Pr0n at Work = Addiction?

December 14, 2006 5:05 AM

Pr0n at Work = Addiction? Spawning from such cases as a recent lawsuit with IBM over employee termination due to online sex chatting at work, recent debate over whether Internet abuse is a legitimate addiction, akin to alcoholism, is heating up. Attorneys say recognition by a court—whether in this or some future litigation—that Internet abuse is an uncontrollable addiction, and not just a bad habit, could redefine the condition as a psychological impairment worthy of protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Businesses would be required to allow medical leave and provide counseling. The condition could even make it into the next edition of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM, making it a full-blown neurosis. It wouldn't be a complete surprise, with a recent Stanford study showing that 14% of people state it would be "hard to stay away" from the net for a few days in a row.
posted by PreacherTom (49 comments total)

Fuck these new "addictions". Like "shopping addiction", it's pure weakness of will.

Soon, everyone's problems will be neuroses and no one will be fired for anything.
posted by Spacelegoman at 5:22 AM on December 14, 2006

Wouldn't this be rightly considered a compulsive behavior? I thought "addiction" implied a physical substance.
posted by pax digita at 5:22 AM on December 14, 2006

It wouldn't be a complete surprise, with a recent Stanford study showing that 14% of people state it would be "hard to stay away" from the net for a few days in a row.

Internet addiction != porn (on the internet) addiction.

I also honestly think that 14% of people would find it hard to stay away from newspapers for a few days in a row. Which is what the internet is to the majority of people I know: a newer medium for information and entertainment.
posted by slimepuppy at 5:25 AM on December 14, 2006

OMG! I'm on the net right now...
posted by fairmettle at 5:30 AM on December 14, 2006

Agree with pax digita - things like sex, food - is considered a behavioral control problem, or "weakness of will" if your from the 19th C, a "bad humor" in the 17th C, or just "The Devil" for those who want it simple and timeless.
posted by stbalbach at 5:46 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

I remember when newspapers first came out. All the "print junkies" want papers delivered to their houses. Some would read two or three a day! The tell tale ink stains on the fingers said it a...

sigh.
posted by ewkpates at 5:52 AM on December 14, 2006

Sounds like the Rx companies need to come up with a pill!
posted by evilelvis at 5:53 AM on December 14, 2006

What a load of BS. This belongs right up there with that idiot kid who was suing the schools because they weren't suited to boys since boys can't sit still. Pathetic wastes of sob story bullshit. And I say that as someone who has a hard time keeping off the internet here at work.
posted by OmieWise at 6:13 AM on December 14, 2006

Businesses would be required to allow medical leave and provide counseling.

Pffft
posted by prostyle at 6:14 AM on December 14, 2006

Give 'em a couple spikes of heroin, help them understand the difference between addiction and pooch-diddling on the companies dime.
posted by substrate at 6:22 AM on December 14, 2006

I tried so hard not to comment, but I failed. The internet is stronger than I.
posted by jouke at 6:26 AM on December 14, 2006

Metafilter: The Gateway Internets.
posted by Atreides at 6:29 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

If one neglected work all day to simultaneously beat off to porn on one screen and play World of Warcraft on another would one be "dual addicted" or just "talented?"
posted by The Straightener at 6:40 AM on December 14, 2006

This thread is making me soooo hottt.
posted by jonmc at 6:44 AM on December 14, 2006

You know how it is. The last time I tried to go a few hours without the Blue, it went the same way it always does. I got the sniffles, then the ache. That ache, it feels like it's coming from inside your bones. You know what I'm talking about. Then the sniffle gets worse. Nose running like a faucet. Every pore a little mouth screaming for Blue. I had to get some. I didn't have any money, and there weren't any libraries around, so I found myself in a Home Depot, looking for shit to steal. I found a current receipt for a wheelbarrow. I was shaking like I was at the North Pole. After a few false starts, I managed to grab one, and walk that shit right out the door. I returned it for the cash, and got myself to the café down the street. I used the money to buy some "online time", if you know what I mean.

