Psychology Today claiming porn ISN'T addictive

Discussion in 'Pornography Addiction' started by jt91, Mar 6, 2013.

  1. jt91

    jt91 New Member

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201303/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive

    I've now lost a lot of respect for Psychology Today
     
  2. forevergone

    forevergone New Member

    ohhh i wrote a nice little comment :) dr.leys a fucking pussy, what a fucking fraud.
     
  3. Sledge55

    Sledge55 Guest

    This article just seems to have missed too many little things to be believable but it's too early in the morning to think to hard about it!
     
  4. hogus

    hogus New Member

    In summary, a PhD (!!) can't seem to distinguish between sex and porn addiction and is dumb enough to not even be up-to-date on the research he claims to refute.
     
  5. tryin

    tryin New Member

    Gary already chiming in on the comments section (hope you don't mind the repost, but I think its great):

    Fabrications and poor study that confuses cues with addiction
    Submitted by Gary Wilson on March 6, 2013 - 7:13am.

    LEY QUOTE: "Popular antiporn advocates such as YourBrainonPorn and the group called Fight The New Drug, argue that porn regulation is a public health issue, not a free speech issue. These advocates often assert that if people and society only knew the damage that porn use was causing to our brains, that we would regulate it, in ourselves, and in the access that is allowed."

    As creator of YBOP, I have never asserted the above. Please stop misrepresenting my motives and spinning tall tales. On my website I explicitly state that I am all for free speech and do not call for banning porn. In fact, you can listen to the following UK "debate" on banning porn in Iceland and hear me state exactly that - I don't want to ban porn.

    On to the study. These comments assume that you are reporting its findings correctly, as it's not available yet:

    ---------------------------

    First, this study does not measure any of the dozens of brain changes described on yourbrainonporn.com. The same brain changes that have been identified in Internet addicts, some of whom use porn. See the studies. See - Recent Internet Addiction Brain Studies Include Porn http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201203/recent-...

    The article has links to 20 Internet addiction brain studies all showing the same brain changes seen in drug addicts.
    --------------

    Second, AND MOST IMPORTANT, the entire study and your assertion seem to rest on this one statement:

    LEY QUOTE: Sex addiction theory predicts that these individuals would show brain patterns consistent with that of cocaine addicts, who demonstrate specific electrical changes in the brain’s activity, in response to DRUG-RELATED CUES"

    This points to the major flaw in this study: Viewing porn is engaging in the addictive behavior. It is not a cue. A cue for a porn addict might be seeing his porn bookmarks, hearing the name of a familiar pornstar, or computer use itself. A cue for a cocaine addict might be viewing pictures of cocaine or of people using.

    Put simply: Viewing porn (this study) *is* the addictive behavior. Viewing cues for cocaine is not the addictive behavior. Actual cocaine use by a cocaine addict equates with porn viewing for a porn addict. For this to be equivalent, the cocaine addict would have to be using cocaine. If what you are describing is accurate, this is an amazing blunder by the researchers.

    ------------------------

    Although the above flaw negates the results, I would like to point out another misconception in the study:

    LEY QUOTE: "If viewing pornography actually was habituating (or desensitizing), like drugs are, then viewing pornography would have a diminished electrical response in the brain"

    Internet porn viewing is not like taking drugs. Drug addiction is an addiction to more of the SAME, whereas Internet porn addiction is an addiction to seeking novelty - it is NEVER the SAME. Internet Porn users do not stare at a single picture year after year, they often run through numerous videos or images in a single session - never to return to those videos.

    This crucial difference alters the brain response, as there are separate dopamine circuits strictly for novelty. Such circuits would be activated by porn use but not activated by drug use. As a result, electrical brain activity during porn use would not match substance use.

    In other words, both you and the authors use a model that simply doesn't match porn USE. Suggesting that an addict would be less aroused by using his addiction has no basis whatsoever. (Remember- watching porn is not a cue, it's the addiction.)

