Yesterday we ran an article by private practice psychologist A. Michael Johnson, Ph.D. The article dealt with the theory of “sexual addiction,” one which Dr. Johnson believes is valid. Today, Editor-in-Chief Connor Young will respond to that article directly. If you have not yet read Dr. Johnson’s article then you should do so now before reading this response.Yesterday we ran an article by private practice psychologist A. Michael Johnson, Ph.D. The article dealt with the theory of “sexual addiction,” one which Dr. Johnson believes is valid. Today, Editor-in-Chief Connor Young will respond to that article directly. If you have not yet read Dr. Johnson’s article then you should do so now before reading this response.

The TalkBack feature has been enabled for this article. You may add your own comments about this article through the TalkBack feature immediately following the article.

Last week I was put in a unique position as Editor-in-Chief of TheAdultWebmaster Magazine. Although we have a staff of very talented writers who contribute regularly to our online publication, we also accept article submissions from readers. Last week I received such a submission from a private practice psychologist who was arguing for an agreement between the pornography business and a certain segment of the psychology business. Notice that I say psychology “business” and not profession or community. I used that word with purpose, as I do indeed see psychology as a business, and that fact plays heavily into the arguments I’m about to make.

When I first read over this article by Dr. Michael Johnson, my first reaction was that there was no way I was going to publish it. I found many of the ideas he championed to be dangerous – the concepts that he promoted in his article were the same concepts that have been used time and time again by the anti-pornography business (and yes, it too is a business) to justify restrictive legislation against our industry. With the Supreme Court recently allowing restrictions on free speech based on supposed “harmful secondary effects,” I wasn’t in any hurry to help propagate what I believed to be the flawed notion that pornography is harmful. To make matters worse, Dr. Johnson used a particularly effective form of argumentation that I’ve seen used previously to much success by people like conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. I call it Limbaugh Logic.

LIMBAUGH LOGIC
How does Limbaugh Logic work? I’m glad you asked. The principle behind Limbaugh Logic is to get the audience on your side right away. You do that by telling them exactly what they want to hear. In our case, we want to hear somebody from the mainstream argue that we have a right to exist, and that the Government really ought to leave us alone. When we hear these things the speaker instantly gains a certain degree of our trust. The next step of Limbaugh Logic is to offer us facts that we know to be true. You say something like “hitting children is bad,” or “most people want to do the right thing,” or whatever else you can say to get your audience nodding in agreement. Then, once they’re all nodding, you slip in a leap in logic and hopefully the audience will just keep on nodding without ever realizing what hit them.

What was this Limbaugh-like leap in logic that I’m referring to? Two things really. The first leap of logic that Dr. Johnson asks us to take is that there is indeed a true “addiction” to viewing pornography that can occur. The second leap of logic that he makes is his notion that the pornography business should somehow feel socially responsible for the unnatural, compulsive reaction that a very small percentage of the population may have to Internet pornography.

So yes, I was truly concerned that running his article might not be good for the health of the industry as a whole. His arguments were so carefully worded that some people in this industry were bound to agree with what he had to say, and the last thing I wanted to see as a result of it was “Addicted to Porn? Get help here!” links all over adult websites. Such free advertising would certainly help foster the notion that pornography can indeed cause a true addiction, and once public opinion was in that court it would be far easier for the Supreme Court to justify restrictive legislation against Internet pornography based on the “harmful secondary effects” model. But alas, after passing the article around the office and learning that it did in fact interest people in one way or another, I decided that Dr. Johnson’s article would be of enough interest to the adult Webmaster population to warrant publication. Had I chose not to run it merely because it was irrelevant, that would have been acceptable, but if I chose to silence a relevant opinion just because I didn’t agree with it then I’d be no better than those who would censor pornography. Ultimately I reasoned that the best course of action would be to publish Dr. Johnson’s article and then explain afterwards why I feel that some of his arguments are invalid.

For an individual with a mere Bachelor’s Degree, trying to argue against an individual with a Ph.D. is not an easy task to undertake. Those two little letters before the name of anyone who has earned a doctorate degree command a certain level of respect. Who am I to argue with a doctor, after all? To make matters even more difficult, this is a doctor who had already set any potential opponents at a disadvantage by calling for an end to debate, and by labeling debate “bickering” while claiming that all debate is good for is “working off calories and for feeling self-righteous.” If you buy into that then you’re left with no choice but to take Dr. Johnson’s assertions as truth, so call me a self-righteous podium pounder, but I tend to be a little more suspicious than that. So I decided to publicly disagree with some of Dr. Johnson’s assertions. The fact that he holds a Ph.D. does carry some weight with me, but I’ve seen Ph.D. holders argue for Bigfoot and alien conspiracies.

“Although to my knowledge I have never met such an individual, science has documented enough cases to make compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) a legitimate affliction. But the number of people who experience this affliction seems to be a very small percentage of the population at large.”

