<p>This is not my area, but I think the definition of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction"><strong>addiction</strong></a> is contentious for many reasons. </p>

<p>Addiction often has normative implications; i.e., that addiction is bad. It can imply an inability to not do the act. </p>

<p>It doesn't seem useful to me to talk about being addicted to the needs necessary for survival, such as breathing, eating, excreting, modulating temperature, and so on. Sexual fulfilment is closely related to species survival, and as such is certainly a natural part of human existence. </p>

<p>It seems natural to ask the question of how often people masturbate. And with any such count, there will be people who do it more or less often. But in the absence of negative effects on others or the individual, why should anyone care how frequently someone masturbates? What would be gained from using the label of "addiction" based on frequency alone?</p>

<p>You might want to read up about discussions of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality">hypersexuality</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_addiction">sexual addiction</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-22T06:02:00.537Z
It is important because it demonstrates if the body masters the person or the person can master their body. It also demonstrates if there is free will in the matter. I understand your point about it being in the category of necessary for survival but that still doesn't mean it is absent of negative effects. Also, if sex addiction is officially recognized - I am sure there must be some parallels between the acts at a deeper level.
Greg McNulty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-14T19:58:56.260Z
I can think of two ways that eating a sex are different than homeostasis, excretion, and breathing: (1) eating and sexual activities are reinforced with glutamate and dopamine in the limbic system whereas the other activities are primarily brainstem functions, and (2) the DSM-V makes room for sex and eating addictions, but obviously not breathing and temp (oddly enough it does have a category for "elimination" disorders, so I'll stop short of including excretion.)
Kyle Cureau
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-22T05:12:25.647Z
2013-06-22T05:12:25.647Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p>All three answers on this page take the stance that masturbation cannot be an addiction.  Since this is a controversial topic, I'll play devils advocate:</p>

<p>Neurobiologically addiction is marked by</p>

<ol>
<li>Stress surfeit</li>
<li>Reward deficit</li>
<li>Stimulus-response perseveration</li>
<li>Self-regulation disorder</li>
</ol>

<p>(I got this from Dr. George Koob.)</p>

<p>So if masturbation starts losing its appeal, and is just done because it's stressful not to do it, then yes, I'd say that's evidence for the underlying neurological changes of addiction.</p>

<p>As for the comment that an "urge for a behavior does not make that behavior an addiction," I agree but I think urges are tightly coupled with addiction formation.  An urge is evidence of a mesocorticolimbic association between a stimuli and response.  When this connection is recognized by society as an "addiction" is just a matter of degree.</p>

<p>Perhaps, if you could measure your subjective experience of masturbation over time, you'd have a better idea of when you became addicted: specifically when masturbation only gets you to your former baseline levels of satisfaction.  So yes, maybe the urge isn't enough to call it addiction.  But it's at least evidence that your brain is busy forming one.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-14T19:52:51.417Z
Just posted this and got a -1, can I get feedback on why?
Kyle Cureau
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-16T17:16:29.163Z
Woops, I downvoted this and must've forgotten to leave feedback, sorry. I don't understand the connection between most of what you're saying here. For example, why do these four markers suggest that masturbation losing its appeal is evidence of neurological changes of addiction? It would seem like that violates at least #3 (perseveration).
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-16T23:45:08.157Z
I see. For me (2) "losing appeal" is the "reward deficit" aspect, (1) stress surfeit is the dopamine experienced by itself, i.e., tension for release becoming more dominant than the pleasure. (3) Stimulus-response preservation is the compulsion to keep going, despite (2) & (1). And then (4) is the inability to not cut back or go without for a bit.  I'm not familiar of any fMRIs on compulsive masturbators, but I can imagine that these subjective markers *might* indicate a neurobiological change similar to other addictions.
Kyle Cureau
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-14T04:40:47.187Z
2015-05-14T20:00:27.807Z
2015-05-14T20:00:27.807Z
Kyle Cureau
<p>Gary Wilson <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/" rel="nofollow">notes</a> that porn combined with masturbation could be an addiction. Masturbation by itself, however, seems to be completely natural. There seems to be two schools of thought on this topic: (i) masturbation is addiction, (ii) masturbation is not an addiction. People note that porn is an addiction due to the novelty of it. </p>

<p>Also sex addiction is <strong>not</strong> the same thing as porn addiction.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-30T09:47:32.910Z
2013-06-30T09:47:32.910Z
NebulousReveal
<p>The common theme in most studies/articles about masturbation is that as long as the act does not interfere with everyday life, it's not considered a problem.</p>

<p><strong>However, just because it doesn't interfere with everyday life, why is frequent NOT considered an addiction?</strong></p>

<p>(For example, some people are addicted to marijuana or cocaine but are still functional, however, it is still an addiction.)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This depends on the age, health, and personal needs of a guy. For
  instance, a survey on a popular masturbation site found that the
  average 13-year-old masturbates three times a day with over 10 percent
  masturbating over 6 times!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It sounds pretty clear that there is a strong, overpowering urge (regardless of reason) that has the individual repeating the act, in some cases many times a day. </p>

<p>So just because they can still get to work or turn in assignments at school/college, why is this not an addiction?</p>

<p>Ref. <a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_often_do_most_males_masturbate">http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_often_do_most_males_masturbate</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-24T03:09:08.427Z
I think the actual question should be why is regular marijuana or cocaine usage is considered to be an addiction.
rus9384
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-21T19:10:04.957Z
`For instance, a survey on a popular masturbation site`  I'm sure you're aware of the term "selection bias", that's a textbook example of it.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-22T05:54:39.840Z
@ChuckSherrington: for any other topic, except this one, I would agree that is highly important to note. but for this, it is almost impossible to find a study, survey, etc that shows the opposite on this topic.
Greg McNulty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-24T11:41:51.120Z
It seems the little word "just" is doing a lot of work here. Not interfering with everyday life is a big difference! Why shouldn't it be a part of every definition of addiction?
Gala
<measurement><sex-differences><addiction><sexuality>
Just because masturbation doesn't interfere with everyday life, why aren't higher rates considered an addiction?
Greg McNulty
# Just because masturbation doesn't interfere with everyday life, why aren't higher rates considered an addiction?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-06-21)

The common theme in most studies/articles about masturbation is that as long as the act does not interfere with everyday life, it's not considered a problem.

