Sexual brain training matters—especially during adolescence.
Editor’s Note: The comments quoted throughout this piece were taken from the comments sections of posts and message board conversations where men were talking about sex.
It’s normal for kids to want to learn all about sex, especially during puberty and adolescence when reproduction becomes the brain’s top priority. For this we can thank the specifics of teen-brain development.
Think of an adolescent jungle primate watching another band with such fascination that he (or she, in some species) leaves his companions, and endures the slings and arrows of being without allies at the bottom of another troup’s pecking order—all for a chance to get it on with exotic hotties in the future. The things our genes do to guarantee genetic diversity!
Now, fast-forward to a young guy discovering the mind-boggling novelty of Internet erotica:
I started looking at Internet porn when I was 11. I immediately became hooked, and spent hours daily viewing porn. Simply seeing a pair of exposed breasts was enough to get me off. But desensitization soon kicked in, and I began developing fetishes to get the same hit from porn. It started out with different ethnicities, then lesbians, then watersports, then scat/beastiality/BDSM/tranny, and then any combination of the above to create the sickest porn imaginable. I can remember sitting in school fantasizing about sick porn that I could search for that night.
What is it about the adolescent brain that makes this guy’s experience not unusual? Answer: During adolescence a temporary neurological imbalance develops. The “sex, drugs and rock & roll” part of the brain is in overdrive. The “let’s give this some thought” part is still under construction, and won’t reach maturity until adulthood.
This recipe for impulsive and risky behavior rearranges other adolescent-mammal brains too. It is evolution’s way of driving the brash independence many young mammals need as they seek mates and carve out territories. In the brain’s cost-benefit analysis, the scale is tipping heavily in the direction of possible rewards.
There’s a kicker though. The capacity of our teen to wire up new sexual associations mushrooms around 11 or 12 when billions of new neural connections (synapses) create endless possibilities. However, by adulthood, his brain must prune his neural circuitry to leave him with a manageable assortment of choices. By his twenties, he may not exactly be stuck with the sexual proclivities he falls into during adolescence, but they can be like deep ruts in his brain—not easy to ignore or reconfigure.
Sexual-cue exposure matters more during adolescence than at any other time in life. Now, add to this incendiary reality the lighter fluid of today’s off-the-wall erotica available at the tap of a finger. Is it any surprise that some teens wire semi-permanently to constant cyber novelty instead of potential mates? Or wire their sexual responsiveness to things that are unrelated to their sexual orientation? Or manage to desensitize their brains—and spiral into porn addiction?
Incidentally, are you a guy remembering your own adolescence—and how you could never climax enough during those years? Perhaps you’re supposing that Internet porn would have been a splendid innovation. If so, read these two articles: Porn, Novelty and the Coolidge Effect and Porn Then and Now: Welcome to Brain Training. Porn, its content, the way it’s delivered, and its potential effects on the brain have changed radically. For today’s users, more orgasm can lead to less satisfaction.
Teen brains differ from adult brains
When we dug into the brain research on adolescents, we were astonished at how malleable teen brains are. Radical changes in the sexual environment hit them hardest. Here are four vulnerabilities unique to teen brains:
1. Much stronger “Go get it!” signals
The reward circuitry is the core of all drives (including libido), emotions, likes, dislikes, motivation…and addiction. In adolescence, sex hormones propel this ancient circuitry into a window of hyperactivity, which subsides by the early twenties. As journalist David Dobbs explains:
We all like new and exciting things, but we never value them more highly than we do during adolescence. Here we hit a high in what behavioral scientists call sensation seeking: the hunt for the neural buzz, the jolt of the unusual or unexpected. … This love of the thrill peaks at around age 15.
The brain’s sensitivity to dopamine, the “Gotta get it!” neurochemical crests, which spurs novelty seeking, overrides executive control, and helps consolidate learning and habits. In fact, teen brains respond to anything perceived as exciting with two-to-four times the reward-circuitry activation of adults, thanks to their extra dopamine sensitivity. Both novelty and searching/seeking spike dopamine in all human brains, but cyber erotica’s endless possibilities prove an irresistible lure for many teens.
The first time I looked at those hot pictures the feeling seemed to be out of this world, just ineffable. Suddenly I knew there was something worth living for, everything else was just boring, everyday life. I fled to this artificial drug: porn and masturbation. It was not unusual to watch porn for hours a day.
“Ineffable?” Yes. Teens are more likely to register sexual arousal, and other highs, as transcendental, memorable experiences. That is why you can still recall the shimmering details of that first centerfold. But there’s more evidence of hypersensitivity to thrills:
Alas, their heightened sensitivity to reward automatically renders teens more susceptible to addiction than if they encountered the same thrills later in life.
2. Decreased sensitivity to aversion
Having spent Friday night playing “World of Warcraft” until 4AM, while washing down eight slices of pizza and a bag of Doritos with a six-pack of Mountain Dew, our hero is ready to do it all again come Saturday night. Research shows that teens are less deterred by symptoms of excess. Aversion is a reward-circuitry function, and teens can handle more wattage before their circuits overload
Ever wonder why Slasher + Teens (sex) = Summer Box-Office Hit? It all comes down to the marvels of the brain. No wonder porn images that adults find shocking, “eeeew,” or violent, register as abnormally exciting to teens. Also keep in mind that teens are less able to take other people’s feelings into account (even bad actors).
When I was 14/15, I encountered she-male porn while surfing the Internet. I still remember the graphic nature of the advert. Something just snapped in my pubescent brain. All the straight and lesbian porn I had watched for several years seemed ordinary. My heart started racing. My head was thumping, and the fear of getting caught…not just watching porn, but watching what some could consider not exactly 100% straight porn…made it all the more memorable. I remember crying after I finished. I didn’t know what came over me. I was so terrified I wanted to curl up into a ball in my bedroom. But I didn’t stop watching it. I was still attracted to girls, but with the she-male porn, I could orgasm quicker.
3. Weaker “Stop!” signals
The sex hormones that initiate teen sensitivity to thrills unfortunately do nothing to speed up development of their brain’s self-control center. A teen brain is like a new car with a Ferrari engine and Ford Pinto brakes.
At puberty, an extremely reactive “accelerator” comes online: the brain’s emotion-motivation mechanism, or reward circuitry, located below the rational cortex. It overpowers the “brakes,” the brain’s “CEO” or prefrontal cortex in the forehead, which won’t fully mature for a decade. The latter assesses risk, thinks ahead, chooses priorities, allocates attention and controls impulses.
Meanwhile, teens often base their choices on their emotional impulses as opposed to reasoning or planning. Later, as the prefrontal cortex matures, there will be fewer “I can’t believe he did that” moments. Teens make sounder judgments and modulate mood, plan and remember more effectively.
In the meantime, teens have trouble perceiving the consequences of “going for it.” Again, this is no accident. Daredevil tendencies during adolescence serve species that must take risks then to strike out on their own or find mates. In the case of adolescent humans, evolution has simply not had time to adapt to the hazards of recreational drugs, fast cars, or excessive consumption of junk food, online gaming, or Internet porn. That’s why we have the Darwin Awards.
4. Extreme neuronal growth followed by pruning
Human brains go through two stages of dramatic neuronal growth: one in utero and throughout the first several months of life, the other between the ages of 10 and 13—just when most boys (and now, many girls) begin to look at Internet porn. Ideally, during this critical developmental period, we humans are exposed to age-appropriate sexual behavior. We learn how to flirt and connect with potential partners.
This second burst of neuronal activity entails first multiplication and then subtraction of neural connections. No wonder mood swings are a hallmark of adolescence! Together, genes and environment sculpt the clay of a teen’s frontal cortex. As use-it-or-lose-it proceeds, the brain reorganizes and fine-tunes itself:
The cortex prunes away little used circuits, while strengthening well worn neural pathways. Nerve cell axons in favored pathways become better insulated with myelin, increasing the speed of nerve impulses. Little branches that receive messages (called dendrites) grow like vines to better hear the incoming signal. The connections between axons and dendrite (synapses) multiply on strong circuits and vanish on weaker ones. In the end you have memories, skills, habits, preferences and ways of coping that stand the test of time. (ibid., Dobbs, emphasis added)
In less glowing terms, we restrict our options—without realizing how critical our choices were during our final, pubescent, neuronal growth spurt. According to researcher Jay Giedd:
If a teen is doing music or sports or academics, those are the cells and connections that will be hardwired. If they’re lying on the couch or playing video games or MTV [or Internet porn], those are the cells and connections that are going to survive.
This is one reason why polls asking teens how Internet porn use is affecting them are unlikely to reveal the extent of porn’s effects. Kids who have never masturbated without porn have no idea how it is affecting them. (It’s like asking them, “How has being male affected you?”) They have nothing to compare with.
Keep in mind that older porn users often do not connect their porn-related symptoms with heavy porn use—even when they develop porn-induced sexual dysfunction (PISD). Porn always seems like the “cure,” because even if they can’t get it up for sex, they can usually get it up if they watch enough extreme porn. Can we expect teens to figure it out?
Same problem with asking teens about porn’s effects on mood. Users always “feel better” when using, even if the more they use, the worse they feel overall. So why would porn be seen as the problem? Moreover, when users try to quit, they sometimes face weeks of severe withdrawal symptoms, so controlling use can be mistaken for the problem instead of the solution.
Fact is, most heavy users who are going to hit a wall from excess, don’t do so until their twenties—just about the time their reward circuitry has curtailed its hypersensitivity. For example, by adulthood, dopamine receptors in the reward circuitry gradually decrease by a third or a half. Now, thrills aren’t as thrilling, and the consequences of excess are more disconcerting. Once nature’s foot is off the reward accelerator, it’s time for a hunter-gatherer to settle down and raise some youngins.
No birds or bees, just pixels please
Meanwhile, the adolescent brain is ripe for a perfect storm as the genetically driven hunt for novelty and the unexpected collides with the endless erotica of the Internet. Hypnotic Web-surfing—requiring no effort but scrolling and fapping—replaces leaving one’s tribe to search the savannah for fertile mates.
When I was 18, I had sex for the first time. When she said she was “down all the way”, I ran to the nearest store to pick up condoms like I had the Reaper chasing me. After the deed, my thoughts were, “Hmm…it didn’t feel that much different from masturbation, and it required a hell of a lot more work! Meh, I’ll stick to porn and not bother with a girlfriend.”
