Sex addicts get high from watching porn, say Cambridge University researchers

[Corazon]

I am a gambler, and the physical response is something that I am very conscious of, and take steps to avoid. It is very very easy to show addictive symptoms with gambling, and those symptoms lead to irrational behavior that goes counter to the skill of maintaining a cold, calculated edge.

Porn is definitely an addictive high.

The problem with our pleasures in life is that, as with everything which we perceive as a unique experience, with each repetition, we become desensitized to whatever it is that makes it pleasurable. This desensitization varies in amount depending on the activity and experience.

Here is a related quote on your idea that I like.


Aphorism #299 Leave off Hungry.

"One ought to remove even the bowl of nectar from the lips. Demand is the measure of value. Even with regard to bodily thirst it is a mark of good taste to slake but not to quench it. Little and good is twice good. The second time comes a great falling off. Surfeit of pleasure was ever dangerous and brings down the ill-will of the Highest Powers. The only way to please is to revive the appetite by the hunger that is left. If you must excite desire, better do it by the impatience of want than by the repletion of enjoyment. Happiness earned gives double joy."

-Balthasar Gracian The Art of Worldly Wisdom

 

[slimvictor]

I fully believe gambling is an addiction. Porno addiction is like a video game addiction, it is invalid. Even if you choose it over other important activities it is still not the same as a real addiction, it is more of a mix up of priorities. Pornography and sex are associated with normal bodily functions and desires. Pornography is simply more convenient. You have arrogantly stereotyped people who do not believe in porno addiction as being too stupid to realize it because they are not self-administering a substance.

The same brain regions light up when you do heroin as when you do anything new or fun in life, just not as much. Calling anything rewarding addictive is a joke that degrades the concept. It is idealistic and naive to brand all enjoyable things as addictive.

You have fallen for a potential new arm of the recovery industry's attempt to cash in on the erroneous pathologising of normal behaviours.

I hope that I wasn't arrogant in what I said. I don't feel arrogant in my beliefs surrounding this issue; I would prefer to see this as a community of intelligent people working through these questions, issues, problems together. Maybe it sounded arrogant: if so, I apologize. To be clear: I am NOT saying that anyone is stupid, just that some people's beliefs surrounding addiction are biased, uninformed, and often related to their ego.

But I haven't changed my mind about addiction, and about what this evidence suggests.
Your argument is that addictions that are associated with "normal bodily functions and desires" are not real addictions ("invalid"), but I cannot see how that accounts for addictions to alcohol or coffee, for example.
It also doesn't address what the original article found - that patterns of brain activation are similar, regardless of the substance/medium of addiction.
The article doesn't say that anything rewarding is addictive, so that is a straw man.
And, if you think that the behavior of people who fap ten times a day while watching porn, and who cannot live normally if they cant stick to their schedule, is "normal", I have to disagree.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

I hope that I wasn't arrogant in what I said. I don't feel arrogant in my beliefs surrounding this issue; I would prefer to see this as a community of intelligent people working through these questions, issues, problems together. Maybe it sounded arrogant: if so, I apologize. To be clear: I am NOT saying that anyone is stupid, just that some people's beliefs surrounding addiction are biased, uninformed, and often related to their ego.

But I haven't changed my mind about addiction, and about what this evidence suggests.
Your argument is that addictions that are associated with "normal bodily functions and desires" are not real addictions ("invalid"), but I cannot see how that accounts for addictions to alcohol or coffee, for example.
It also doesn't address what the original article found - that patterns of brain activation are similar, regardless of the substance/medium of addiction.
The article doesn't say that anything rewarding is addictive, so that is a straw man.
And, if you think that the behavior of people who fap ten times a day while watching porn, and who cannot live normally if they cant stick to their schedule, is "normal", I have to disagree.

What I said was not a straw man in the sense that anything novel or enjoyable will, in fact, light up the same areas of the brain that drugs etc. do. So the article implied it by extension. Alcohol and coffee are not generally consumed for hydration or taste so that is an invalid example. We mix drinks and put sugar/milk in coffee for a reason. Food would have been a better example.