First understand that I have no argument with the statement that a very small percentage of the population experiences problems with compulsive sexual behavior. Although to my knowledge I have never met such an individual, science has documented enough cases to make compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) a legitimate affliction. But the number of people who experience this affliction seems to be a very small percentage of the population at large. Reading Dr. Johnson’s article, however, you’d think that CSB was an epidemic. “We really don’t how what percentage of cyber-sex consumers are or become sexual addicts,” he writes. “Certainly not all. Maybe not half.” Maybe not half? Maybe? Even suggesting that it’s possible that half of online porn consumers have CSB is absolutely irresponsible.

Dr. Eli Coleman of the University of Minnesota had this to say about CSB: “There is an inherent danger in diagnosing CSB simply because someone’s behavior does not fit the values of the individual, group or society. There has been a long tradition of pathologizing behavior which is not mainstream and which some might find distasteful. For example, masturbation, oral sex, homosexual behavior, sado-masochistic behavior (S-M) or a love affair could be viewed as compulsive because someone might disapprove of these behaviors. However, there is no scientific merit to viewing these behaviors as disorders, compulsive or “deviant.” When someone is distressed about these behaviors, they are most likely in conflict with their own or someone else’s value system rather than this being a function of compulsion.”

Well said. Were the pornography industry to recklessly start throwing up links to “Sexual Addiction” centers, we no doubt would cause many consumers who feel guilty about their online adventures to falsely self-diagnose themselves with CSB. So while Dr. Johnson wants to appeal to our desire to “do the right thing” and help our fellow human beings, we would more likely do more harm than good – both to our industry and to our surfers.

“The pathologizing of sexual behavior may be driven by anti-sexual attitudes and a failure to recognize the wide-range of normal human sexual expression,” states Dr. Coleman in a separate paragraph of his article on sexually compulsive behavior. “This caution is important when assessing whether a person is engaging in compulsive sexual behavior. It is important for professionals to be comfortable with a wide range of normal sexual behavior – both in types of behaviors and frequency. Sometimes individuals with their own restrictive values will diagnose themselves with this disorder, creating their own distress. Therefore it is very important to distinguish between individuals who have a values conflict with their sexual behavior and those who engage in obsessive sexual behaviors.”

Again, well said. I have long believed that many of the “problems” supposedly caused by pornography would simply melt away into thin air should the more conservative attitudes towards sex suddenly become more liberal. These “problems” are often self-created or environment-created. A young boy gets caught looking at porn. His mother finds out and tells him he has been “bad” or “naughty.” He is punished. This makes him feel as if he’s done something wrong, yet he still feels compelled by his emerging sexuality to view more pornography. His sister catches him masturbating and tells all her friends what she has seen. Her friends laugh at him and call him perverted. The boy feels ever worse. The boy gets depressed and performs poorly in school. Mom blames his “obsession” with porn. I blame the mother, the sister and the friends who laughed.

A PREDISPOSITION TO COMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR
On one hand, Dr. Johnson seems to believe that pornography is not responsible for causing harm. He clearly states this with the following assertion: “Some people blame sex addiction on the pornography itself. I doubt that. The predisposition to addiction is like an opportunity waiting to happen.” Other than his use of the word addiction, I agree with that statement. Obsession with pornography likely does occur in people already pre-disposed to react to sexual excitement in a non-healthy manner. But just a few paragraphs later, Dr. Johnson makes this claim: “The Internet sex business community need only see one thing. The industry needs to recognize that their product is harmful to a minority of their customers and that they have a social responsibility to help people in that minority.”

SELF-INDUCED HARM
Okay, so maybe Dr. Johnson is arguing that while pornography doesn’t cause the affliction, it does enflame the affliction. I don’t buy it. Any preceived harm blamed on pornography is far more likely to be a result of one’s own beliefs rather than the pornography itself. Suggesting that we as an industry should feel socially responsible is flawed.

“Indeed, materials depicting consensual activity have been used in beneficial ways by therapists and educators to reduce anxiety and to improve sexual knowledge, and by individuals and couples to enhance their sexual pleasure.”

When asked about any potential damage that might be caused by exposure to pornography, Dr. Clive M. Davis and Dr. Naomi B. McCormick of the University of Northern Iowa had this to say: “For those who believe that anything fostering more permissive attitudes toward sexuality or that even viewing others engaging in sexual acts is morally wrong, then exposure to explicit sexual material is clearly unacceptable. Others, however, believe that there is nothing wrong with permissive attitudes and being stimulated by explicit materials. Indeed, materials depicting consensual activity have been used in beneficial ways by therapists and educators to reduce anxiety and to improve sexual knowledge, and by individuals and couples to enhance their sexual pleasure.”