While I was waiting for the login screen, my stomach started to churn, and I thought I was going to shit my pants, but as soon as I typed it in, XXXXX, XXXXXXXX, man, it was like eating sunshine. God, there's nothing like it, that Blue screen and the white text, I just sat there and read and nodded and scratched myself for an hour, all my cells soaking up that mellow, mellow Blue.

I wish I could stop.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:01 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

Dude, it was worse for me. Last time Mefi went down, they found me scrawling a 'post' on the side of a blue building, and pounding an 'enter' key fashioned from a cardboard box, screaming 'comment, you fucks!'

Then they took me away.
posted by jonmc at 7:08 AM on December 14, 2006 [3 favorites]

There is a difference between "Porn addiction" and "internet addiction." I can go without porn. Without the internet? I'd kill myself.
posted by delmoi at 7:11 AM on December 14, 2006

I can stop anytime.
posted by StarForce5 at 7:18 AM on December 14, 2006

I haven't the foggiest what this shit is all about but I just wanted to thank substrate for "pooch-diddling."
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:18 AM on December 14, 2006

Oh and when one of you wakes up in a ditch covered in your own urine, wearing nothing but a down vest with an empty fifth of bacardi in the pocket and speedos, after too much internetin', get back to me.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:24 AM on December 14, 2006

(emails kevinsomsvold)
posted by zek at 7:29 AM on December 14, 2006

I can't stop clicking on the links in this post.
posted by psmealey at 7:31 AM on December 14, 2006

don't panic! ... there's a web site that can help you! ... they even have a mailing list for those who need extra support!
posted by pyramid termite at 7:31 AM on December 14, 2006

Weak-willed, distraction-prone, a commited user, "I could quit if I want to, I just don't want to," not as bad as drugs, not a physical substance, just another made-up religious moralistic sin problem, just lack of self control, just compulsive behavior. Just don't admit there might be a problem.
posted by Milkman Dan at 7:39 AM on December 14, 2006

It seems to be implied by the article that it's hard to fire somebody for being unreliable or performing badly if those problems are related to alcoholism. How hard is it? Who gets covered by this legislation? Or does it just mean that you can't fire someone for alcoholism if they are getting their job done?
posted by teleskiving at 7:49 AM on December 14, 2006

Internet Addiction Recovery
Features
Podcast: Download and Listen to our newest Podcast
Blogger: Check out our new Recovery Blog
Referral Directory: Find valuable resources in our online bookstore
Join our mailing list... and (wait for it)...
Email this page to a friend

For updates, please refresh this page NOW!
posted by hal9k at 8:03 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

teleskiving writes "...that it's hard to fire somebody for being unreliable or performing badly if those problems are related to alcoholism."

I think that's wrong. If someone comes forward and idetifies themselves as having something that constitutes a disability under the ADA, then you have to make some accomodations for them. You may have to give them the chance to get treatment, you may have to give them some extra time off. You can still fire them if they perform badly, but you have to show that they are performing badly within the outlines of the accomodation.
posted by OmieWise at 8:16 AM on December 14, 2006

If someone's addiction is so bad that it's making him unfit for work, he should be fired. It's the clearest message you can send someone in that position. If addiction is treated like it's a disability you can't overcome, the addicted person is just gonna go on and on.
posted by svenni at 8:19 AM on December 14, 2006

For updates, please refresh this page NOW!

Is that methadone for internet addiction?
posted by psmealey at 8:36 AM on December 14, 2006

Contrary to your comment, it's firing someone that treats addiction as something that can't be overcome ("You can't be rehabilitated, see ya!"), while telling them that they can retain their job as long as they get treatment and come back to work fit for duty suggests that an addiction is something that can be dealt with. The ADA does not permit addicted folks to pursue their addictions at work--if you snort coke at work, you get fired, ADA or not. What it does do is suggest that addicts should have the opportunity to get treatment in order to demonstrate that they can be productive employees.
posted by OmieWise at 8:36 AM on December 14, 2006