I am saying things associated with normal bodily functions and desires do not cross the threshold into being addictive because everyone does these things to an extend while doing them to a dysfunctional extreme is relatively rare. It is like how feelings of depression are not clinical typically (pharmaceutical company over-marketing aside) but when they are longstanding and intense enough to disrupt one's life it is considered a mental disorder. I see compulsive pornographic viewing/eating etc. as in a different category for the reasons I described. Calling someone who over priorities the viewing of porno an addict is like calling an pyromaniac a fire addict. It more closely resemble OCD and/or an unusually high sex drive that was set biologically.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ Alcohol and coffee are not generally consumed for taste you reckon? I would have to strongly disagree with that statement, one only has to look at the difference in price of gourmet coffee and cheap instant shit to get an idea that the quality in taste is a big factor in a significant market share of the coffee market.

I am an alcoholic, have been for probably 5 years now, but even for me taste is a motivation for which alcohol I purchase. I believe it was highlighted somewhat recently in a thread in DitM just how much we pay for alcohol in Australia, perhaps it was another forum though, I could easily buy cheap beer for a bit under 40 to 45 per case of 24 330mL bottles, yet the beer I do buy tends to range in price from 50-80 dollars per case of 24. I do not pay more money because the more expensive beers have more alcohol content, in the case of heavy stouts and the like this is often the case but conversely, when buying pale ales the reverse is often true and they are slightly weaker than much cheaper macro lagers. Despite my very modest income I choose to spend more on alcohol, a drug which I am actually addicted to and could get more of if I purchased shitter tasting beer, but I opt for significantly less beer which I consider to be superior quality. How would you explain this unless the taste of beer was a significant motivation behind the purchase?

I should also probably point out that I actually enjoy the taste of a number of cheaper beers, just not close to as much as the more costly craft beers. I rarely drink coffee any more but when I used to I did not buy the cheap shit, in my opinion it tastes like ass.

Sure there might be a lot of people who don't care much about the taste of alcohol or coffee, but to argue they are not generally consumed for taste is just wrong in my opinion. I would agree neither are consumed for hydration, but in a hot climate, like Australia where I live, lighter bodied styles of beer are often consumed for refreshment.

 

[pmoseman]

Interesting. Interesting. Alcohol tastes like shit. Coffee is not a bad drink though.

 

[ro4eva]

This is like saying anything that makes you feel good gets you high. This trivializes addiction and is ridiculous. This type of concept is supported by impotent, decrepit, moralist old men and gender-insecure cunts whose egos get hurt when they see pornography.

Resorting to naming individuals in a derogatory manner for their opinions is not necessary to get your point across that you disagree. And it borders on cruel if they're suffering from an addiction (if a habit which they cannot stop is clearly causing more harm than good to their physical and/or mental health).

There is objective empirical evidence that several habits cause a significant release of dopamine into DA synapses. Many of these habits are offshoots of activities which we consider normal/typical (even essential) behavior as human beings.

At least one of these habits is directly associated with an activity which is a vital requirement for a human being to survive longer than a few weeks at most: eating. There is a fundamental difference however between the daily activity of eating something in order to provide nutrients to one's body, and the habit of habitually consuming so-called "comfort" or "junk" food in order to satisfy the taste buds in his or her mouth.

Another one of these habits is directly associated with an activity which is vital for the proliferation of the human race: sex. There is a fundamental difference between making love with your spouse and possibly conceiving a child, and obsessively sex seeking behavior resulting in unprotected sexual intercourse with multiple strangers.

It's easy to think these "addictions" are a sham if you've never personally experienced them, just as many drug prohibitionists believe drug addiction comes down to a simple choice of just saying no. However, since we have actually "been there" and experienced how difficult it is to simply stop - we know better.

As I've said before, some habits are surely more difficult to stop than others, but the same courtesy should be given to people who are suffering from other types of addictions, of which we may not have first-hand experience with.

 

[S.J.B.]

^ Alcohol and coffee are not generally consumed for taste you reckon? I would have to strongly disagree with that statement, one only has to look at the difference in price of gourmet coffee and cheap instant shit to get an idea that the quality in taste is a big factor in a significant market share of the coffee market.

I am an alcoholic, have been for probably 5 years now, but even for me taste is a motivation for which alcohol I purchase. I believe it was highlighted somewhat recently in a thread in DitM just how much we pay for alcohol in Australia, perhaps it was another forum though, I could easily buy cheap beer for a bit under 40 to 45 per case of 24 330mL bottles, yet the beer I do buy tends to range in price from 50-80 dollars per case of 24. I do not pay more money because the more expensive beers have more alcohol content, in the case of heavy stouts and the like this is often the case but conversely, when buying pale ales the reverse is often true and they are slightly weaker than much cheaper macro lagers. Despite my very modest income I choose to spend more on alcohol, a drug which I am actually addicted to and could get more of if I purchased shitter tasting beer, but I opt for significantly less beer which I consider to be superior quality. How would you explain this unless the taste of beer was a significant motivation behind the purchase?