Another guy responded:
My thoughts EXACTLY. Just back pain, muscle strain, breathlessness, sweatiness and performance anxiety. MUCH less stress to just crack one off, plus you got your own ‘Iron Fist’ that gets you off better than that real vagina. Not only that, you always get a ‘good visual’ with a ‘porn girlfriend.’ You can see all those beautiful body contours in perfect lighting, breasts n’ butts n’ thighs look glorious, and *always* visible. In real life that’s rarely the case. The first time I did it, I didn’t truly enjoy it (even though we both came a lot). My first time should’ve felt like a TRIUMPH, given how ‘successful’ it was, but it felt artificial. It was then I KNEW there was perhaps something a tad wrong. The sex in my *mind* always seemed sexy and enjoyable. The *real* sex I had was primarily industrial and unexciting. Not good.
Today’s teens sometimes wire their arousal to Internet porn’s unnaturally intense, synthetic stimuli for as long as a decade before they try to connect with real partners. (See pages of self-reports of adolescent porn use.) The situation is even more precarious if a teen’s innocent pursuit of jollies has led to more fundamental brain changes, i.e., addiction. Again, teens are more susceptible to addiction than adults, due to their hyperactive reward circuitry and immature executive control.
[ 1 | 2 ]
Pages: 1 2

























I don’t have a problem with occasional porn use, but it is hard to understand that there are guys out there who think that real sex is “too much work” or less pleasurable than whacking off to porn. Wow. They seem destined for lonely and unsatisfying lives. That said, I’ve never dated a guy who didn’t love sex regardless of any prior porn use! Hopefully the men quoted in this article are a small minority, probably in the category of people who are prone to addiction. If it wasn’t porn, they’d probably be addicted to something else.
It does weird me out a bit to think that my boyfriend (who I love dearly), being a normal American male, has probably seen thousands of porn images in his lifetime. I can’t imagine having my brain stuffed with that many sexual images. I’ve always wondered if it would be like spending years watching movies about, I don’t know, the city of Rome, every day, for several hours a day. When you finally visit Rome in real life, what would it be like? Would it be a letdown? Would it be boring? After all, you’ve already seen it from every angle, thousands of times. Would you have a feeling like, “This isn’t really Rome”? Would you think, “Wow this is noisier, and smellier, and more work than the city that I imagined! Maybe I’ll go back to the hotel — after all, I’ve seen all the sights already.” Most guys now must be so saturated with porn, I can’t even imagine how it must color their mental experiences.
Jill, porn is simply a sensory stimulus; you no doubt have preferred foods. Do you feel your mind is cluttered with all the memories of all the foods you’ve eaten? I doubt it, the human mind has its own ‘garbage collection’ system and we do not remember every single stimulus we experience.
Not quite the right analogy. More like what if there was an intense sensory substitute for food, and you spent hours a day using it over an over, could you still enjoy real food? (That might be a great weight loss method, but I digress.) Anyway, I don’t know. I haven’t watched much porn so when I think about the fact that guys have probably watched 1000′s of times more sex acts than they’ve actually experienced, I just don’t know how it might affect them. I have noticed, in my own life (I’m in my 40′s) that sex seems to have become a lot more pornified than it was in my 20′s, 20 years ago — guys seem to do a lot more porn moves and make more fetishy type requests. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, if both people enjoy it, But I don’t really like the feeling that now it’s my job to make sex more like a guy’s porn fantasy.
Also, while most guys probably do not suffer adverse effects from porn (other than becoming n
bad lovers due to unrealistic ideas about what women enjoy), apparently there are guys who find sex to be a poor substitute for porn. In a way I don’t care — I’d rather not be in a relationship with a guy like that, so let him stay in his bedroom and out of the dating world (and gene pool).
I know lots of guys who prefer porn to actual sex, though I’m not one of them. Porn is easier, cheaper, and less risky than pursuing a real woman. Plus, masturbating to porn is usually just as pleasurable as actual sex(sometimes more so). The only thing porn is lacking is the emotional connection and the cuddling afterwards. Two things that just aren’t important to some guys.
Don’t men enjoy the full body sensory experience of real sex? Isn’t that better than jerking off to a computer screen? Wow. As a woman who became sexually active in the mid-1980′s, before the porn explosion (although the explosion was just starting, with VCR’s), the idea that libidinous young men would not want to have sex is just astounding to me. I have got to say, that is a huge change. I don’t know about actual “addiction” or how prevalent it is, but it does seem that young men are missing out on the kinds of social, real world experiences that are necessary if one is going to be capable of mature, nuanced and emotionally satisfying relationships. If some men view having sex with an actual women as just an inferior way to jerk off — that’s really sad.
Most men I know who prefer masturbation over porn claim to do so because they are tired of dealing with young women’s contradictory and unresolvable emotional demands.
That statement is at least as “scientific” as any “self-reporting” used by Marnia Robinson to prove that porn is a threat to de youf of Americuh.
Yes, and not every sexual encounter is the “full body sensory experience” that Derbis mentions. I’m not sure all sex is better than all forms of masturbation. I don’t want this to devolve into a debate between an idealized, romantic view of sex and that evil porn drug.
I was responding to the comment that the only advantage that sex has over porn is the emotion and cuddling afterwards. In other words, that the sensation on the penis is the only pleasure a man gets from sex. Really? That seems absurd. I would agree that masturbation is better than bad sex, but masturbation can’t compare to good sex.
Ah. And in your professional estimation, Jill. do you believe most sex in the world actuially involves much emotion and cuddling afterwards? Masturbation can’t compare to good sex, but it’s hell and away better than BAD sex.
Isn’t that exactly what I said? You seem to insist on ascribing absolutist positions to me that I’m not even taking. Also, if you are saying that men really do only care about the sensations in their penis, and sex has no other meaning or pleasure for men, I think that’s a very anti-male statement. And untrue based on my experience. Not just “cuddling” but also the whole physical experience of having sex. If you don’t get what I’m saying, you must be pretty lousy in bed.
I take your meaning. Good point. I see I also wrote “Derbis” instead of “Jill.” Oops.
Personally I find great in-person sex much better than great masturbation. I just don’t think that’s always the choice that these men are facing.
Sorry to go here, but: who says masturbation only involves touch on the penis?
It’s not that these men DON’T want sex. If an attractive woman walked up to these guys and asked them if they would like to have sex with her immediately, I have no doubt that almost all of them would say “yes.”
However, if said women asked them to have sex with her AFTER: taking her to dinner, getting to know her as a friend, showing her a good time, etc. Then I suspect said men would go back to their porn. You have to understand that for many men sex is more an itch to be scratched than anything else. The male sex drive can be downright overwhelming at times, and it’s sometimes better to just find quick release than make a big enterprise out of relieving you urges.
Also, for men, sex really IS all about the penis. At least 95% of it is.
I wouldn’t be so confident that humans do not collect a lot of garbage upstairs.
Actually we do have memories of food, along with preferences, that when accessed either activate dopamine within the reward circuitry (ice cream, pizza) or depress dopamine and the reward circuitry (spinach, liver). In this one way sexual appetites or preferences may mimic food consumption.
Since you are using a food analogy, keep in mind that the issue is not merely a matter of memories, but whether excess consumption physically alters the brain in ways that indicate addiction processes at work. Pigging out on junk food to the point of obesity alters the addiction centers of the brain. Researchers have found brain changes in obese animals and humans that mimic those seen in drug addicts. These major brain addiction changes include: desensitization (decline in dopamine and D2 receptors), sensitization (increase in DeltafosB and D1 receptors), and hypofrontality (decline in volume and functioning of frontal cortex).
See the following articles for an understanding of these processes, along with citations.
Intoxicating Behaviors: 300 Vaginas = A Lot of Dopamine
http://yourbrainonporn.com/intoxicating-behaviors-300-vaginas-a-lot-of-dopamine
Protect Your Appetite for Pleasure
http://yourbrainonporn.com/has-evolution-trained-our-brains-to-gorge-on-food-and-sex
In addition, this past August, The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) released their sweeping new definition of addiction, which states that behavioral addictions affect the brain just as drugs do—in all key respects. ASAM emphasizes that the behaviors and symptoms that manifest in all addictions, reflect common underlying brain changes. See new definition: http://www.asam.org/DefinitionofAddiction-LongVersion.html
The following FAQ is from ASAM’s new definition:
QUESTION: This new definition of addiction refers to addiction involving gambling, food, and sexual behaviors. Does ASAM really believe that food and sex are addicting?
ANSWER:
Addiction to gambling has been well described in the scientific literature for several decades. In fact, the latest edition of the DSM (DSM-V) will list gambling disorder in the same section with substance use disorders. The new ASAM definition makes a departure from equating addiction with just substance dependence, by describing how addiction is also related to behaviors that are rewarding. This the first time that ASAM has taken an official position that addiction is not solely “substance dependence.”
This definition says that addiction is about functioning and brain circuitry and how the structure and function of the brains of persons with addiction differ from the structure and function of the brains of persons who do not have addiction. It talks about reward circuitry in the brain and related circuitry, but the emphasis is not on the external rewards that act on the reward system. Food and sexual behaviors and gambling behaviors can be associated with the “pathological pursuit of rewards” described in this new definition of addiction.
Sex-tinged alarmism about kids these days? Check.
Spurious, unsourced evo-psych? Check.
Untraceable testimonial found nowhere but the author’s own sites? Check.
Homophobia, transphobia and kinkphobia? Check.
Addiction specialists finding addictions wherever they look, thus justifying their specialty? Check.
Descriptions of human nature that don’t describe people’s lived experience? Check.
One True Way-ism? Giant novelty check.
Gratuitous mention of degree in completely unrelated field? Check.
C’mon, GMP, even if you insist on anti-porn as part of being a “good man” you can do better than this.
I guess I’m not the only one who failed to be alarmed by today’s dose of fearmongering. Yawn.
Oh, and the fact that some people prefer masturbation to sex with a partner? Why, that sounds a lot like an individual sexual preference. The horror… the horror… something MUST be done! Won’t someone think of the children???
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable that in Marnia Robinson we have an ex-corporate lawyer (a truly ethical profession if ever there was one) trying to build a career for herself as a porn guru?
