Relationship Journal Draws Line Against Sex Addiction
A sexual and relationship therapy journal prohibits reference to sex addiction.
Posted December 9, 2025 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer Ph.D.
The Journal of Sexual and Relationship Therapy is a prominent journal publishing research, case studies and clinical discussions regarding sexuality and intimate relationships. Their journal articles are viewed and downloaded on average about 160,000 times a year. Their aim and scope is to offer “a multidisciplinary forum for review and debate in the field of psychosexual and relationship therapies. It presents original research and best practice and is a vehicle for new theory, methodology, and application.” This is why it is significant that the journal’s editors have issued a statement that they regard the debate on sex addiction as closed, and will no longer accept submissions to the journal that use the terms sex or pornography addiction .
The tiresome debate about whether sex or porn addiction are real or not has gone on for decades, led primarily by committed, dedicated advocates for these terms, who are overwhelmingly people who make money from treating these alleged conditions, or who self-identify as sex addicts, or both. I’ve written in the past about the ways in which researchers on pornography and sex have predominantly stopped viewing addiction as a useful model or explanation. Unfortunately, many therapists, including relationship therapists, have continued to use this outdated language. To have this prominent and well-read journal now reject the concepts of sex and porn addiction sends a powerful message to these therapists.
The Official Journal Position
The journal’s editorial board asserted that, henceforth, it will not publish work using the terms “sex addiction” or “porn addiction.” Submissions including these terms will be rejected outright, and sent back to the authors. The board went even further and encouraged clinicians who read their journal to outright abandon these concepts and to cease using them in their clinical practice.
Some clinicians have argued that the World Health Organization’s diagnosis of Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD) is an equivalence to sex addiction, and that this disorder represents a vindication of sex addiction . Not so, says the journal’s board, and further, they require that any submissions describing compulsive sexual behavior should only use this term when ICD -11 (International Classification of Disease) criteria are fully met. This is significant; CSBD is not diagnosable when the distress around sexual behavior is primarily driven by moral distress or sexual shame . Further, research has been published demonstrating that half of therapists misuse this diagnosis and don’t fully apply the criteria.
Finally the journal’s editorial board prohibited submission of articles which promote abstinence-based or addiction-oriented interventions for sexual behaviors. Research has shown that these interventions appear to increase distress and actually worsen people’s emotional health.
Why They Made This Decision
The editorial board lays out extensive arguments and scientific, clinical and ethical justifications for their decision to prohibit and reject discussion of sex and porn addiction. First, as I’ve long argued, they assert that these terms simply lack any scientific validity and do not have sufficient scientific evidence to be considered legitimate diagnoses. They point out that the American Psychiatric Association has rejected these terms for many years, specifically based on a lack of scientific evidence, and that the historical development of these terms comes mostly from US-based moral, cultural, and 12-step traditions, not science. Research has shown significant methodological problems in research that promotes the sex addiction model, with evidence of high levels of ideological bias , and low levels of diversity in their research samples. They point out that popular claims of “ porn-induced erectile dysfunction ” are common in sex addiction, but have been repeatedly debunked and scientifically disproven.
Further, they point to research that misuses of the addiction model and framework causes harm. Because these models stem from moral and religious values, they may often pathologize sexual diversity, consensual nonmonogamy or non-heterosexual orientations or behaviors. Like me, the editorial board pointed to the use of sex and porn addiction treatments to attempt to change or “ convert ” non-heterosexual sexual orientations, a harmful and condemned clinical practice.
Finally, the editorial board stated simply that addiction-based treatments for sexual behavior problems are often harmful. They criticized 12-step sex addiction programs for promoting abstinence rooted in moralistic or religious ideology. They also called out online abstinence-based groups such as NoFap for containing misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ+, and generally harmful content. Some sex addiction therapists have recommended use of pain-based aversion, or “short, sharp shock” methods — methods which have no evidence of efficacy and are likely to be harmful.
What to Submit Instead
The board states that they were guided in their work on this statement by:
They encourage submissions and clinical approaches which emphasize:
The journal’s editorial board encourages submissions of articles that replace addiction models with sexological, non-pathologizing clinical frameworks and emphasized that CSBD (Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder) is distinct and rare, and should be treated as such in submissions. They pointed out that while the ICD-11 recognizes CSBD, it is: an impulse-control disorder, not an addiction; it is frequently misused or over-diagnosed by clinicians; and it is difficult to diagnose because according to the ICD-11, all criteria must be met, including impairment, persistence, and not being driven only by moral conflict.
I applaud the journal’s editorial board and the authors of this statement. This is how our field progresses and moves forward, leaving behind out-of-date, debunked, and harmful practices. Responsible journals no longer publish articles which promote dangerous, harmful practices such as “rebirthing” or recovered memory techniques. Unless advocates for sex or porn addiction can generate objective empirical evidence for their validity, accuracy, safety and effectiveness, it’s time to leave these concepts in the dustbin of history, with other discarded, outdated terms and techniques.
Markie L. C. Twist, Silva Neves, Michael A. Vigorito, Gávi Ansara, Elna Rudolph, Keith Marshall, Mahmoud Baydoun & Rafael Herrero (03 Nov 2025): Statement from the journal of sexual and relationship therapy: international perspectives on theory, research, and practice on ‘sex addiction,’ ‘pornography addiction’, out-of-control-sexualbehaviours, and compulsive sexual behaviours, Sexual and Relationship Therapy, DOI: 10.1080/14681994.2025.2578550
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
David J. Ley, Ph.D. , is a clinical psychologist and the author of Insatiable Wives, Women Who Stray and The Men Who Love Them .
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.