If you don't want people surfing, don't give them access. How difficult is that?
I used to work in a company whose product was a web-based app and, even there, I doubt that 3/4 of the employees had any legitimate, work-related need to have web access.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:58 AM on December 14, 2006

Is this the same Preacher Tom from the Slashdot article from today also?
posted by moxyberry at 9:01 AM on December 14, 2006

Eh, well you can become psychologically addicted to anything, and if you're really hooked, it can offer lovely endogenous opiate rewards, too. The difference: absence of tolerance -- the need for greater stimulation for the same effect. And tolerance is where addiction really kicks in. Without tolerance, well, you're just getting off on your chosen activity. It may be an 'addiction', but it bears little resemblance to drug versions of same, and shouldn't be afforded the same kind of considerations.
posted by dreamsign at 9:09 AM on December 14, 2006

slimepuppy said it first, but I think it bears expanding on.

The internet it a vital part of most Canadians'/Americans' lives, much like the phone, the tv, he newspaper, or a car, and like these, it is integrated into our everyday lives quite extensively. Using the internet every day or saying that it would be hard to go without it for a few days does not equal an addiction. I would find it very hard to go without a telephone for a few days, does this mean that I should give it up as it is obviously an addiction? Of course not. Same with the newspaper or the tv. (I leave the car out of this because I do feel that our civilization has an oil addiction, but that's another thread entirely.)

I am willing to accept evidence on certain online activities being addictions (pr0n, chatting, WoW, etc) although my mind is by no means made up.
posted by arcticwoman at 9:30 AM on December 14, 2006

Wikipedia on the subject of porn addiction. The Bullets For My Beast site.
posted by nickyskye at 9:46 AM on December 14, 2006

Using the internet every day or saying that it would be hard to go without it for a few days does not equal an addiction.

Imagine skipping meals because you don't want to tear yourself away. Relationships suffer. You're not even enjoying your time that much. You'd rather be doing something else, but when you're not doing it, you're thinking about it, and any environmental cues (seeing your computer, reading a story about the web, etc) creates a sharp compulsion to get back on again.

Still not a physical addiction by any stretch but definitely resembles an addiction more than it does other items of habitual use. (another term with multiple applicable meanings)

There are definitely people out there with this level of internet/chat/email/video game O/C. And they could probably use some counseling. The difference here is that a psychologist would send a drug user to a psychiatrist to deal with the physical addiction first. That being said, it doesn't mean that the person in question can simply "get over it" on their own. People develop all kinds of non-physical disorders that they find impossible to rid themselves of alone (phobias, various neuroses, etc.).

Anyway, like gambling, most people keep these things in check, and it's easy for the rest of us to tut-tut in their direction. 'Weak' might be an accurate description in terms of succeptability, just without the connotation of blame. Some posters here are lumping the hypochondriac in with the malingerer, and it's just not the same thing. (for the addict, not just the lazy who are making excuses for their behaviour)
posted by dreamsign at 9:48 AM on December 14, 2006

"Internet Addiction" is being called an addiction because it has some very unusual symptoms. Among them are signs of withdrawal like unconscious physical movements (typing with one's fingers when a keyboard is not around) or twitching. "Time distortion" is another very interesting symptom. That's where a person intends to go online for a short period which suddenly becomes hours. This happens to gamblers as well. The work and social lives of "addicts" can also be significantly affected.

Many people joke about it or dismiss it, but for some people it is a very bad problem in their life. If it is specifically addressed and dealt with, it can really change and improve their lives. I was as skeptical as anyone but reading about it turned up a lot of interesting facts. It is a very interesting topic that people should at least be aware about.
posted by redteam at 10:25 AM on December 14, 2006

I’m like internet addicted, except with cocaine.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:12 AM on December 14, 2006

> People develop all kinds of non-physical disorders that they find impossible to rid themselves
> of alone (phobias, various neuroses, etc.).