Maybe we can work a deal with the “Sexual Addiction” camp. Ours is an industry of link trades. How about we put up links to “Sexual Addiction” help centers, and they put up links to pornography… after all, porn has not been shown to cause psychological disorders, but it has been shown to help in the treatment of certain afflictions. Of course I’m kidding. I wouldn’t take that trade even if it were offered… I wouldn’t want to help cause people to think they were “Porn Addicts” simply because they bought a recurring membership to my paysite.

Dr. Johnson appears certain that one can become addicted to sex. “But I do know for certain that some proportion of people who consume pornography and other sexually related products online become addicted,” he wrote in yesterday’s article. Others in his profession are not so sure. Dr. Coleman had this to say: “Disagreement exists as to whether CSB is an addiction, a psychosexual development disorder, an impulse control disorder, a mood disorder, or an obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Dr. Johnson stated that arguing over such distinctions is merely “quibbling,” but I tend to believe that the psychological community, much like the medical community, ought to know what they are treating before attempting to treat it.

“Gee doc, I said it hurts when I pee and you gave me Viagra?”

“Let’s not quibble, the bottom line is that your penis is broken and Viagra can help with that.”

“WITHDRAWAL” SYMPTOMS
Perhaps the biggest hole in Dr. Johnson’s analysis of CSB is his assertion that sex “addicts” experience many of the same “withdrawal” symptoms as do drug or alcohol addicts. He writes: “Research with sex addicts finds that they often have many of the same withdrawal symptoms as alcohol and drug addicts. These include sleeplessness, intrusive dreams, high levels of anxiety, irritability, and roller coaster emotions.” Dr. Johnson just perfectly described the “withdrawal” symptoms that I felt when I was at the height of some financial problems before the Internet. I couldn’t sleep well because I was worried about paying bills. I would dream of financial troubles. I was often anxious and irritable, just ask my family and friends! I certainly had a “roller coaster” of emotions as a result of it all. The cure? Internet pornography. Praise technology! Folks, these are hardly symptoms of addiction. These are merely a biological reaction to a troubled mind… and that trouble can be as simple as a lost job, relationship difficulties or school-related stress. Using Dr. Johnson’s Limbaugh Logic I could label any number of things an “addiction,” but to paraphrase an unnamed Industry personality on the chat boards recently, once you start labeling people, that label becomes their identity. You’re more likely to cause more harm through “sexual addiction therapy” than you are to do good.

Dr. Johnson gave us the benefit of the doubt, so I’m happy to extend him the same courtesy. He states, “No sane person wants to think that they are making a living by creating suffering in other people. I don’t think that people who work in the Internet sex industry are trying to hurt other people or to create or intensify sexual addiction.” Likewise, I don’t think that Dr. Johnson is trying to hurt other people or cause his clients additional emotional stress. I think he’s doing what he thinks is right, and I also think he’s trying to make a living at the same time. Despite these likely good intentions, promoting a psychological disorder the way a laundry detergent company promotes “ring around the collar” is questionable.

MASTERING YOUR GUILT
So in conclusion, don’t let any guilt you may have bottled up inside of you trick you into doing something foolish. As a means to an end, Dr. Johnson has attempted to exploit your guilt and your good intentions in order to receive free advertising for the affliction that he’s trying to promote, because publicity for “sexual addiction” means more business for “sexual therapists” in general. I don’t say this to be “mean” or “harsh” but rather because it’s a simple truth. Most adult Webmasters carry a certain amount of guilt that is unwarranted. There are those members in society who will always try to blame pornography for what they feel are society’s ills, but what really bothers them about pornography is that it’s a reminder that not everybody agrees with their system of values. So sleep well, fellow pornographers. Pornography does not cause any addictions for which we should feel responsible. We should not feel any “social responsibility” to defame the pornography trade, help convince healthy people that they are porn addicts, and line the pockets of a certain group from the psychology industry whose assertions are highly questionable and even bordering on socially irresponsible. Instead I suggest that we simply continue to focus on our industry-wide efforts to combat child pornography – something we know to be harmful, and something that we know we won’t make worse through our efforts to eliminate it. If the psychology business truly wants to help people with CSB, I suggest that they work with the pornography business in a different manner by helping us convince the population at large that exploring one’s sexuality is not only normal and healthy, but it’s also a lot of fun.

Connor Young is Editor-in-Chief of The ADULTWEBMASTER Magazine. He has worked in the field of adult entertainment since 1\’\’7.

face=”VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, GENEVA” size=”2″>

Reader Comments on this Article:

Comment by:Summary:
Connor YoungYour Thoughts?
J. EdwardsI, too, agree that CSB is a legitim…
BrianPhychobabble
Nina Marachinodr. coleman knows what’s up
VivaldiSocial Environment
GalaxySexual Addiction is a fact
Reneeoh god, I may HAVE CSD
Dr. Michael JohnsonDr. Eli Coleman’s Article