I should also probably point out that I actually enjoy the taste of a number of cheaper beers, just not close to as much as the more costly craft beers. I rarely drink coffee any more but when I used to I did not buy the cheap shit, in my opinion it tastes like ass.

Sure there might be a lot of people who don't care much about the taste of alcohol or coffee, but to argue they are not generally consumed for taste is just wrong in my opinion. I would agree neither are consumed for hydration, but in a hot climate, like Australia where I live, lighter bodied styles of beer are often consumed for refreshment.

I believe that people learn to love the taste of coffee and alcoholic drinks because it is associated with a drug effect. It's the same reason I love the smell of certain chemicals being vaporized in a glass pipe.

Plus, if you're consuming it "solely for the taste" you get to exempt yourself from the category of "drug user," which is convenient!

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

^ truth. An admitted alcoholic cannot reasonably claim they are drinking for taste.

Ro4eva: I implied the ones supporting the concept are not the ones who supposedly have the "addiction". I am calling those people how I see them. I may have been derogatory but I was also very specific. They project their inadequacies onto those who view pornography.

I found it ironic when Slimvictor spoke of definitions based on ego/insecurities right after I had mentioned it in my first post (No, YOU!).

I do not believe in food addiction either. Making unhealthy choices in terms of food intake (junk food) while not exercising is a lifestyle choice. It is an insult to real addicts to act as if that is the same. The only possible exception would be hardcore binge eating/purging.

My point is that we shouldn't put mild habits in the same category as intense and destructive ones because it amounts to being overly clinical. We do in fact trivialize addiction by labelling pathetically minor habits like cannabis and junk food in the same light as a heroin addiction. We are also priming our own minds into being more susceptible to a totalitarian, nany-state mentality, allowing progressively more government monitoring and pharmaceutical intervention in our lives over time.

 

[drug_mentor]

I believe that people learn to love the taste of coffee and alcoholic drinks because it is associated with a drug effect. It's the same reason I love the smell of certain chemicals being vaporized in a glass pipe.

Plus, if you're consuming it "solely for the taste" you get to exempt yourself from the category of "drug user," which is convenient!

By that logic I would never enjoy the beers that I enjoy though, I got onto beer drinking through macro lagers and when I used to binge drink often that is what I would drink. I moved on to other beers like stouts and ales after trying just one or two glasses and realising how awesome they taste, if I was going to associate anything with the effect of alcohol it would be the cheaper alcohol that I rarely purchase any more.

Obviously there is an element of positive association reinforcing behaviour when it comes to any drug, but to say that alcohol and coffee are only enjoyed due to an association of the drugs effects is just wrong. I don't enjoy the effects of coffee/caffeine any more, but will have a small coffee from time to time because I actually think it is a very nice tasting beverage.

Dankopi8amp, as an admitted alcoholic I agree that I could not reasonably claim I am only drinking for taste. However, as I highlighted in my initial post in this thread, I undergo significant expense, despite my very modest income, to obtain beer that I consider superior to other beers that I still think have a relatively good taste. In my mind this totally refutes your claim that alcohol is not generally consumed for taste. As an alcoholic it would make no sense to financially limit how much alcohol I have access to on the basis of taste, unless your claim was totally false.

 

[slimvictor]

^ truth. An admitted alcoholic cannot reasonably claim they are drinking for taste.

Say what?
It is logically impossible for someone to both be addicted to alcohol and enjoy the taste?
Where did you get that idea?

You want to save the term "addiction" for what you consider "real drugs". I understand.
But what you are missing is that different people are controlled by different chemicals or hormones or feelings to different degrees, so that someone's addiction to cannabis might be more intense than a different person's addiction to heroin.
This guy's addiction to exercise was very, very intense. He himself claims that it was harder to stop his exercise addiction than his alcohol addiction.

Also a relevant thread that argues against what you are saying, OpiAmp: addiction is a learning disorder.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

Say what?
It is logically impossible for someone to both be addicted to alcohol and enjoy the taste?
Where did you get that idea?

You want to save the term "addiction" for what you consider "real drugs". I understand.
But what you are missing is that different people are controlled by different chemicals or hormones or feelings to different degrees, so that someone's addiction to cannabis might be more intense than a different person's addiction to heroin.
This guy's addiction to exercise was very, very intense. He himself claims that it was harder to stop his exercise addiction than his alcohol addiction.