You guys, or whatever you are, do not understand much about brain chemistry. If you’re not interested that’s one thing, and means you maybe ought to not comment. But to not understand or know of the brain science and then brush it off as nonsense, attack the authors and label proven science as bogus is the height of hubristic arrogance. That also reeks of defending a shadow in yourselves that you don’t want to see, and admit to.
Brain science is real. It is proven, just as is you’re ignorance about a subject that you seem fearful to know about. You do not need to stop being a wanker, and I do not read that anyone is suggesting this. This article is for those who may want a little education. Thanks for your your opinion though. It helps me to realize how far from healthy our humanity is.
Scott, it’s not that I push brain chemistry science off as nonsense: I push an untrained ex-corporate lawyer’s views that brain chemistry “proves” that internet addiction is a threat off as science.
I just read through every article Marnia has posted on her site re: sex and internet addiction and NONE of them strongly support the radical and sweeping claims she’s making. Just because Marnia knows how to cut and paste strategic excerpts from a few well-selected scientific papers does not mean that she knows sweet f$%k all about the science of brain chemistry.
What I DO know about said science is this:
1) It is very complex.
2) It has historically been used to “prove” things that are not at all provable (the view, for example, that homosexuals are sick).
3) It routinely gets manipulated by every half-bright hack with a socio-political agenda who thinks its findings “prove” whatever their favorite hobby horse is.
Given the above, the operative word is to be very cautious withclaims that “brain science” proves anything at all when it comes to social behaviors. That’s the non-arrogant position, Scott.
“Arrogance” is when you purposely misread scientific studies on brain chemistry in order to “prove” your theories regarding social engineering.
So, Thaddius, you seem to be the empirical evidence type. Porn addiction (seems to be) rapidly changing the landscape of the collective psyche. What you do not seem to understand is that, obviously, not everyone who looks at porn is addicted to it. But that there are those of us (a growing percentage) that can not stop despite the negative consequences that our behavior has presented in our lives. This is not a fondness of porn or a love of porn. This is an addiction. My diagnosis was from a PH.D, not a self diagnosis or some “half-bright hack with a socio-political agenda”.
Furthermore, you seem to be on an agenda of your own. Nobody here is gay-bashing or calling alternative lifestyles “sick”. There is probably a great deal of support here for these, and all other, civil rights. It may be wise for you to be able to separate your own fight and issues from information that is clearly provided to promote social awareness.
Scott, there’s no proof at all that the percentage of people who can’t stop pulling their puds is growing. I’m sorry. Not a single study Marnia cites says that and I’m unable to find any elsewhere. I realize that as a self-defined porn addict you want to feel that your numbers are growing. That may or may not be the case. We. Just. Do. Not. Know.
Read my bit below about Bobby the porn addict if you want to know what I think about certain diagnoses. But hey, if being a recovering porn addict makes you feel better than what you were before, by all means go for it! I just happen to take such claims in the same vein that I take claims about “recovering gays”.
And I’ll fully admit to having an agenda of my own. Unlike Marnia, however, I put that agenda out front in my writing so that readers can judge for themselves whether or not my ideological filters have kicked in. Furhtermore, I don’t try to hide my political and social concerns behind the marginal results of a science I barely understand and have no training in.
Finally, Scott, I’m not the one making sweeping claims about how the sky is falling here: Marnia is. I’m saying things are basically as they always were: she’s the one who claims that there’s a “perfect storm” brewing. It’s incumbent on her, then, to show her work, not me. So far, all she’s shown is that she knows how to bullshit rather well by cutting and pasting snippets from unconnected research in a field she’s never studied.
I thought this was a great article – certainly gave me something to think about. Those of us with young children do need to think about the unintended consequences of the constant stimulation available to our kids – from television to the internet. Do we realize how different our own childhood was?
Am I terrified for my 5 and 2 year olds and their future – no. But, I don’t think cautionary tales should always be considered fear-mongering.
Nice bunch of biodeterminist theory. Pity it’s not supported epistemologically.
Look, Gary and Marina, if this “Porn rewires the brain” stuff were true, then one would logically think we could rewire other basic aspects of our sexuality through exposure to porn – say turn gay kids straight or whatever.
It doesn’t work out that way, though, does it?
Also, in spite of all of “the sky is falling rhetoric”, porn has shown a HUGE increase in availability and distribution over the last 30 years – something on the order of several magnitudes – and yet, somehow, young men and women’s sexuality seems to be basically about where it was back in 1985, when I was an 18 year old.
Anecdotal evidence about how porn “hooks” people from self-proclaimed “addicts” is not a scientific base for the claims you are attempting to make.
But there is indeed one thing you cerebral specialists can indeed help me with: what exactly is “addiction to porn”? How does one measure it? Where’s the cut-off line from “normality”? What indeed IS normal when it comes to porn use?
What bothers me is that biodeterminists always gloss over these questions as if they were no nevermind, when they are, in fact, the basic variables which must be clearly set before any quantitative work on human behavior is done. (Perhaps this aversion to qualitatively defining variables is caused by an unbalanced brain chemistry during adolescence? But I digress…)
So how about breaking free from normal biodeterminist behavior and take a shot at clearly and concisely defining “porn addiction” for us?
The article clearly states that porn is an addiction when it starts interfering with your life.
Amber, ANY activity interferes with your life, by definition. Cooking dinner interferes with your life.
That’s not a definition, that’s a cop-out designed to quell nasty qualitative issues raised by people who’ve actually had some degree of scientific training, no matter how small.
So how about a real, clear-cut, measurable definition that’s not so vague that it could possibly be anything at all?
If porn doesn’t I reefers with you then you are not addicted, and this nueral chemistry obviously hasn’t affected you. You are immune it seems, so why take such a staunch defense of something harmless? Why care?
Why care?
Because it’s not harmless, that’s why.
It is not at all harmless to naturalize a sexual minority’s behavior as a “disease” and then stigmatize said minority, placing them – as Marnia and her pal Hilton does – in the same neurological category as pedophiles and meth addicts.
If you’ve read anything about the history of psychiatry and homosexuality, you’d know this.
Thaddeus: “So how about a real, clear-cut, measurable definition that’s not so vague that it could possibly be anything at all?”
You continue to avoid reading ASAM’s new definition.
The following is ASAM’s behavioral criteria for addiction, which a qualified health care practitioner uses to asess a patient.
Addiction is characterized by ABCDE
a. Inability to consistently Abstain;
b. Impairment in Behavioral control;
c. Craving; or increased “hunger” for drugs or rewarding experiences;
d. Diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships; and
e. A dysfunctional Emotional response
As stated by ASAM, the presence of these criteria reflect changes in structure and physiology sahred by all addictions. This includes sexual behavioral addictions.
Your endless attempt at spin will not alter these facts.
Who sets what the limits of “normal” abstinence are, Marnie?
Who decides what is “impairment”?
What is “craving” and what is “hunger”? In other words, what’s the difference between unnatural and natural desire?
What happens if one’s interpersonal relationships are dysfunctional through no fault of one’s own but because OTHER people have problems? Should you still have a “functional” response to them as a normal condtion of affairs?
What exactly is a “functional” emotional response and how does one judge that?
All of these are issues that your pals at the ASAM seem to gloss over. But you’re an expert on this topic, correct? Perhaps you could enlighten us by taking a crack at answering these very simple and fundamental questions?
All good questions, however, these guidelines are for health care practitioners, not lay a person such as yourself. Medical doctors and addiction counselors not only use these guidelines, but take a history, ask questions, run tests, along with other assessments, in a patient evaluation.
The medical doctors and researchers at ASAM have already “taken a crack at it” (for the last 50 years), and their new definition is the culmination. If you want your questions answered read the rest of the ASAM definition, as it expands on the criteria.
Thaddeus,
Have you seen the new statement of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM)? Like any addiction, sexual behavior addictions are defined by well-established brain changes: (1) desensitization (numbing of the brain’s pleasure response, driving the need for more stimulation), (2) sensitization (extreme sensitivity to cues) and (3) hypofrontality (decreased activity, and even decreased gray matter in the pre-frontal cortex). See http://yourbrainonporn.com/toss-your-textbooks-docs-redefine-sexual-behavior-addictions
All of these physical changes have already been tracked in Internet addicts, gambling addicts, food addicts and drug addicts. For more, see http://marnia.scienceblog.com/50/ominous-news-for-porn-users-internet-addiction-atrophies-brains/ While porn users’ brains haven’t been scanned, that is largely because control groups of non-porn-using Western males can’t be found, not because experts doubt that such changes would be seen. This is why ASAM confidently included sexual behavior addictions in its recent statement. By the way, it’s my understanding that ASAM’s action (finally) brings American addiction medicine into alignment with the position of international and Canadian addiction-medicine societies.
On our forum, we’ve heard from gay porn viewers troubled by their escalation to straight rape porn, and many straight viewers troubled by their escalation to gay/transexual porn. It’s likely that sexual orientation is *not* the same as more superficial plastic tastes engendered by escalation to new porn content. It would be great to see some research done on this. Right now, the meme that “What you masturbate to IS your sexual orientation” is so strong that some porn users are genuinely confused/alarmed about their underlying orientation when they no longer get erections to porn they used to watch, and only (now) get erections to porn they associate with another sexual orientation. The good news is that when they stop using Internet porn, their brains apparently return to normal sensitivity, and their tastes gradually shift back toward their fundamental orientation (over the next several months). Of course, if they don’t know of, or don’t opt for, this option they’re stuck.
On what do you base your claim that young people’s sexuality is basically where it was in the mid-80s? It used to be uncommon for young men to experience chronic ED; now it’s not. For hundreds of self-reports in support of this observation, follow the links in this article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201108/porn-then-and-now-welcome-brain-training It’s likely this situation is moving too fast for researchers to keep up with. Today’s porn has changed radically in terms of its potential effects on the brain. See “Porn Then and Now: Welcome to Brain Training” http://yourbrainonporn.com/porn-then-and-now-welcome-to-brain-training
Self-reports aren’t unscientific. They’re simply evidence. Most research arises from similar observations, which are then ideally tested in controlled studies. We, too, would like to see controlled studies in this area. However, since researchers’ hands are somewhat tied when it comes to investigating the effects of heavy porn use on adolescents, self-reports may be the best evidence available. The situation is reminiscent of the debate about the effects of smoking in the last century. What ethics committee would sanction research calling for youngsters to watch hours of hardcore porn (as many of them are now doing) – even assuming control groups could be found?
