.

“There is currently much research being done in these areas, especially from the neuroscience field,” Parker wrote. “We will have to wait and see how the next version of the DSM addresses these issues. Part of the caution being exercised has to do with being extremely careful about pathologizing any behavior tied to a basic human drive, especially one that is already so heavily regulated by culture and religion. Bottom line: Unwanted behavior does not an ‘addiction’ make.”

Don’t get me wrong; Parker is not making the argument porn is A-OK, nor is she dismissing the concerns of the woman to whom her post responds. Parker clearly has no love for pornography. She just has the intellectual honesty and integrity to eschew overstating both the power and perils of porn.

“A behavior need not be diagnosable nor maladaptive to still be problematic,” she wrote — a truism that applies equally well to excessively watching porn or, say, storming the court after your school’s basketball team beats Duke.

The way in which one responds to their spouse’s excessive porn consumption, Parker cautions, can cause problems of its own.

“It is important to recognize that a problematic relationship with pornography is not something the non-offending spouse can ‘fix.’ It is not a spousal ‘job’ to offer enough sex to prevent pornography use,” Parker wrote. “There are plenty of people who have lots of sex but still use pornography in unhealthy ways. Now, if a spouse cites low sexual frequency as a reason for why they turned to pornography in the first place, then relational quality and sexual needs do need to be addressed. But make sure the behavior of one spouse is not blamed on the other. Sidestepping personal responsibility is never healthy.”

Instead of freaking out and shaming one’s partner over his or her porn use, Parker sensibly advises open communication. She also counsels women not to imbue pornography with a power it really doesn’t have.

“It is imperative to not let pornography steal one’s inner sexual identity: sultriness, sexiness, playfulness, fantasies, etc.,” Parker wrote. “Healthy sex has room for nuance and exploration; it is not held hostage by the pornography industry. If you’re talking to each other during sex you won’t have to wonder what the other is thinking.”

As noted earlier, Parker is not to be confused with a porn fan. It’s fairly clear she believes porn’s only potential impact on a relationship to be a negative one. However, by allowing room for “erotica,” which isn’t the same as “porn,” and by advising caution when using words like “addiction,” Parker reveals herself to be something many other anti-porn commentators definitely are not: Reasonable.