Also a relevant thread that argues against what you are saying, OpiAmp: addiction is a learning disorder.

Dur! No I obviously meant that taste is not the primary motivator when an alcoholic is drinking.....

Also, you are inventing shit again, I never said drugs only (I included gambling etc.) I cannot believe you accused me of a straw man a few posts ago bubba....

Some anomalous person finding a cannabis habit particularly intense is irrelevant because they are freaks. Normal people do not get addicted to exercise after doing it many times but anyone can become hooked on heroin if they do.

You have failed to address what I spoke of in my last paragraph of the previous post. My argument is about nomenclature more than anything.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Ah opiamp, young grasshopper, you have so much yet to learn...

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

That seems absurd coming from you...

 

[Screaming_Skull]

Well something gets higher on me when watching porn,lol. But no, hasn't this study been done before??? Not really anything new. I remember some Mtv True life crap where the creepy husband got kicked outta his house from his wife/kids cuz of fhis porn addiction,would look at it all day etc.. think he lost his job cuz of it also.

 

[S.J.B.]

By that logic I would never enjoy the beers that I enjoy though, I got onto beer drinking through macro lagers and when I used to binge drink often that is what I would drink. I moved on to other beers like stouts and ales after trying just one or two glasses and realising how awesome they taste, if I was going to associate anything with the effect of alcohol it would be the cheaper alcohol that I rarely purchase any more.

Obviously there is an element of positive association reinforcing behaviour when it comes to any drug, but to say that alcohol and coffee are only enjoyed due to an association of the drugs effects is just wrong. I don't enjoy the effects of coffee/caffeine any more, but will have a small coffee from time to time because I actually think it is a very nice tasting beverage.

Dankopi8amp, as an admitted alcoholic I agree that I could not reasonably claim I am only drinking for taste. However, as I highlighted in my initial post in this thread, I undergo significant expense, despite my very modest income, to obtain beer that I consider superior to other beers that I still think have a relatively good taste. In my mind this totally refutes your claim that alcohol is not generally consumed for taste. As an alcoholic it would make no sense to financially limit how much alcohol I have access to on the basis of taste, unless your claim was totally false.

My point was that the initial liking comes with association to the drug effect. Once you already have that association, there is no contradiction if you drink coffee for the taste despite no longer liking the effect, because the connection has already been established.

People might drink alcohol or coffee only for the taste after having burned out the positive effect, and they might start drinking alcohol or coffee partially for the taste, but I would argue that it is very rare that someone starts drinking alcohol or coffee only for the taste.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ Stout tastes absolutely nothing like lager, do you drink beer? Why would I magically like stout because I have formed an association between the taste of lager and the effect of alcohol? That makes no sense at all.

If the enjoyment of alcohol was purely due to the association the the effect of alcohol, wouldn't my taste preference lean towards the beers I got my taste for alcohol on, as opposed to the beer types that I rarely consume in great quantity? Your logic falls apart when you consider that my taste preference goes strongly towards beer that I have considerably less association of the effects of alcohol with, as opposed to the beer I would most associate with the effect of alcohol.

Also, I enjoyed these beers as soon as I tried them. Obviously I know prior to drinking them that they contain alcohol, but I don't think it is reasonable to claim I only liked them because I knew they contained alcohol. Why would I take one sip and say to myself, why the fuck have I been drinking lager all this time? If the only factor in enjoyment of alcohol was association with intoxication why would I instantly like a drink I had only taken one sip of more than a drink I had been getting fucked up on regularly for years?

I think depending where you live a lot of people may start drinking alcohol for taste, in my age group in Australia, probably nobody I know did, but that is likely due to the fact that there is a cultural rite of passage where it as seen as not only normal, but basically expected to go out and get drunk as every weekend at a certain age. When people are young, they tend to prefer sweet tastes, and it is as they age that these tastes change more towards bitter and more complex flavours.

In a situation where most people are consuming alcohol semi regularly for the sake of getting drunk from 15 or 16 years of age then of course most peoples exposure to alcohol is due to trying to get drunk. This is hardly evidence that if there was a massive culture shift and most people did not binge drink in their youth that many people would not start consuming alcohol primarily for the taste. I think there are probably several countries in Europe that have more healthy drinking culture who tend to have one or two glasses of wine or beer with a meal as an example of this.

 

[S.J.B.]

^ Stout tastes absolutely nothing like lager, do you drink beer? Why would I magically like stout because I have formed an association between the taste of lager and the effect of alcohol? That makes no sense at all.