They do when they don't have anything real to worry about, like fleeing from invading Huns. It just shows that the quality of life is unimprovable. Once you fix the major problems, people fixate on minor ones and suffer just as much over these (or think they do.) If you fixed the minor problems, people would experience the same uncontrollable life trainwrecks over microscopic ones.
posted by jfuller at 11:27 AM on December 14, 2006 [2 favorites]

Once you fix the major problems, people fixate on minor ones and suffer just as much over these (or think they do.)

You may be half-joking, but that's a common healthy person's point of view. Just like "people don't really need counseling; they just need friends." Some people really are in dire straits, but it's difficult to relate when you've got your sense of perspective. Addiction is about losing all perspective. Some people really spiral off beyond all recognition.

Unfortunately that's also why it's difficult for most to sympathize. And then the addiction people push back by claiming everything to be a 'disease'. In any case, I doubt that danger pre-empts neuroses; if anything, omnipresent danger is a breeding ground for them (just look at PTSD aka shell shock -- but those guys are just 'weak', too).

You make me wonder, though. Not all disorders are equal. I mentioned phobias simply as an example of a problem that's difficult to solve on your own, but it reminds me of a night a long time back when I watched an unusually scary movie and then had to wander through a very dangerous part of town to get home. Any horror-movie heebie-jeebies were well staved off by the prospect of real street violence (till I got home). Had I a phobia, however, I'm sure I would give avoiding the stimulus the priority, even if it meant endangering myself by way of the 'real' threat. But phobias and fear of 'rational' danger are both about self-preservation. Would I endanger myself to pursue an addiction? (I think so, just thinking of what addicts do to themselves, but it's an interesting question) If so, for a psychological addiction particularly, it demonstrates that psych addictions bear little relation to everyday fixations.

redteam -- gamblers sometimes do the involuntary twitching, too.
posted by dreamsign at 11:56 AM on December 14, 2006

Still not a physical addiction by any stretch but definitely resembles an addiction more than it does other items of habitual use. (another term with multiple applicable meanings)

I'm not saying that addictions to online stimuli don't exist. What I am saying is that it isn't the internet that people are addicted to so much as it is the things they are doing online. As such, asking people if it would be difficult to go several days without the internet is not relevant to a discussion on internet addiction. The question needs to be better defined, and we can't really know what is abnormal until we know what "typical" use is. If most people who use the internet check their email twice a day, then maybe we should ask "How many times a day do you check your email? Would you find it hard to only check it twice a day?"

Also, a complicating factor with internet addiction is that, unlike most addictions, the internet is something that many of us are required to use for our jobs or school. Maybe I would find it impossible to go a full day without my email because without email I cannot do my job. I would find it very hard to go a few days without internet because I am a student, and I need the internet every day for research. This would make any judgments of "typical" internet use really complicated.
posted by arcticwoman at 12:38 PM on December 14, 2006

Surfing porn at work is something I've heard about quite often, but I've never actually seen it. I assume that one would have to be pretty hard up (hehe) to watch pornography in a place where the computers don't belong to you, you're surrounded by people who could get you fired, and you're supposed to, if not actually work (there is such a thing as downtime), at least keep your browsing to relatively inoffensive sites.

Then again there isn't a sysadmin alive who can't tell you a story about deleting 40 gigs of porn off the computer assigned to some guy who had some fancy title. I have to wonder if most of these stories aren't untruths, or at least exaggerations.
posted by clevershark at 1:03 PM on December 14, 2006

arcticwoman - to better come to terms with what "typical" use is, especially when it comes to going online for your job or school, consider if one's internet use is interfering with one's work or school. Is this excessive use very difficult or impossible to change? Does the internet user (at the risk of begging the question) have any of the unusual symptoms that only other addicts get?

Or just wait a little while and dreamsign will make another fully coherent and explanatory comment.
posted by redteam at 1:16 PM on December 14, 2006

I just can't hear the words "workplace" and "addiction" without thinking of this Brass Eye sketch. (youtube)
posted by treepour at 2:36 PM on December 14, 2006

Then again there isn't a sysadmin alive who can't tell you a story about deleting 40 gigs of porn off the computer assigned to some guy who had some fancy title. I have to wonder if most of these stories aren't untruths, or at least exaggerations.