In any case, the absence of controlled brain studies on porn users doesn’t mean there’s no evidence of how extreme stimuli cause addiction-related brain changes in some brains. There’s ample evidence of that, which is why ASAM acted. At this point, the burden of proof is on the porn-is-harmless crowd to show the rest of us why the extreme stimulation of today’s ever-novel Internet porn would be the exception to the rule. Now there’s an epistemologial mystery.
I’d like to see a straight, epístemologically correct and clear definiton of “addiction” please, one that’s backed up by non-anecdotal evidence. One that is as clear cut in its observable effects as, say, alchohol addiction. One which is not so vague and meaningless that literally anything – up to and including breathing – might be included within its purview.
“Shifts in tastes” is so damned vague it could mean anything at all and you as a scientist should damned well know that.
Also, important-sounding “proof” like “increased activity, and even decreased gray matter in the pre-frontal cortex” is almost completely meaningless in this context unless you can show that there’s a clear causal link between this and something that can be clearly and non-tautologically defined as “addiction” – a definiton, which, I should add, you have yet to provide. I should also point out that said “proof” is FAR from clear cut or reproducible. Show me SIX studies where porn caused “grey matter” to decrease and I’ll admit you might be on to something. As is, I’m betting that what you can point to is one or two dodgy studies produced by scientists with a political axe to grind in the porn wars.
Maybe I’m wrong, though. Show me instead of referring to these “literally hundreds of studies” which no one’s ever seen.
Pointing to changes in brainwave patterns and seeing “See? That’s addiction!” is slightly more scientific than phrenology, but only just. Have you folks bothered to read any critical literature regarding what brainwaves actually measure? Cordelia Fine, just for starters? I’d suggest it.
What I find alarming is the vague – almost tautological – definition of “addiction” that you folks are tossing out here and the fact that you support it not with scientific literature, but with pop science blogs, alarmist magazine articles and anecdotal evidence.
That’s not science, folks: that’s what Harry Frankfurter calls “bullshit”.
Now, you ask “On what do you base your claim that young people’s sexuality is basically where it was in the mid-80s?” Good question, except that’s not how science works. I can’t prove a negative, can I? I can’t very well prove that things have NOT changed. It’s up to you to prover they have. So far, all you’ve given is this: “It used to be uncommon for young men to experience chronic ED; now it’s not.”
Huh? Where’s the evidence of that? Thirty years ago, young people didn’t even TALK about erectile disfunction. If you couldn’t get a boner, it was presumably because you drank too much or were stressed. Erectile disfunction was for old people. In today’s post-viagra world, men are convinced that they have a problem if they can’t get a boner on command. What proof, then, is there that this “problem” hasn’t been created by an increased awareness of said issue?
And let’s be clear on this: a pop journalism piece in Psychology Today does not qualify as a study. Show us the beef or admit that you’re simply banging the moral panic drum because you, personally, think porn is evil.
As for self-reports and their scientific validity, I’m an anthropologist and an ethnographer, so I know very well what one CAN and CANNOT do with annecdotal data. What one CANNOT do is use it to project societal trends and make claims that there are “epidemics” of this or that disease going about. Self-reporting tells us alot about what that particular person is going through. Without a whole HELL of a lot more contexual social data, you can’t tell shit about what such reports mean to society at large. So please bull me no shit about how your “personal reporting” somehow conflates to a largescale epedemic of society-threatening behavior.
By the way, self-reports aren’t the only or best sort of data one can get here: ethnography is quite useful, too. You can observe the public culture of so-called “hard-core porn users”. I do this, by the way. I interact on a daily basis with prostitutes’ clients here in Brazil. Most of them are what you’d call “hard-core porn users” and while I would agree that they have a different sexuality than many other people, their sexuality is hardly classifiable as a disease which is PRECISELY what you’re trying to do here.
What pisses me off is that you seem to be trying to create a new sexual minority while simultaneously trying to medicalize said sexual minority. This doesn’t remind me so much of scientific studies of smoking as it does psychology’s long and extremely tarnished history of stigmatization of “non-normative sexual behavior”.
And is it someone who’s actually had some scientific training in biology, sexuality, sociology or neurology who’s producing this attempted shift in our perceptions of porn users? No: it’s an ex-corporate lawyer who seems to be trying to make a name for herself as a pop writer and sell books as a porn expert. and her husband a “neuroscience enthusiast”, which is a polite way of saying a hobbyist.
One final bit:
“At this point, the burden of proof is on the porn-is-harmless crowd to show the rest of us why the extreme stimulation of today’s ever-novel Internet porn would be the exception to the rule. Now there’s an epistemologial mystery.”
And you claim to be a scientist, Marnia Robinson?
How can ANYONE prove a negative, that some poorly defined thing (“internet porn”) has no effect?
Can you even define your variables in that supposed experiment? “Internet porn”? That’s not a scientific category: that’s bullshit and you would realize that if your career had actually involved scientific research and not aiding corporations to socialize their expenses via the res publica.
Okay, so I don’t think that porn is quite the awful thing these authors make it out to be. That said, I have recently had conversations with a number of young men (19-23 year olds) who have been honest about their porn use and the difficulties it has caused them.
Perhaps a good strategy as a parent would be to allow some materials to be found around the house which would satisfy his curiosity without narrowing or closing down his sexuality and keep him interested in relationships with real people. Perhaps through keeping collections of erotic short stories around, having soft-core porn, and porn that shows real women’s desire, agency, and pleasure around. Parental controls on the internet might be a good plan.
So now the Good Men Project is anti-porn? Time to stop pretending your anything but a bunch of doctrinal feminist dogmatists guys. Though I’m not sure you were ever even pretending otherwise.
Oh, I forgot to say. My alternative response to everything asserted in this article:
CITATION NEEDED
You evil man, Debris. Didn’t you see all the pop articles and documentaries they linked us to? Why, an incautious person might be pushed to claim that you think science should be peer-reviewed or something and not simply blogged.
Empty claim.
Our above article has citations, along with the links to our articles explaining how Internet porn is different from pre-internet porn. Those three articles contain multiple links to peer reviewed addiction research.
Since you refuse take on this article, or our other articles, or read ASAM’s new definition, I’ll provide some recent brain research on Internet addiction with excerpts from one of the links
“Ominous News for Porn Users: Internet Addiction Atrophies Brains”
A short sentence describes what the study means. As stated the 3 characteristics of addiction recognized by NIDA and ASAM are sensitization, desensitization, and an inhibited frontal cortex.
—————————–
Enhanced Reward Sensitivity and Decreased Loss Sensitivity in Internet Addicts: An fMRI Study During a Guessing Task.
As the world’s fastest growing “addiction”, Internet addiction should be studied to unravel the potential heterogeneity. The results suggested that Internet addicts have enhanced reward sensitivity and decreased loss sensitivity than normal comparisons.
Those with internet addiction have both sensitization and desensitization of reward circuitry pathways.
—————————————————
Confirmation of the Three Factor Model of Problematic Internet Use on Off Line Adolescent and Adult Samples. (2011)
As the Internet became widely used, problems associated with its excessive use became increasingly apparent. Although for the assessment of these problems several models and related questionnaires have been elaborated, there has been little effort made to confirm them. Using latent profile analysis, we identified 11 percent of adults and 18 percent of adolescent users characterized by problematic use
Study found problematic Internet porn use in 18% of adolescents…in a sample that was more than half girls! What would it have been had the sample been all male?
——————————————————————-
Reduced striatal dopamine D2 receptors in people with Internet addiction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21499141
An increasing amount of research has suggested that Internet addiction is associated with abnormalities in the dopaminergic brain system.Consistent with our prediction, individuals with Internet addiction showed reduced levels of dopamine D2 receptor availability in subdivisions of the striatum including the bilateral dorsal caudate and right putamen. This finding contributes to the understanding of neurobiological mechanism of Internet addiction.
This means desensitization of the reward circuitry was caused by excessive Internet use.
—————————————————-
Changes in Cue-Induced, Prefrontal Cortex Activity with Video-Game Play
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2009.0327
Brain responses, particularly within the orbitofrontal and cingulate cortices, to Internet video-game cues in college students are similar to those observed in patients with substance dependence in response to the substance-related cues. These changes in frontal-lobe activity with extended video-game play may be similar to those observed during the early stages of addiction.
This means excessive Internet gamming led to sensitization of addiction pathways.
——————————————————————————
Microstructure Abnormalities in Adolescents with Internet Addiction Disorder
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020708
Recent studies suggest that internet addiction disorder (IAD) is associated with structural abnormalities in brain gray matter. However, few studies have investigated the effects of internet addiction on the microstructural integrity of major neuronal fiber pathways, and almost no studies have assessed the microstructural changes with the duration of internet addiction.
This mean hypofrontality or a decrease in frontal cortex volume and functioning, developed fwith Internet Addiction.
———————————————–
Male Internet Addicts Show Impaired Executive Control Ability Evidence From A Color-Word: Stroop Task.
Both of the behavioral performance and ERP results indicate that people with IAD show impaired executive control ability than the normal group.
This means those with Internet addiction have decreased functioning of frontal cortex, which is associated with inhibited impulse control.
———————————————–
As you can see Thadd, we are providing the research. However, you keep commenting as a way to avoid discussing the evidence.
Feel free to:
1) Cite research saying that behavioral addictions, such as Internet Addiction, do NOT cause the same brain changes as drug addictions.
2) Explain how watching Internet porn (hundreds of scenes per sessions) for hour’s every day, from the age 12 to 24, would not have an effect at least equal to video game/Internet addiction.
I would say that for many people there are times when good masturbation is better than bad sex. It’s not necessarily only porn versus only sex. There clearly are men who have the chance for in-person sex and choose porn instead, but I’m guessing they are in the minority. I’m not so sure that they’re lonely, loser addicts destined for horrible lives. Their wives and girlfriends may find it unacceptable, but maybe that’s their problem as much as his problem.
And, if we’re talking about teenagers, I’m not so sure there are very many “real sex” alternatives to watching porn. It’s not like teen boys have an equal option between porn and in-person sex. When I was 15, I was nowhere near the possibility of a chance that any young woman was going to have sex with me anytime soon. Anyway, I’ m not sure I want to encourage every 14 year old boy to turn off the porn and find a real girl to have sex with. I’d rather those boys keep their paws on themselves instead of my teenage daughter (if I had one).