If the enjoyment of alcohol was purely due to the association the the effect of alcohol, wouldn't my taste preference lean towards the beers I got my taste for alcohol on, as opposed to the beer types that I rarely consume in great quantity? Your logic falls apart when you consider that my taste preference goes strongly towards beer that I have considerably less association of the effects of alcohol with, as opposed to the beer I would most associate with the effect of alcohol.

Also, I enjoyed these beers as soon as I tried them. Obviously I know prior to drinking them that they contain alcohol, but I don't think it is reasonable to claim I only liked them because I knew they contained alcohol. Why would I take one sip and say to myself, why the fuck have I been drinking lager all this time? If the only factor in enjoyment of alcohol was association with intoxication why would I instantly like a drink I had only taken one sip of more than a drink I had been getting fucked up on regularly for years?

I have said nothing about your case (someone who had been drinking for a long time and then changed to a different drink because they liked the taste better), I am talking about an association that occurs when one first starts drinking. Once you already like the taste of alcoholic drinks generally, it makes perfect sense that you might find one drink that you prefer over another, that in no way contradicts what I said.

In a situation where most people are consuming alcohol semi regularly for the sake of getting drunk from 15 or 16 years of age then of course most peoples exposure to alcohol is due to trying to get drunk. This is hardly evidence that if there was a massive culture shift and most people did not binge drink in their youth that many people would not start consuming alcohol primarily for the taste. I think there are probably several countries in Europe that have more healthy drinking culture who tend to have one or two glasses of wine or beer with a meal as an example of this.

One or two glasses of wine or beer still has a drug effect, especially on an adolescent.

 

[drug_mentor]

The major flaw in your theory is that alcoholic drinks do not have a general taste, their taste varies incredibly widely. It makes no sense that the only way I could enjoy one drink that tastes COMPLETELY different to another is because they both contained alcohol and the first one conditioned me to like all alcoholic drinks. Your theory is ridiculous.

Have you drank both lager and stout? If you have I am sure you would acknowledge that the tastes are so dis similar that there is basically no overlap whatsoever.

One or two small glasses of wine may have a subtle effect, but I don't feel it is a strong enough sensation to make someone instantly like the taste and continue drinking it. The wine or beer tends to be paired with food which reinforces my point that their primary motivation for drinking is the taste, since consuming the alcohol on an empty stomach would give them a greater drug effect.

 

[slimvictor]

Some people seem to be grasping at straws here.
They refuse to accept the idea that what might be a total addiction for one person could be a laughing matter for another.
They want certain addictions to "count", and others not to count, for their own reasons, which are not scientific.
They want to categorize addictions based on their own logic, but nobody here seems to be buying it.
Probably because it doesn't make sense...

 

[ro4eva]

Some people seem to be grasping at straws here.
They refuse to accept the idea that what might be a total addiction for one person could be a laughing matter for another.
They want certain addictions to "count", and others not to count, for their own reasons, which are not scientific.
They want to categorize addictions based on their own logic, but nobody here seems to be buying it.
Probably because it doesn't make sense...

Well, for what it's worth, it makes sense to me.

I obviously haven't experienced all the addictions I listed off, but I've seen others behaving in a very destructive manner with regards to several of them - such as gambling, sex, and comfort foods.

When I try to think about it, in all honestly, I cannot even begin to grasp how someone can become addicted to gambling. It's something which never appealed to my tastes. I have tried it many times in the past, but never enjoyed it much, regardless of the fact that I have won big.

But then, I see others who cannot stop, even after they've all but gambled away the shirts on their backs. And then I realize that my understanding of how an addiction to gambling "works" and manifests itself is not there because I haven't experienced it personally. Thankfully, I also realize that my understanding is not required for an addiction to exist.

I could be arrogant and ignorant about such things - all because I cannot grasp the concept. However, I've been on the other end of that straw far too many times, and have been treated like doodoo. So instead of choosing to be stubborn, I will not make opinions based on my inexperience to gambling addiction, because I sure as hell don't appreciate it when drug prohibitionists judge me about my heroin habit by screaming that I deserve to be left for dead because I'm too weak to stop, and that they are certain I can easily stop by simply saying no.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, treat others how I'd like myself to be treated, I say - even if I don't fully understand their issues. It can be VERY challenging at times to do this, but in the end, I find that it works out much better for both of us.

Hopefully you guys get what I'm trying to say, and I don't come across like The Riddler in this post, or others.