**However, just because it doesn't interfere with everyday life, why is frequent NOT considered an addiction?**

(For example, some people are addicted to marijuana or cocaine but are still functional, however, it is still an addiction.)

> This depends on the age, health, and personal needs of a guy. For
> instance, a survey on a popular masturbation site found that the
> average 13-year-old masturbates three times a day with over 10 percent
> masturbating over 6 times!

It sounds pretty clear that there is a strong, overpowering urge (regardless of reason) that has the individual repeating the act, in some cases many times a day.

So just because they can still get to work or turn in assignments at school/college, why is this not an addiction?

Ref. <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_often_do_most_males_masturbate>

**Tags:** measurement, sex-differences, addiction, sexuality

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: `For instance, a survey on a popular masturbation site`  I'm sure you're aware of the term "selection bias", that's a textbook example of it.  
> **username_0**: @ChuckSherrington: for any other topic, except this one, I would agree that is highly important to note. but for this, it is almost impossible to find a study, survey, etc that shows the opposite on this topic.  
> **username_3**: It seems the little word "just" is doing a lot of work here. Not interfering with everyday life is a big difference! Why shouldn't it be a part of every definition of addiction?  
> **username_1**: I think the actual question should be why is regular marijuana or cocaine usage is considered to be an addiction.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_7 on 2013-06-30. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Gary Wilson [notes](http://yourbrainonporn.com/) that porn combined with masturbation could be an addiction. Masturbation by itself, however, seems to be completely natural. There seems to be two schools of thought on this topic: (i) masturbation is addiction, (ii) masturbation is not an addiction. People note that porn is an addiction due to the novelty of it.

Also sex addiction is **not** the same thing as porn addiction.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2013-06-22. Score: 8

This is not my area, but I think the definition of [**addiction**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction) is contentious for many reasons.

Addiction often has normative implications; i.e., that addiction is bad. It can imply an inability to not do the act.

It doesn't seem useful to me to talk about being addicted to the needs necessary for survival, such as breathing, eating, excreting, modulating temperature, and so on. Sexual fulfilment is closely related to species survival, and as such is certainly a natural part of human existence.

It seems natural to ask the question of how often people masturbate. And with any such count, there will be people who do it more or less often. But in the absence of negative effects on others or the individual, why should anyone care how frequently someone masturbates? What would be gained from using the label of "addiction" based on frequency alone?

You might want to read up about discussions of [hypersexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality) and [sexual addiction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_addiction).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: It is important because it demonstrates if the body masters the person or the person can master their body. It also demonstrates if there is free will in the matter. I understand your point about it being in the category of necessary for survival but that still doesn't mean it is absent of negative effects. Also, if sex addiction is officially recognized - I am sure there must be some parallels between the acts at a deeper level.  
> **username_5**: I can think of two ways that eating a sex are different than homeostasis, excretion, and breathing: (1) eating and sexual activities are reinforced with glutamate and dopamine in the limbic system whereas the other activities are primarily brainstem functions, and (2) the DSM-V makes room for sex and eating addictions, but obviously not breathing and temp (oddly enough it does have a category for "elimination" disorders, so I'll stop short of including excretion.)  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2015-05-14. Score: 0

All three answers on this page take the stance that masturbation cannot be an addiction. Since this is a controversial topic, I'll play devils advocate:

Neurobiologically addiction is marked by

1. Stress surfeit
2. Reward deficit
3. Stimulus-response perseveration
4. Self-regulation disorder

(I got this from Dr. George Koob.)

So if masturbation starts losing its appeal, and is just done because it's stressful not to do it, then yes, I'd say that's evidence for the underlying neurological changes of addiction.

As for the comment that an "urge for a behavior does not make that behavior an addiction," I agree but I think urges are tightly coupled with addiction formation. An urge is evidence of a mesocorticolimbic association between a stimuli and response. When this connection is recognized by society as an "addiction" is just a matter of degree.

Perhaps, if you could measure your subjective experience of masturbation over time, you'd have a better idea of when you became addicted: specifically when masturbation only gets you to your former baseline levels of satisfaction. So yes, maybe the urge isn't enough to call it addiction. But it's at least evidence that your brain is busy forming one.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Just posted this and got a -1, can I get feedback on why?  
> **username_6**: Woops, I downvoted this and must've forgotten to leave feedback, sorry. I don't understand the connection between most of what you're saying here. For example, why do these four markers suggest that masturbation losing its appeal is evidence of neurological changes of addiction? It would seem like that violates at least #3 (perseveration).  
> **username_5**: I see. For me (2) "losing appeal" is the "reward deficit" aspect, (1) stress surfeit is the dopamine experienced by itself, i.e., tension for release becoming more dominant than the pleasure. (3) Stimulus-response preservation is the compulsion to keep going, despite (2) & (1). And then (4) is the inability to not cut back or go without for a bit.  I'm not familiar of any fMRIs on compulsive masturbators, but I can imagine that these subjective markers *might* indicate a neurobiological change similar to other addictions.  

---