I do think it’s a tragedy when people become desensitized to pleasure, and I think hardcore porn use can contribute to that in some cases. That sounds like a reasonable possibility. Especially when you consider that many young men masturbate exactly the same way every time, which combined with watching porn all day is a good recipe for hitting a dead end. I just wonder how to balance that “danger” with the freedom to explore new things and with the right to claim your own sexual preferences. And balance that with the fact that people go through phases in their lives where their drives, preferences, and pleasures change over time.
Teen boys and young men (and women too) have always had to resort to fantasy and masturbation, sometimes enhanced with visual or other aids (the Sears catalogue, Playboy, spicy romance novels). There is nothing wrong with that. However, nothing in the history of the human race can match the level of stimulation of internet porn. Even 20 years ago, guys had to find someplace to rent a video, and find a time when parents weren’t home to watch it. Mostly they had to use their imagination. Now they can sit in their rooms jerking off tom the computer for 6 hours every night. The sex drive is an overpowering drive that evolution has created for the purpose of perpetuating the species, and I think the vast quantity of porn, instantly available, has hijacked that drive. Men, especially, are driven by biology to have as much sex as they can when it is available. Mostly, it is not available as much as they like, so they feel frustrated, but this is an incentive to search for opportunities for sex. We know that men have always thought about sex — some of the earliest cave art ever found are depictions of female genitalia. We don’t really know how our prehistoric ancestors lived but some theories suggest they were polyamorous and men probably sought sexual favors from women through social interaction, forging emotional bonds, and proving themselves to be successful at tasks valued in their culture (maybe hunting, or storytelling, or music, or creating impressive artwork, or communicating with spirits or whatever). In other words, it was a lot like it is today, even though our culture is different.
The point is, we are not designed to constantly pig out on sex any more than we are designed to pig out on high calorie food every day. Those are innate survival drives that evolved in times of scarcity, which are now used against us to turn us into numbed out consumers. The loss of opportunities for healthy social interaction seems concerning although I can completely understand why a guy might feel that porn is easier than all the hassle and disappointment of meeting women.
Cave men probably would have felt the same. Why spend hours trying to impress the cave ladies by carving a flute if you can get the same (or better) physical satisfaction some other way? This is not to say than viewing porn is per se bad, but an explanation for why excessive use of porn, like excessive eating, may not be healthy in the long run even though it I’d pleasurable in the short run.
“However, nothing in the history of the human race can match the level of stimulation of internet porn.”
Proof, please. Personally, I find internet porn to be rather banal. I should also point out that 30 years ago, these same anti-porn movements were making the very same claims about published and televised porn. Supposedly, the novelty effect of that stuff was going to create a world of sexualoly unsocialized and unsocializable men. In fact, you can find the EXACT SAME argumennt being used ANY TIME a new porn format has come into play.
In other words, Jill, this particular Chicken Little story was probably old already back when Jesus was a cowboy.
And yet in spite of all that rhetoric, we’ve seen no reproducible, solid, peer-reviewed proof whatsoever that the new generation of boys and girls is having any more or less trouble with sexuality than folks did back in the 19th century.
“We know that men have always thought about sex — some of the earliest cave art ever found are depictions of female genitalia.”
How do you know men painted those pictures, pray tell?
By the way, I love how you admit that we really don’t know sweet fuck-all about early human sexual life (and we don’t), but in your conclusion, you sweep all that away with a categorical statement about what humans are designed to do or not do.
Boy, that’s a hostile response. Defensive much? I said we don’t know much about the sex life of prehistoric humans, but there is a lot of research, which probably has some truth to it (see the book, Sex at Dawn). Ironic, usually I’m the one preaching caution about drawing too many conclusions from untested evo-psych. Nevertheless, we can draw parallels to modern hunter gatherers, however. As for who painted cave art, sure we don’t know, could be women, but most anthropologists think the paintings were made by men. In some cases, the artists left handprints and I suppose that gives a clue to gender. Finally, I’m not the one saying there is a generation of unsocialized men, it’s other people (including men themselves) who are pointing to rising rates of ED in young men as well as men themselves posting comments about how they have less interest in real sex due to porn use. I think if someone feels compelled to masturbate to porn several hours a day, you can see that as an example of over-stimulation hijacking biological drives.
If you love porn and want to watch porn 24 hours a day, personally I couldn’t care less (as long as you aren’t my boyfriend, husband, or son), any more than I care if someone wants to stuff themselves with 20 pizzas a day and balloon up to 600 pounds. I don’t care, personally, if you think sex with your girlfriend is boring and you prefer to watch handcuffed women in mousketeer outfits taking it up the butt with garden tools. Or whatever. But I think it is interesting to consider what factors lead some people to lose control of their biological drives in that fashion and what impact it has on people. I think it a legitimate topic for discussion.
It’s a sharp response, Jill, not a hostile one. If it were hostile, I’d be personally attacking you. Instead, I’m saying that the idea that you are espousing is a tremendously bad one that’s not supported by the evidence. I’d say that being “defensive” is taking an attack on your idea as if it were an atttack on yourself. Your mileage obviously varies.
I do indeed get irritated when people make claims about what anthropology has “proven” as its my field and I can tell you, flat out, that there is no coincensus at all regarding the gender of stone-age cave painters, let alone the gender of the people who SPECIFICALLY painted things that may (or may not) be representations of vaginas. Simple logic should tell you that there’s also no way to know if the person who’s hand was painted over wqas also the person doing that particular painting, let alone the paintings in general. No trained anthropologist would make that sort of generalization. Thus the sharpness of my reply.
After just reading tons of material on Marnia’s website, I can tell you that all that’s been shown so far is that a smal minority of men and women (5% and 2%, specifically) from a non-random and non-diverse sample claim that they have had “problems” because of their internet porn use. Said “problems” are very widely defined and, as the best article on Marnia’s site shows, none of the definitions used for “sexual compulsion” in these studies match the clinical definition for said disorder according to DSM-V.
So all we can say for sure right now is that a lot of people are saying a lot of shit about the internet, porn and its supposed linkage to male sexual problems.
What I am against is the scientific posings of amateurs with a political agenda. Think away all you want about how porn might possibly affect the mnale sex drive. Postulate the existence of Atlantis and Space Gods for all I care. Just don’t tell me that this is something that’s scientifically proven when all you can point to are a handful of very poorly designed studies which don’t even support your claims for the nmost part.
I should alsao point out here that if seeing female genitalia was really so biologically awe-inspiring for men, then one would assumje that the males of certain Amazonian peoples, whose women walk around naked as a matter of course, would be pulling their puds all day long. It doesn’t seem to happen that way, though, does it?
Get over it folks: the vagina simply doesn’t have the power to turn males into masturbatory monkeys.
Hmm, sarcasm now. Look, you obviously have way more time than I do to post lengthy comments and I don’t think I can keep up. You sound like a person who feels very personally invested in the idea that porn is A- okay. That’s fine with me. Have at it. If you read my comments you will find I am not an absolutist on anything I’ve said, I’m merely saying these are legitimate questions to discuss. On the issue of cave art, which really seems to get your goat for some reason, I was merely pointing out that men (presumably) have enjoyed sexual images since time immemorial. You are free to disagree with me. If you don’t like the cave art idea, we can still go back to erotic paintings in ancient Egypt and Rome. So maybe men AREN’T fascinated by pussy. The billions of dollars spent on porn every year might undermine that argument. If they aren’t fascinated by pussy why are they watching porn? Is there some other reason? You seem very dedicated to the idea that (a) porn is harmless and (b) watching a lot of porn doesn’t prove that men are obsessed with sex! No siree bob! You said you are an anthropologist who studies the sex trade so maybe you can explain what is motivating men to watch porn then, if not a biological sexual drive that is focused (in the case of heterosexual men) by a desire to insert their penis in a female’s vagina (or other orifice), at least in fantasy if not reality.
I’m a person who’s very heavily invested in the idea that social policy shouldn’t be based on piss-poor science.
I would thus like to see the beef, please, regarding porn. Reproducible results with large and diverse samples of subjects in peer-reviewed journals.
So far, there’s precious little of that out there.
Given that the anti-porn people in the world seem to be pushing for legislation and stigmatization of a segment of the population, I am against THAT unless a lot more evidence comes in.
Frankly, my position here is VERY conservative: freedom of speach and all that shit, even for people whose speach I find offensive. You seem to believe that such a position – based on principals rather than on a visceral attraction or repulsion to porn – is impossible. Frankly, I think that says more about you, Jill, than it does about me.
“So maybe men AREN’T fascinated by pussy.”
Men are fascinated by sex and by what is prohibitted, Jill. In our western culture, from Greece on down, openly showing the feminine genitals has been a big no-no. In other cultures, that’s not the case and men don’t fall to the ground masturbating in those cultures simply because a pussy gets flashed. In fact, they don’t do it in our culture either.
Get over your vagina, sister: it simply isn’t that big a deal to most men.
You know, Thad, I think it is probably apparent to most people reading these comments that you are the one who is emotionally invested in this issue to the point of, frankly, irrationality. I am imagining at your computer all day here just positively freaking out by the idea that some people disagree with you.
Now you are fallen to the level of insulting my vagina. Wow, I’m so hurt. I must say that’s a really impressive argument from someone with your elite academic credentials.
I guess my poor sad pussy and I will take our toys and go home now. Hope you don’t get carpal tunnel syndrome from all the … typing. Have a nice day.
P.s. Did I say anything about banning porn? No.
You’ll never convince teenage boys to limit their porn use with the argument that it’s hurting their chances for true intimacy with their partners. You won’t convince them with appeals to evolutionary mammalian biology, nor with warnings about how plastic their brains are.
You just might get their attention, though, if you tell them that if they go overboard with their porn use it could be more and more difficult to reach an orgasm when viewing it. They would also listen to you if you told them there was more than one way to masturbate. Did anyone else notice the “Iron Fist” reference? There’s your problem right there, buddy….
Funny how the brain is supposedly simultaneously so plastic and yet once porn hits it – BLAM! It’s set in stone for life.
Also funny how people who are trying to wrap the tattered mantle of ev-psych around their arguments use socially, culturally and historically defined variables as “intimacy” as if these were transcultural, biologicval constants.