    In fact, this recent study - Cybersex addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not real life sexual contacts makes the difference - refutes your assertion that addicts would not have increased arousal.

    German scientists tested problematic cybersex users and controls. Increased arousal and craving in response to porn predicted degree of problematic use. Results support the reinforcement model of addiction. http://www.uni-due.de/kognitionspsychologie/aktuellstepublikationen_eng

    To summarize - BOTH the German study and your study found that "porn addicts" became aroused while watching porn. What a surprise. This is the basis for claiming that porn addiction does not exist. Are you joking?

    -------------------

    You will need more than a single EEG comparing two non-comparable variables - use and cues - to refute what neuroscience has revealed: all addictions, both behavioral and chemical are initiated by a single molecular switch - DeltaFosB. This recent study on DeltaFosB in sexual conditioning summarizes years of research by clearly stating that the DeltaFosB initiates all behavioral and chemical addictions.

    From the study: Natural and Drug Rewards Act on Common Neural Plasticity Mechanisms with ΔFosB as a Key Mediator (2013) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23426671#

    Thus, natural and drug rewards not only converge on the same neural pathway, they converge on the same molecular mediators and likely in the same neurons in the NAc to influence the incentive salience and the “wanting” of both types of rewards.

    As this study concluded DeltaFosB in The Nucleus Accumbens is Critical For Reinforcing Effects of Sexual Reward. (2010) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2970635/

    .......suggests that the long-lasting effects of both sexual behavior and drugs are mediated by common cellular or molecular mechanisms.

    Put simply, compulsion to use X is the same as an addiction to X. One molecule controls gene expression for all addictions, which occur on the same circuits, and lead to the same fundamental brain changes, and behaviors - such as inability to control use. Moreover, human brain studies on other behavioral addictions (internet, food, gambling) have confirmed all addictions involve the same brain changes. Claiming porn addiction must be the exception - an addiction that is not addiction - needs more data than a single flawed study.
     
  6. bruistopher

    bruistopher Guest

    This isn't new. There are going to be plenty of articles like this in the coming years. Because the porn industry is now shaken. The now awaken male community that want to be awaken are spreading and they are scared of this. So anyone will point to Gary and Marnia's work as false or not true and tack on the Ph.D label to make themselves seem right.

    So sad. But I'm not buying into it ;)
     
  7. doneatlast

    doneatlast Member

    In other news, water is wet.

    The article reads basically as a bunch of whining. You don't need to know too much about Gary Wilson's work to know that he doesn't consider sexual addiction and high speed porn addiction to be the same thing. It is a basic logical fallacy called "equivocation" and the argument loses all credibility at that point. Wilson has never claimed that any of his work/observations would also be true for sex addicts.

    When you can point to something in the real world and witness its existence you can debate the nature of the phenomenon, but you can't dispute its existence. That is the problem with these articles. People can disagree about the nature of these addictions, but saying it isn't addictive is just ignorance. Wittgenstein argued that when something's existence is so plain one doesn't need to continue arguing for its existence and the burden of proof falls on those who wish to prove it DOESN'T exist. The evidence is overwhelming, and when you can't ask a porn user to quit cold turkey without withdrawal, I think that says something as well.

    Having bold opinions and seeing the truth through a lot of buzz and chatter doesn't always make you the most popular person. I am actually surprised the porn industry hasn't become more involved like the tobacco industry in the 50s and 60s. They just aren't as organized I guess, or maybe it is only a matter of time.
     
  8. Anon_Fapper

    Anon_Fapper New Member

    I have no doubt that I have a high sex drive - many people on here probably do as well. Even without porn, this has been borne out to me via experience with gfs, etc.

    That said I don't think that means that fapping 3-5 times a day every day is a healthy activity, nor is it a substitute for the real thing.
     
  9. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    UPDATE (2/2014) - A peer-reviewed rebuttal of the Prause paper, showing how she mislead the public about her findings. ‘Highdesire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al., by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD* http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589

    UPDATE (7/13) Our analysis of the SPAN Lab study - Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab's New Porn Study (2013) http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013


    I actually added more to that comment on PT. Right now we are working on a reply post.

