which isn’t really productive in my view.

The author made a case for why such a distinction is important.

I will add something to the arguments made by the authors of this study: Having demonstrated that it is the moral conflict and self-identity of porn addict which is harmful, it is thus upon us to confront the social, media, and clinical use of this concept. It causes and perpetuates harm by focusing attention upon porn rather than the true cause: the moral conflict over one’s sexual desires. Clinicians who continue to promote the idea of porn addiction are, like those who promote age-regression hypnosis or recovered memory therapy, engaging in malpractice. Websites and advocacy groups that promote and encourage identification as porn addicts are doing harm to their followers, and can become like the hucksters promoting naturopathic treatment despite federal medical groups identifying such treatments as ineffective and potentially harmful. Ultimately, all should be held accountable for their inaccurate, outdated, and exploitative actions.

Chuds love to just blame somebody instead of interrogating a situation.