The brain is not ‘set in stone for life,’ merely more difficult to change after adolescence – as calmly explained in our article. This conclusion is based on brain science done on adolescent, and other, brains not on ev-psych.
Pity that no study whatsoever has been done which supports the radical claims you make, Marnia.
Actually kids seem to like learning about their brains. Are you familiar with the MindUp effort? http://www.thehawnfoundation.org/mindup We quite often watch young men on forums teach each other the brain science of addiction as related to Internet porn. Many sense that today’s cyber erotica isn’t as harmless as they are told, and they’re not inclined to wait until the experts work out all the details.
That said, you’re right that most heavy porn users will not reevaluate porn’s effects on them until they run into sexual performance problems. This is too bad, because most develop telltale symptoms of addiction-related brain changes before then. They just aren’t connecting such symptoms (unaccustomed social anxiety, trouble concentrating, morphing porn tastes, etc.) with heavy porn use, because like any addiction, porn use always offers short-term relief. So it seems like “the cure” not “the problem.” A longer list of symptoms that self-identified porn users report are here: http://yourbrainonporn.com/are-you-hooked-on-porn-ask-asam If kids were educated about these symptoms, they could experiment with stopping porn use sooner, and wouldn’t have to slide all the way into the severe brain changes associated with porn-induced sexual performance problems to realize they have a serious problem.
I should point out that the authors of this piece have little to no scientific training in the fields they claim to speak for, that the “proof” they’re offerring up so far seems to come from non-peer reviewed pop science articles – some of which they’ve apparently written themselves – and that they apparently approach the question of porn from an a priori position that it is bad.
This isn’t science, folks: its bullshit. Scientifically-wrapped rhetoric designed to persuade an audience.
I challenge Mary Robinson to link us to SIX peer-reviewed scientific studies of the “hundreds” she claims exist which show that “sexual behavior addictions are defined by… hypofrontality”.
Just six.
Insults don’t cut it here, Thaddeus. However learned you may be in your fields, you apparently are not up to speed on the addiction-related brain science of recent years. We’re not talking about “brain waves,” my friend, but about actual changes in receptor density and brain activity. These and other physical changes have already been measured and compared with controls for various behavioral addictions: gambling, videogaming, eating, and lots of abused substances.
You can find many of the ‘hundreds of studies’ referred to in the links at the bottom of this page: http://yourbrainonporn.com/research-articles-and-abstracts Please read them – and the links to articles that explain the brain science of addiction – before you make any further accusations that our views are not based on science. As we say at the beginning of that page:
Understanding Internet porn addiction means understanding addiction mechanisms. The heart of all addictions involves hijacking the same neurocircuitry, which runs on the same neurochemicals (even though each addiction also involves additional neural circuits and neurochemicals that differ between addictions).
A basic physiological principle is that drugs do not create anything new or different – they simply increase or decrease normal brain functions. In essence, we already possess the machinery for addiction (mammalian bonding/love circuitry), and for binging (storing calories, mating season).
When we link to our articles, it’s because they have links to the relevant medical abstracts and other supporting evidence, so they are a more efficient way to reference diverse support. By the way, I am a science journalist and lawyer (a profession heavily trained in considering and analyzing diverse evidence, including scientific evidence). Where have I claimed to be a scientist? Gary has taught anatomy and physiology for years. We have been analyzing medical research and other input relevant to the effects of sex on the brain for ten years. Our book is primarily on this subject, by the way. It’s not a book on porn.
It’s not an insult if it’s true, Marnia Robinson.
Perhaps you’d like to show this community exactly what you and your husband’s scientific credentials actually are? What peer-reviewed stuff have you published in the fields in which you are claiming expertise?
That would be what you term “addiction science” and its presumative connections to porn.
Ad hominem attacks are pointless, substance-less distractions. If you think the researchers whose work we have cited are wrong, take it up with them.
It’s not thjat their work is wrong, Marnia: it’s that their work does not strongly (or in some cases even weakly) support the claims you are making. You are hijacking scientists’ research for your own political purposes and reading things into it that said scientists themselves often go out of their way to disclaim.
To hear you talk, this corpus of research is well-nigh concensus among researchers into brain chemistry and addiction. When nyou actually dive into it and read it, however, what you find is studyu after study where the scientists say “Hey, this is one guy we’re talking about here: don’t jump to conclusions”, or “Look, we’re just beginning to peer into this stuff and have no idea what we might find yet, so take it easy”.
Like most moral entrepeneurs, you exagerate scientific findings by several orders of magnitude so that bthey support your particular political agenda.
Finally, it is not an ad hominem to state that someone who has no training whatsoever in a complex field like brain chemistry is perhaps not the best person to make sweeping statemnents about that field, ESPECIALLY when said person crows in their Psych Today bio about their “interdisciplinary background”.
You are a pop psych writer with an axe to grind about sexual behavior, Marnia. You are not a scientist and are hardly a brain chemistry specialist. In my view, you are misleading people as to what the research you cite proves and disproves and you are hiding behind a series of cheap psychological and rhetorical tricks to make your layman’s, politicized interpretation of the data seem as if it were the result of pondered scientific research into the hypothesis you’d like your public to accept as proven.
The fact that Scott up there thinks your article is some sort of scientific study instead of a hash of bits and pieces drawn from several studies (one can’t even dignify it with the name “review of the literature”) is an unfortunate indication of how effective your rhjetorical strategy is.
I’ll state it once more so we’re crystal clear on this: you are an ex-corporate attorney who has become a pop science writer. Good on you. That does not mean that the claims you make are backed up by the evidence you cite. Your CV doesn’t indicate that you have the training to make the sort of scientific claims you are making and a brief review of the literature you use indicates that it doesn’t support the claims you make to the degree that you are making them.
Thaddeus, why don’t you prove them wrong by posting your own credentials and citations, scientific studies, etc that proof this science false? You have not offered anything to your position but hubris.
Proving studies false is not what’s at issue, Scott, because there is no one study which Marnia can point to which proves anything like the claims she makes. The question is “Do the studies Marnia cites support her hypothesis and, if so, to what degree?” The answer is that most don’t and those that do are weak reeds. indeed.
What Marnia has done is hobbled together a hodge-podge of studies, most of which have oustanding methodological issues, in order to make it seem like her radical claim (Internet porn (undefined) causes addiction and physical brain changes in youth) is sustained by a vast and deep corpus of scientific material. I’ve gone through her references one by one and shown what they prove (or more often do not prove) below.
As for my creds, I have a PhD in social anthropology and work as a professor in a post-graduate biology program. My wife and I have done close to a decade of research into sexual tourism and prostitution in Brazil, studying in situ, as it were, the “porn addicts” Marnia talks about. You can check out some of my peer-reviewed articles through the links on our (sadly out of date) blog.
I mention your credentials because they happen to play quite a large role in determining the scientific aspects of what you call “porn addiction”, at least as presented by yourself.
First of all, that page you link us to leads to your own site. I very much doubt that you’ve read – let alone understood – even half of the studies that are cited there. But let’s quote your OWN WORDS on porn addiction, which are right there on that page for everyone to read:
“To date, however, there are very few studies on the effects of Internet porn on the user. In my opinion, most existing porn studies (based on sociologists’ questionnaires) are outdated (before high-speed, free, ever-novel porn), and poorly designed.”
So, first of all you admit that there are few studies regarding the specific “addiction” your on about. Secondly, it’s your opinion that such studies as exist are “poorly designed”. Based on what is this opinion, exactly? Your long experience with designing social-scientific studies as a corporate lawyer?
Given your dismisal of these studies, I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that they don’t support your opinion that “internet porn” (again, a very wide variable which you repeatedly treat as if it were a scientific constant) is harmful.
But finally, all of this is quite interesting in that you yourself, above, claim that the evidence that “internet porn” causes harm is solid enough that the burden of proof should be on us who disbelieve your claims. Yet on your own site, you admit that there’s not much data out there on this topic.
So which is it, Marnia? Lots of proof or none at all? Or does the claim change according to your audience, as it would if one were a lwayer arguing before a court of law and not a scientist weighing evidence?
Now I’m going to look at EVERY ONE of those links on your site re: porn and the brain and see what actually exist as proof and I’m going to bring the results back here. I’ll make three predictions before I do. Let’s see how good I am at extrapolating social realities from your “personal reports”, shall we?
I bet…
1) That less than half of those links actually connect us to peer-reviewed scientific studies.
2) That, of the ones that do, the studies in question have results that are a hell of a lot more ambiguous than what you make them out to be.
3) That even the peer-reviewed scientific studies whose results are unambiguous are based on an incredibly low number of samples and that their results have by and large not been reproduced.
So let’s take a look and find out how much of a bullshitter you are, Marnia, shall we?
Nice distortion Thaddueus, but the links to our articles (“not peer-reviewed”), contain multiple links to peer-reviewed studies, or to other articles with links to peer reviewed studies. Everything is backed up with the same science that ASAM used to determine that sexual behaviors are real addictions.
As an ethnographer (with no background in neuroscience), you know that scientists are a very cautious and conservative group. They hate going out on a limb. Yet ASAM declared sexual behavior addictions as structurally and biochemically similar to drug addictions. No limb needed, just mountains of research on behavioral addictions, and a basic understanding of evolutionary conserved mechanisms. Note that the ASAM documents use sex or sexual behaviors ten times in their definition. That is more than all addictive drugs combined. Think they were trying to get a point across?
————————–
1) All addiction involves the same basic brain changes
From the head of the ASAM committee:
The new definition leaves no doubt that all addictions—whether to alcohol, heroin or sex, say—are fundamentally the same. Dr. Raju Haleja, former president of the Canadian Society for Addiction Medicine and the chair of the ASAM committee that crafted the new definition, told The Fix, “We are looking at addiction as one disease, as opposed to those who see them as separate diseases. Addiction is addiction. It doesn’t matter what cranks your brain in that direction, once it has changed direction, you’re vulnerable to all addiction.” …Sex or gambling or food addiction [are] every bit as medically valid as addiction to alcohol or heroin or crystal meth.
——————————-
2) Hypofrontality is involved with all addictions, and ASAM included sexual behaviors in their definition, which means hypofrontality occurs during porn addiction.
