Relationship Journal Ends Support for Sex Addiction Claims
- This Psychology Today article details a significant decision by a journal's editorial board: to reject any submissions using the terms "sex addiction" or "porn addiction," and to discourage...
- * Rejection of Terms: The journal will outright reject articles using "sex addiction" or "porn addiction." * CSBD & ICD-11: While acknowledging the World Health Organization's diagnosis of...
- In essence, the journal is taking a firm stance against what they see as a scientifically unsupported and potentially damaging framework for understanding and treating problematic sexual behaviors.
Summary of the Psychology Today Article: A Journal Rejects “Sex Addiction” & “Porn Addiction”
This Psychology Today article details a significant decision by a journal’s editorial board: to reject any submissions using the terms “sex addiction” or “porn addiction,” and to discourage clinicians from using these concepts in their practice. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
* Rejection of Terms: The journal will outright reject articles using “sex addiction” or ”porn addiction.”
* CSBD & ICD-11: While acknowledging the World Health Organization’s diagnosis of Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD), the board insists it should only be used when strict ICD-11 criteria are met. Crucially, distress stemming from moral or shame-based beliefs doesn’t qualify as CSBD. They highlight that many therapists misdiagnose using this criteria.
* No Abstinence-Based Interventions: The journal will also reject articles promoting abstinence-based or addiction-oriented treatments, as research suggests these can worsen emotional health.
* Lack of Scientific Validity: The core reason for this decision is the board’s assertion that “sex addiction” and “porn addiction” lack scientific validity.They point to:
* The American Psychiatric Association’s long-standing rejection of these terms due to insufficient evidence.
* The ancient roots of these concepts in US moral/cultural traditions (and 12-step programs) rather then scientific research.
* Methodological flaws and bias in research supporting the “sex addiction” model.
* Debunked claims like “porn-induced erectile dysfunction.”
* Potential for Harm: The board argues that using the addiction model can be harmful, potentially pathologizing sexual diversity (including consensual nonmonogamy and non-heterosexual orientations) and even being used in harmful “conversion” attempts.
In essence, the journal is taking a firm stance against what they see as a scientifically unsupported and potentially damaging framework for understanding and treating problematic sexual behaviors. They advocate for a more nuanced approach grounded in evidence-based practices and a recognition of the role of moral and cultural factors in shaping perceptions of sexual behavior.