Well, made it into @NRO along w/ @kelsyburke & @DrDavidLey. FWIW, I've never denied that "pornography addiction" *can* be a thing. Nor am I a pro-porn activist. BUT the data demands we recognize how much "addiction" language is cultural-code, divorced... 1/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/anti-anti-porn/

...from how often someone is actually using porn. Quick example I've shown before. This is the % of men who say they've NEVER used pornography, but agree they're "addicted" to it. Look at born-again Christians compared to others. Can you be "addicted" to something you've never 2/

used? Over 42% of born-again Christian men think they are. Clearly there's a disconnect. My agenda has never been to debunk "porn addiction." Not my fight. But it has been to show how the cultural *meaning* of pornography has consequences for the mental, spiritual, & social... 3/

...health of certain populations. Gender is part of that too, as @kelsyburke points out in her @Slate article. In a normatively-complementarian subculture, men are thought to be visual so porn is a natural temptation. Women are assumed to be about relationships, not visual... 4/

images. Porn is thought to be "a dude thing" so when Christian women view porn they feel doubly-perverted & ashamed. That was my argument about sinning against one's gender. Anyway, the @NRO author misses the point by arguing social scientists are all just pro-porn/anti-men 5/end