ASAM statement of frontal cortex involvement:
“The frontal cortex of the brain and underlying white matter connections between the frontal cortex and circuits of reward, motivation and memory are fundamental in the manifestations of altered impulse control, altered judgment, and the dysfunctional pursuit of rewards (which is often experienced by the affected person as a desire to “be normal”) seen in addiction–despite cumulative adverse consequences experienced from engagement in substance use and other addictive behaviors. The frontal lobes are important in inhibiting impulsivity and in assisting individuals to appropriately delay gratification. When persons with addiction manifest problems in deferring gratification, there is a neurological locus of these problems in the frontal cortex. Frontal lobe morphology, connectivity and functioning are still in the process of maturation during adolescence and young adulthood, and early exposure to substance use is another significant factor in the development of addiction. Many neuroscientists believe that developmental morphology is the basis that makes early-life exposure to substances such an important factor.”
Put simply: Hypofrontality occurs with all addictions, including sexual behavior addiction.
————————
Just to let you know, it is common knowledge in the addiction science field that hypofrontality occurs with all addictions, including gambling, food, and Internet addiction. The ASAM definition is based on this addiction review by the head of NIDA, Nora Volkow Addiction: Decreased Reward Sensitivity and Increased Expectation Sensitivity Conspire to Overwhelm the Brain’s Control Circuit (2010)
http://yourbrainonporn.com/garys-research-addiction-general-3-dysfunctions-2010
This is a snippet from NIDA’s review:
Lowered Dopamine Receptor (DR2) Levels Impair The Control Of Impulsivity By The Prefrontal Cortex: It has been hypothesized that the impaired control over compulsive drug taking behaviors that characterizes addiction may be due in part to specific dysfunctions in frontal regions of the brain. There is now a significant amount of evidence that supports this notion.
In addition to ASAM stating that addictions to sexual behaviors exist, Nora Volkow specifically stated that porn addiction and other behavioral addictions exist. From this article http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5834/23.1.citation
NIDA director Nora Volkow also felt that her institute’s name should encompass addictions such as pornography, gambling, and food, says NIDA adviser Glen Hanson. “She would like to send the message that [we should] look at the whole field.”
————————————–
Learn a few of the basics, by reading the thousands of research studies published in the last 30 years that lead to ASAM’s new definition. Once you have completed that assigment, you can take your grievances to ASAM and the head of NIDA. I’m sure they would be very interested in your “brain wave” theory of addiction.
I just read all your scited sources. You apparently haven’t. With regards to what the ASAM says, seeing as how you are the self-proclaimed expert on all things addictive, how does their definition of “sex addiction” jibe with the definition for “hypersexual disorder” proposed for DSM-V? Because it’s interesting to note that said proposal flat out claims that the previous work of “sexual compulsion” that you and the ASAM apparently set so much store by doesn’t jibe with the new criteria for diagnosis.
So who’s the better authority here, Marnia? The ASAM or DSM-V? Or again, is it simply a case of whether or not a given article is politically useful to you?
I think you need to take DSM-V’s warning to heart: to wit, it’s incredibly easy to cinfuse socially stigmatized sexual behaviors with supposed biologically-based psychiatric disorders. You are intentionally attempting to smear a definition that ethical scientists go to some pains to make crystal clear due to the horrific history of the misuse of psychiatry as a tool for disciplining the socially stigmatized.
It’s great that you’re getting educated, Thaddeus. The studies we think are often poorly designed are questionnaires. Unlike brain scans of addicts, questionnaires are heavily influenced by the biases of the researchers. Also, most do not ask questions that would reveal the brain changes associated with addiction, because most sexologists haven’t been trained in brain science.
You seem to be trying to argue from authority to dismiss our post, but we’re relying on the work of the top addiction specialists in the world. What are you relying on?
Since you believe you are so much more knowledgeable than we are: What is the mechanism behind the addiction-like behaviors many heavy cyberporn users are reporting? Are you saying they don’t have the symptoms they report? Where are your qualifications compared with the doctors of ASAM or the head of NIDA? Do you know even know your frontal cortex from your limbic system? ‘Cause it seems like you’re operating from the latter at the moment.
Yeah. Pity that what I’m mostly learning is that you’re trying to wrap a political opinion about what you call “internet porn” (but for some reason can’t even define) in a patina of misused science.
But that’s part of my job as a public intellectual, Marnia: debunking the bad use of science.
Maybe you should go back to school and get a degree in biochem if you really were interested in this topic? Have you ever considered that? Or are you just going to surf the “ZOMG! INTERNET PORN!!1!!!ONE!” panic until it’s no longer profitable to write about it and then move on to something else?
Thaddeus. Are you picking up a sword to battle that porn addiction does not exist? Or are you only denying that you, yourself, are not addicted? Because I can tell you right now that I’ve been in serious therapy for several years trying to end my addiction to it. I personally know of 100′s of others who are at least as addicted as I.
Because I could not stop, even while watching my world collapse around me, destroying mt fiancee, and taking 1000′s of important hours away from my business and self-care (like sleep), I still could not stop. That is addiction. If you are not having a problem with it then congratulations. You likely do not have kids or any reason to stop or educate yourself about addiction. But if you are denying that this is true, please stop. You have no idea. You’re embarrassing yourself and insulting the 1000′s and likely millions of those of us who know otherwise.
I’m claiming that porn addiction is a construct, Scott. I’m willing to believe that there are people who become compulsive users of porn. People can become compulsive about ANYTHING and things that really interest us (food and sex) are great attractors for compulsive behavior.
What I am against is the arbitrary definition of a sexual standard (as set by certain of the scientists Marnia quotes) where “productive” heterosexual monogamy is taken as “normal behavior” with everything else medicalized and labeled a disease.
I think Marnia’s shockingly lax standards when it comes to drawing conclusions from scientific data creates a dangerous precedent when it’s combined with the sort of ethnocentric values that she and several of her favorite scientists seem to share about sex.
I’m no psychiatrist, Scott, but given what I’ve just read in all these studies Marnia points us to, I’d hazard a guess that porn was far from your only problem: substance addiction, depression and several other issues are probably also present in your life. Am I right or wrong?
Thaddeus- Yes, there were other stressors involved with my addiction, and these are common stressors in the modern world, meaning that millions, even billions of people are entwined with the same issues. To put blame on social stressors and eliminate the affects of pornography is ridiculous. The same models run throughout all forms of addiction. Try telling recovering alcoholics that they are not addicted to alcohol, that they’re only depressed,and their “addiction is a construct”. You should write about what you know about, and I’m not sure what that is, but an authority you are not.
What you should say then is not that alcohol addiction doesn’t exist, but don’t try to ban alcohol, or say alcohol is objectively bad in any amount period.
If we avoided everything that could cause addiction we wouldn’t work, drive, walk, have sex, play anything, have any kind of activity, drink or eat anything. Because we might become addicted to it.
This is surely a complex issue with multivariable effects at play – it is important to level set some of the misconceptions towards brain plasticity – in the sense that malleability should not be viewed as shape forming, but rather more like amplification of existing propensities.
Malamuth summarizes this point well in: M. Pornography and sexual aggression: are there reliable effects and can we understand them? Annu Rev Sex Res 2000;11:26–91.
‘‘associations between pornography consumption and aggressiveness toward women could be explained by a circular relationship between high coercive tendencies and interest in certain content in pornography, whereby aggressive males are drawn to the images in pornography that reinforce and thereby increase the likelihood of their controlled, impersonal, and hostile orientation to sexuality.”
A recent qualitative study using Swedish adolescents’ (Lust, love, and life: a qualitative study of Swedish adolescents’ perceptions and experiences with pornography.) summarizes:
“Most participants had acquired the skills to navigate the pornographic landscape in a sensible manner. Most had the ability to distinguish between pornographic fantasies on the one hand, and real sexual interactions and relationships on the other.”
Thanks for your thoughts, Elissa. As you probably saw in the article, we don’t claim porn makes men more violent, only that some users slip into addiction-related brain changes. What we’re seeing is lots of guys who don’t have the courage to socialize…until they give up Internet porn. It seems evident that the “real guy” isn’t the isolated introvert, but rather the guy who socializes with ease – when his brain isn’t out of whack from too much stimulation. It’s fascinating, really, and the guys are delighted with the changes they experience. Here’s one from yesterday (after just 9 days without Internet porn):
I had so much more confidence at work today. I keep recalling something that I said to myself about a year ago. For some reason it stuck in my brain. I remember saying to myself “Why am I so timid? I am like the shyest person ever. How come other people can just talk naturally and be happy? I can bench press over 300 lbs, but yet I’m so scared of people. What the heck is wrong with me???” At the time I was watching porn for a few hours every night. I had no idea what it was doing to me and how much it was depleting me.
Well not today! I felt awesome today. I have insane amounts of energy. I got up early, worked a long 13 hour day at the office, then went to the gym for an hour, went grocery shopping on the way home, did some cooking tonight. At some point I thought “Wow, is life really this easy for most people. I can go and go and go all day.” I’m so used to being wrecked by a porn addiction for the last 15 years, I don’t know what to do with all this energy. I used to be constantly exhausted, had to force myself to do things, was in a mental fog, I had trouble concentrating, and everything in life was just a drag. Today I found myself kicking ass with little effort. It makes me wonder what people do who don’t have porn addictions? I wonder do normal people have this energy, and do this much…? Or maybe a lot of people have other types of addictions like tv or alcohol or something. Maybe it’s just the contrast. I would’ve never known how sweet real life is, without my previous life of addiction. Now I want to make the most of every moment.
I also found myself flirting with girls at the gym again no problem. It was just so natural, I didn’t even plan anything. There was this one girl walking by and I was sitting at a machine, so I yelled hi to her. She walked over, we started talking about how fast she was running on the treadmill, I made some jokes about flying off the thing if I tried to run that fast, etc… She was all smiles, and I think I was making her blush. I seriously could not believe that was me. Yelling hi to a random hot girl at the gym I didn’t know, and getting her to walk over to me to talk… Seriously!?!? I couldn’t imagine pulling that off a year ago.
He’s not through the woods yet, but can already see the potential in life off-line. Here’s another guy, 22 from today:
Hi Guys, this is day 71 of no PMO. And I feel motivated. I am motivated to succeed with women. So I have met 3 young girlies, had sex with all 3 of them in the past week (something I’ve never really been able to do because of erectile dysfunction). I just generally feel very confident and motivated to get out of the house in search for REAL girls. It feels great to have an awesome sex life right now after months of nothing. 2 of them I was drunk, and my gear still worked very well.
