Hacker News Reader

Comment by Georgelemental | Hacker News Reader

The porn did not "relieve" anything, it was the source of the problem.

That's like saying 'sleeping too much is the source of depression'. Viewing too much porn is a result of a different problem. Happy and healthy people aren't accidentally becoming addicted to porn.

Happy and healthy people don't usually become addicted to heroin either.

Sure they do. There are literally thousands of stories of people who were in a car wreck, sports accident, or some kind of injury and then they get prescribed Oxy and when that runs out they are so addicted they end up getting black market pills and then when they can't afford that they move to heroin.

Opiates are insanely physically addictive and you can easily accidentally become addicted to them using them as prescribed, hence all the lawsuits.

The conversation rate from pill addiction to heroin is order of magnitude 10%, even ignoring the logical leap made in saying people who get addicted to pills all have happy fulfilling lives. I think it’s substantially correct to say that happy and healthy people, by and large, don’t get addicted to heroin.

>even ignoring the logical leap made in saying people who get addicted to pills all have happy fulfilling lives.

Well lucky for you, I didn't make that claim!

Either your comment wasn't responsive to Georgelemental's or you implicitly made some version of that claim.

Thanks for sharing your anecdote. Because it hasn't been my experience, I prefer to take scientific studies as my guide.

What studies? The link you shared is a click-baity ("Science stopped believing in X and you should too") article by an individual clinical psychologist referencing (and overstating) the findings of a proposed etiological model and accompanying systematic review which suggested moral incongruity as one underlying cause, perhaps the key cause in these authors opinions[0].

Notably this study predated the addition of compulsive sexual behavior disorder to ICD-11 and was neither validated nor accepted as the correct model (hence excessive use of 'proposed' and 'preliminary'). You may also notice there are seven separate commentaries in response to this study with an eighth by the original authors in which they acknowledge the several limitations of their proposed model[1] and make the following statement:

"Rather than present an argument against CSBD, it is our intention and belief that our model of PPMI adds needed nuance to ensure the accurate use of the CSBD diagnosis."

[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-018-1248-x

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-1406-9

Reply on news.ycombinator.com