I haven't run into a 40GB stash yet, but one of my coworkers used to download porn videos regularly (I'm a part-time sysadmin at a small company). Now ... he has FIOS at home.

I've also found "Captain Stabbin" in ethereal logs. Aargh, mateys!

I also did some onsite consulting at a doctor's office once, and found a massive stash of GIFs (this was back in the day when you downloaded your porn from Compuserve or some BBS) because there wasn't enough room for me to install his required business software. It wasn't 40 GBs, but at the time I'd recently purchased a 300 MB drive and that was the largest available.

So, yeah, there are plenty of people looking at porn at work. I suspect that most small companies just don't bother filtering and logging internet access, or if they do, they don't expend much effort on it. I know we don't.

Personally, other than the variety available, I haven't understood the popularity of internet porn. I think that the DVD is really the pinnacle of porn technology right now. I haven't seen anything online with, say, the production values of a typical Bel Ami movie. And those Czech guys are hot, hot, hot!
posted by me & my monkey at 5:03 PM on December 14, 2006

Personally I think I'd be embarassed to death if I were watching porn at the office and someone popped by my cubicle and asked me what I was doing. I'm self-conscious even just looking at the usual SFW YouTube stuff that gets posted on the front page, just because it's video.
posted by clevershark at 7:00 PM on December 14, 2006

OK. I'll fess up. I, jason's_planet, am an innernet workplace porno addict.

I admit that I am powerless to control my compulsion to look at

www.mymomsfuckingthefootballteam.com

www.naughtymidgetslutsgotoRio.com

www.bigbrazilianbutts.com

among others, on company time.

so I got down on my knees and asked a Higher Power for help.

He laughed at me, called me a fucking chump and told me to come back when I had a real addiction.
posted by jason's_planet at 7:29 PM on December 14, 2006

Actually, tolerance isn't necessary to addiction, nor is withdrawal: cocaine actually produces a phenomenon called sensitization (aka reverse tolerance) where over time smaller doses produce *larger* effects. Sadly, this happens with respect to "side effects' like paranoia and anxiety, rather than to desired effects like euphoria (to which there is some tolerance).

but tolerance isn't infinite (many pain patients can stay on a steady dose of opioids-- they do get tolerant to the drowsiness and euphoria but not as much to the pain relief) nor is it especially relevant to the problems associated with addiction.

also, tolerance and sensitization are both normal parts of learning: we develop tolerance to things that are no longer new and occur repeatedly in patterns; we get sensitized to novel, highly stimulating and infrequent/unpredictable events that may be dangerous or opportune.

and there are substances that produce both tolerance and withdrawal but not addiction: certain blood pressure medications can kill you if you suddenly stop taking them (and you may need more over time) but no one craves them.

The psychological aspect is critical: zillions of people quit smoking over and over and over and similarly quit heroin over and over and over. The physical dependence isn't what keeps them from staying stopped: it's the psychological dependence. Which, of course, *is* physical as everything psychological must be anyway so it's a rather silly distinction.

In fact, cocaine produces virtually no physical dependence in the classical sense: you don't get sick when you stop suddenly, just miserable.

Addiction is best defined as compulsive engagement with a substance or activity despite repeated negative consequences. Internet addiction might qualify if it *genuinely* met those criteria, but that is extremely rare. those surveys aren't typically looking at people who meet full criteria, just looking at those who meet partial criteria.

Sex addiction and food addiction are probably the most difficult cases in terms of defining-- since the reward system was designed to motivate people to eat and reproduce, it's hardly surprising when it does so. Especially when it does so in an environment where food and sex or simulations thereof are much more available than they were in the situation in which we evolved to live.
posted by Maias at 8:53 PM on December 14, 2006

You are looking at tits on the company's dime you sick bastard!
posted by Pollomacho at 10:17 PM on December 14, 2006