Funny thing is, his analogy at the end perfectly supports YBOP.
Yes I noticed that too. The anonymous professor post is old news for us.
We are almost certain of who this sexologist is, and we know why he is after YBOP. His research and academic reputation depend on the following:
1) Sexual tastes are innate and cannot change. In other words our articles about morphing sexual tastes and guys escalating to genres they say don't match their innate tastes threatens his life's work
2) porn addiction does not exist
3) porn-induced ED does not exist
So you can see he is quite upset with us, and Marnia has battled with him on the academic list-serve trying to explain what you guys have experienced and have healed.
WARNING: CUT AND PASTE FROM A BACK & FOR THE ABOUT THIS POST (ps - I could add several more cut & pastes, and new studies about deltafosb, internet addiction studies with porn and 2 brain studies on porn....but enough)
I read an article and subsequent discussion that occurred on here a month or two ago that shook my faith in YBOP's principles to the core and I got very angry as it had seemed like the light at the end of a long, dark and depressing tunnel.
That was a very clever spin job (I address this below) - so clever that it still has you believing the lies - such as YBOP doesn't depend upon experts.
One single article refutes most of what the anonymous sexologist implied in his "student's" spin job.
Toss Your Textbooks: Docs Redefine Sexual Behavior Addictions http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/node/645The American Society of Addiction Medicine is not anonymous, and is packed with some of the top neuroscientists in the world: people who actually study addiction. Not an anonymous sexologist with an agenda, who is afraid to put his name to his claims, and who doesn't cite a damn thing.
Really get this: ASAM totally agrees with YBOP. They mention sexual behavior addictions 12 times in their 3 paper and say it involves the same mechanisms and brain changes. Please read their 3 documents:
http://www.asam.org/advocacy/find-a-policy-statement/view-policy-statement/public-policy-statements/2011/12/15/the-definition-of-addictionThis alone refutes the what you and those on whom you rely said - that YBOP is somehow depending only on anecdotes and more important - that *the experts* don't agree with YBOP. Which experts? Addiction experts *do* agree with YBOP. Did you know that ASAM contains the top addiction researchers in the world? Please Google Nora Volkow - she is former ASAM board member, and current member, who helped draft the new definition - along with the 3,000 other members (MDs and researchers.)
Notice how the sexologist - who is not an expert in addiction - left this out.
_____________________________________
You and others need to understand that there are two distinct groups of researchers at odds.
1) Addiction researchers who study the brain and have 40 years and thousands of studies (animal and humans) all pointing to the fact that all addictions involve the same mechanisms and brain changes. No studies have refuted this. See ASAM, please.
This translates into, "If you have the signs symptoms, and behaviors associated with addiction - you have a specific constellation of brain changes." No studies have refuted that statement.
2) Sexologists who have little or no training in brain science and NO training in addiction neuroscience. They are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the recognition of porn addiction. Since they have been advocating porn use and saying that there's no such thing as too much - their reputations are at stake.
The guy you relied on didn't cite one study, because he doesn't have any. He and his colleagues are afraid. So much so that they spend precious time and energy anonymously attacking obscure people and websites. Don't you find that a bit odd?
__________________________________
Incidentally, there is a reason why this anonymous sexologist is going after YBOP. His academic reputation depends upon it. His life's work is built upon the dubious concept that brains are NOT plastic. That sexual "tastes" cannot change. "You are what you are long before puberty, and your porn use only 'uncovers' that, no matter how bizarre your tastes become as you escalate." Since addicts escalate for an entirely different reason (desensitization), he's determined to deflect discussions of the possibility that addiction is at work.
Specifically - YBOP has written several articles describing morphing sexual tastes (not orientation changes) - and pointed out that often these "tastes" reverse themselves during a rebooting period.
Is Internet porn making male sexuality more plastic? http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/can-you-trust-your-johnsonIf guys tastes change through Internet porn use - then his research and reputation are threatened. ______________________________________________
To sum it all up:
1) That particular YBOP detractor has stated that porn addiction does not exist.
2) He does not believe that continued porn use, over time, can alter sexual tastes, causing them to morph into genres that don't match one's sexual orientation. You should take into account the fact that his current research depends on upholding this myth that porn can't alter tastes. KEY POINT - If it turns out that porn alters tastes, his years of "research" will be refuted or called into question. That is why he went after Nofap & YBOP
3) He has stated that porn-induced ED is a myth.
4) He stated that all neuroplasticity is irrelevant because "the brain changes all the time." Which is like saying all cell division is the same (think cancer).
5) He conveniently ignored 40 years of addiction research in animals and humans, which has uncovered very specific neuroplastic changes shared by ALL addiction. He doesn't know enough about it apparently to understand that it guts his entire argument.
6) He lied in the post when he said that YBOP/TGPE depended only on animal research. In fact, 18 brain studies on internet addicts (again, not videogamers...those are
other studies) have shown all the same fundamental addiction-related changes as seen in drug addicts. Ten studies are cited in this article:
Recent Internet Addiction Brain Studies Include Porn
http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/node/858 Moreover two of the brain studies followed recovering addicts and saw a *reversal* of addiction-related brain changes. Causation is becoming unmistakeable, and yet this guy ignores the unwelcome research.
7) He conveniently left out the opinion of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), which released their sweeping new definition of addiction last August. The organization members are not just doctors, but also researchers who provide the hard data. ASAM unequivocally stated that all addictions involve the same basic mechanisms and resulting brain changes. In their new definition they stated that *sexual behavior addictions* exist. In fact, ASAM set aside 3 FAQ's just for sexual behavior addictions.
Please see this article, the quotes, and links to ASAM's new definition of addiction.
Toss Your Textbooks: Docs Redefine Sexual Behavior Addictions http://yourbrainonporn.com/toss-your-textbooks-docs-redefine-sexual-behavior-addictions8 ) He left out the very recent decision by the DSM-5 to create a "behavioral addiction" section in the upcoming newly revised DSM-5.
See -
The D.S.M. Gets Addiction Right http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/the-dsm-gets-addiction-right.html?_r=2 9) He suggested that behavioral addictions involve different mechanisms than drug addictions. This is false, as chronic overstimulation of the reward circuit leads to accumulation of deltaFosb, which activates and suppresses a very specific set of genes, leading to the brain changes found in all addictions.
Please see these article and follow all the links
- Porn, Pseudoscience and ΔFosB http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/node/985TL;DR: The sexologist has no training in addiction neurobiology; doesn't believe in behavioral addictions, including porn addiction; fervently denies morphing of sexual tastes and dismisses all evidence to the contrary; fervently denies porn-induced ED; is at odds with ASAM's new definition of addiction, and the new DSM-5; doesn't know the basic mechanisms and brain changes that occur in ALL addictions; and is attempting to protect his own research conclusions, which rest on the premise that sexual tastes are immutable. Skepticism is healthy, but spin is not refutation. Choose your sources carefully, and be slow to buy into spin.
END OF CUT & PASTE. Guess what I'm going to today? Keep working on my new presentation on the adolescent brain and Internet porn, which heavily emphasizes sexual condition and morphing sexual tastes. The sexologist is really going to like it - guaranteed.
