So THREE criteria involve the circular (fallacious) logic, and yet, THREE criteria are sufficient for suspecting addiction.

I would remove all the three criteria with circular logic. About the rest: the very best part of this list of criteria is in the end, the last two sentences. That the criterion is so comprehensive - not "how many times a week do you do XYZ" which is arbitrary, but "does your life revolve around sex, the way the life of a cocaine addict revolves around cocaine?" - makes it especially valuable. Comprehensive approaches are smart.

Notice that in this list of criteria, the most comprehensive criterion is demoted to the very end and introduced with a modifier phrase, "more generally". So the author chose to start with the specific/concrete and only add the general at the end and in passing.

I would want to see the opposite order. I would start with the general points and only then proceed to concrete examples (some of which involve arbitrary judgments). Plus, the progression from the general point to specific illustrations is actually a more common/standard way of presenting material.

Plus, if you reorder it, it would drastically cut down on the posts from socially anxious teens who masturbate to soothe themselves. This is because if such a teen asks himself: "Is my goal in social situations to obtain sexual pleasure?", he would have to say, most likely, "no, unfortunately I do not have that many social situations to develop ANY goals for them, alas". And not keep reading. Whereas the criteria that are not so strongly comprehensive would have the teen equivocate and keep doubting himself.

***

I would think that revising the criteria by eliminating circular reasoning and BOLDLY highlighting the last two sentences AND moving them to the very top of the list would completely resolve the issue many people, me included, have been observing.