    Background:

    Dr Ley admits in his post and our debates, that he knows nothing about neuroscience. But whats interesting is that he has the study, and no one else does. We know he is friends with the researchers. So it's clear that they 1) gave him the study, and 2) explained what in meant.

    And he attempted to explain it to readers - but its a really jumbled mess.

    The entire conclusion is based on - "porn addicts get excited when watching porn, just like non-porn addicts do". Seriously that is the study according to Ley.

    In a debate a year ago, Ley said the study was being completed, and he quoted one of the researchers. This research group has a member (rory reid) who stated that porn addiction does not exist, and the WE have machines down the hall that will find NO differences between porn addicts and controls. We have that quote - it is a newspaper.

    It's also the same research group that replied to a peer-reviewed paper by Donald Hilton on n the neurobiology of porn addiction. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/
    Again, their goal is to design studies that find nothing.


    more later....
     
  10. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    A comment from a Ley supporter, and Ley's response


    Publius has commented:

    Wilson quoted you thusly, and then went on to talk about cues as being
    something different from porn:

    "LEY QUOTE: Sex addiction theory predicts that these individuals would show brain patterns consistent with that of cocaine addicts, who demonstrate specific electrical changes in the brain’s activity, in response to DRUG-RELATED CUES"

    Can you please clarify what you meant? Because I thought you were talking about the effect of viewing actual porn on the brain as compared to the effect of ingesting actual cocaine on the brain.

    Thanks. It's very relevant to us non-professionals in following this discussion.



    Leys Reply:


    Me: This is typical, and has occurred in the past. He rarely responds directly to our comments (sometimes deletes them), and never addresses our substantive arguments.
     
  11. Lion

    Lion Active Member

    Saved for later.
     
  12. hogus

    hogus New Member

    I like this quote.

    Don't agree with a premise? Just pretend you're right and it doesn't exist!
     
  13. RoadToReality

    RoadToReality New Member

    Whoever posted this comment

    "porn is one of the most addicting drugs out there. they cause so many problems in ones life including ED. so shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down, your a fucking fraud. stop trying to get attention, gary wilson is better than u will ever be. are you mad that you didn't discover this and your trying to cover it up? fuck yourself. just look at all the porn addiction websites u fucking fraud."

    Please don't. I know you are angry, but this sort of verbal abuse doesn't help us or Gary at all.
     
  14. syndaren

    syndaren New Member

    Wish I didn't read this bullshit. It makes me feel angry and depressed. The past few days were great, now my HOCD is slowly waking up. This dude has no idea what porn addiction actually is.
     
  15. RoadToReality

    RoadToReality New Member

    Why?
    To protect their reputation?
     
  16. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    Just published - our official reply to Dr. Ley's post

    EDIT - NEW TITLE & NEW URL -

    Unpublished Porn Study Finds Porn Is Arousing
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201303/unpublished-porn-study-finds-porn-is-arousing
     
  17. Pureflow

    Pureflow Willpower Incarnate

    Boss.

    The truth is, not many reputable psychologist read psychology today. It's mainly pop science and is hardly ever accompanied by quality research.
     
  18. hogus

    hogus New Member

    I like reading your arguments. They're always well structured and concise.
     
  19. doneatlast

    doneatlast Member

    That is just poor form. His articles are meant to disprove what Gary has shown, but he says he won't argue with Gary? That is basically just saying that he wants to have the last word. I really don't think that is particularly professional...
     
  20. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    Psychology Today just removed my post.

    The head editor asked me to change the title, but did not explain what was wrong with the title. Actually there was nothing wrong with it, it is simply a stalling tactic.

    It's now likely that she will not place it back up for awhile. Since my response to Ley's post automatically shows up on his post, this means he has free reign without rebuttal. Probably will continue until his post declines in popularity.

    This is what we are always up against.
     

Share This Page