We’d agree young porn users don’t generally confuse fantasy with reality, but many arrive complaining they can’t engage with reality. They’ve spent so much of their adolescence squirting screens that they can’t get it up for real females. Given the unique characteristics of the adolescent brain, it looks like there could be some solid reasons for their unhappy experiences.
I love this “what we’re seeing” shit, Marnia: as if you and your husband were actually engaged in anything that could possibly, even remotely, be qualified as scientific research.
“It seems evident that the “real guy” isn’t the isolated introvert, but rather the guy who socializes with ease – when his brain isn’t out of whack from too much stimulation. ”
Isolated introvert guy who doesn’t socialize much or is shy? Perfectly normal. Those are the people you can stick in an office with the door closed for 8 hours straight and who will complete productive work that would make the extraverted’s brain explode of pure boredom out of not having talk-time during their work. Extraverted people are good salespeople, and I guess it helps men find date, given that fewer women approach (so being shy and introverted is no issue for most women).
I am completely willing to believe that there has been a sharp increase in the number of men self-reporting as addicted to porn. The number of people identified as having sex addiction is shooting through the roof. I think most of us could stipulate that just for the sake of argument (This is just my anecdotal perception. I have no citations. I think most of us would agree that “sex addiction” now gets much more attention than it did 20 years ago.)
HOWEVER, is increasing attention to something the same thing as an epidemic? A sharp increase in the number of diagnoses may mean that clinicians are paying more attention to it, handing out the diagnosis more easily or more confidently, or a bigger percentage of people are comfortable seeking help. One factor in the changing diagnostic landscape is that if you are addicted to sex/porn, there are more specialized resources for you today, more ways to get help, which results in more self-reporting. Porn viewing still has a stigma attached, but I think many of us would say that porn has gone a little more mainstream, at the same time that the definition of “addiction” has spread to include more and more activities. So, a great recipe for an apparent epidemic in porn addiction, which may be partly explained by changes in the mental health system and not changes in porn technology. Not to mention the possibility that some conditions may be over-diagnosed (Ritalin pushers, I’m talking to you.)
I’m not saying that internet porn is the same as mags and videos (what’s a VCR?) and we’re all just as addicted as we ever were. I’m just suggesting one of the challenges of relying on self-referrals.
The only thing that you have proven Thaddeus is that density exists. Good luck.
Sorry if it was TL;DR for you, Scott. It wasn’t meant to be a sound bite for the Twitter crowd.
#6) Unfair, Hugo — you can be a devout Mormon AND be a leather queen!
#16) I’m suspicious of a study that paid men $50 to look at porn and only got 24 takers. Must have been the lamest advertisement ever.
Dammit, you’re not Hugo. Sorry, Thaddeus, I was thinking of something else.
LOL! I was about to ask if Hugo’s now copped to being a leather queen as well.
I’ve come across this body of work before, on GMP and elsewhere. At first I was completely skeptical, even defensive about it. (“No! Don’t take my porn away!”) I admit I was a little obnoxious about it, they met my obnoxiousness with sarcastic scorn, I reciprocated with passive aggression, egotistically comparing myself to Galileo, and it went from there. Not my proudest moment. Since then, my view has mellowed somewhat and I have come to see some merit to what they are saying, at least as the start of a conversation.
In their favor:
I feel comfortable saying maybe they’re onto something. There are some early, suggestive, small-scale studies with some interesting evidence that could begin to support their hypothesis about the distinct nature of habitual online porn use and its impact on brain chemistry. Some early indications, some possibly significant correlations that could be used to make more general claims. I find it a sensible hypothesis that 6 hours of internet porn would have a bigger impact on one’s mental state than a few minutes with a magazine.
I don’t think it matters what their scientific background is, if what they are reporting is true and the studies are done using good scientific method. (I say IF.) By the same token, they don’t get to dismiss my critique of their logic because I don’t have a science degree. If the debate is not ad hominem, and if the results are truly reproducible, and if the logical argument really does flow logically, then it makes no difference who is doing the talking. That’s why scientific articles use the passive voice so much – “the mice were injected,” etc. – it shouldn’t matter who conducted the experiment if the results are reproducible.
However:
I’m just a little skeptical about making big generalizations yet. I think the appeal to “conclusive scientific proof” is a little premature. I’m not a scientist, but I know enough of them to know that they are usually very cautious about using the word “proof.” They tend to talk about “from what we can tell at the moment” and “best explanation we have is….” It’s safer ground, more objectively debatable ground, to talk about good evidence, clear correlations, statistically significant differences, etc. Otherwise it comes across as a statement of orthodoxy, not an invitation for analysis. Orthodoxy tends to treat any disagreement as evidence of ignorance, generally suggesting that “if you just read all the things I’ve read you will agree with me completely.”
I think the appeal to the authority of the larger psychiatric profession is useful but comes across as a little too forced. I share Thaddeus’ ingrained skepticism about the DSM’s and the profession’s history of evaluating human sexuality. I am reminded of the 1950’s psychiatrists who warned about the danger of comic books turning boys into gay sadists and turning girls into castrating lesbians. That’s a broad brush for me to use in this case, but if the appeal is to trust in the words of the profession, I feel the need to put its track record in the balance.
“By the same token, they don’t get to dismiss my critique of their logic because I don’t have a science degree.”
Really, now?
Well that’s interesting as hell, because I’ll lay dollars to donuts that Marnia would be the first person to criticize me if I tried to defend a case in court.
If you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and you’re making spurrious claims based on a few marginal scientific papers which you interpret poorly, your creds SHOULD be called into question, just as if you were a “plumber” who tried to construct a sewer system out of scotch tape and drinking straws.
Hey Thaddy,
You keep saying Marnia. However, I’m the co-author, and run http://www.yourbrainonporn.com.
I have been teaching physiology, anatomy and pathology for twenty years, and carefully following the neurosceince of addiction.
Teaching WHERE, Gary? You’re a nursing student, according to your blog. My mom taught art for 35 years in the public school system. That doesn’t make her an expert on the neurosthetic aspects of color appeciation.
As for you “carefully following” the neuroscience of addiction, if that’s the case, why do you make so many piss-poor claims about the studies linked on your site? You make RADICAL claims based on evidence which is considered spotty and very incomplete by the authors of the studies themselves.
So one of two things, Gary: either you’re setting yourself up as a better and more informed expert on the neuroscience of addiction than the scientists whose work you cite, or you’re a bullshit artist extraordinaire.
Which is it, Gary?
Gee, Thad now you are attacking your own mom with ad hominen BS.
You have yet to take on any study we cited in this article, or our five articles we have linked to.
Nora Volkow, who is the head of the NIDA, recognizes porn as an addiction. ASAM recognizes sexual behaviors as addiction. All your screeching doesn’t change that fact that the debate is over, the fat lady has sung, and top addiction researchers and medical doctors have spoken.
Incidentally, we were saying very similar things before the ASAM statement was released, so it was heartening that the experts were analyzing the science in the same way and reaching the same conclusions. So yes, we do think we know a fair amount about this area for lay people, and we feel well qualified to blog on it.
You are on the piss-poor side of the fence in this debate. Where’s your peer-review research refuting ASAM?
Gee, Gary, claiming that looking at sexual pictures on the internet overstimulates the brain and causes physical changes which are EXACTLY the same as crack or meth addiction, based on a study of 18 pedophiles in jail in Germany isn’t a claim most scientists would like to sustain.
But this is precisely the largest bit of scientific proof you cite for your theory.
That’s a radical claim Gary. mFrom a scientific viewpoint, it’s a piss-poor claim.
You are jumping to HUGE conclusions based on hardly any evidence at all. What almost every scientist you cite says is “We need to do much, much more research before we can really say anything.”
Gary and Marnia, on the other hand, think everything that needs to be said already has been said.
That’s radical and piss-poor thinking.
Furhtermore, I HAVE taken on the substance of your post, repeatedly. But let’s make it crystal clear here for the hard of thinking:
1) There is no good or conclusive evidence that internet porn (which you have never defined, by the way) works on the brain in any manner different from other sorts of porn. Very few studies have been done about this and the ones that have have very low numbers of subjects, no random selection od subjects and often display HUGE assumptions (just one instance: why should we assume that different structures in pedophiles’ brains were caused by pedophilia and not by, say, the experience of being locked in a featureless box for months or years on end? Or by the experience of socially inculcated guilt?)
2) Addiction, as defined by the ASAM, contradicts DSM-V on several points and is also functionally indistinguishable from several non-adictive but socially stigmatized behaviors (as a couple of your authors point out).
3) We do not have good data that anything fundamental is changing in young male sexuality. Self-reporting is a very bad tool for this sort of thing as people will report whatever’s foremost in their minds. In a world where Viagra ads run during the Superbowl, I think it’s safe to say that young men will be reporting “erectile problems” at a much higher level than ever before simply because they PERCEIVE them more. That hypothesis has to be discarded before we can say anything about a presumptive link between increased porn and increased ED.
3) Given the points above, your claim that a “perfect storm” is brewing in adolescent male sexuality seems to me to be a classic example of moral entrepeneurialship on Gary and Marnia’s part, perhaps brought about by a mid-life career crisis.
Gee thad, that is exactly what ASAM is saying: All addictions result in the same major brain changes, which include – (1) desensitization (numbing of the brain’s pleasure response, driving the need for more stimulation), (2) sensitization (extreme sensitivity to cues) and (3) hypofrontality (decreased activity, and even decreased gray matter in the pre-frontal cortex).
See http://yourbrainonporn.com/toss-your-textbooks-docs-redefine-sexual-behavior-addictions
QUOTE from the head of the committee:
Dr. Raju Haleja, former president of the Canadian Society for Addiction Medicine and the chair of the ASAM committee that crafted the new definition, told The Fix, “We are looking at addiction as one disease, as opposed to those who see them as separate diseases. Addiction is addiction. It doesn’t matter what cranks your brain in that direction, once it has changed direction, you’re vulnerable to all addiction.” That [ASAM] has stamped a diagnosis of sex or gambling or food addiction as every bit as medically valid as addiction to alcohol or heroin or crystal meth may spark more controversy than its subtler but equally far-reaching assertions.
As always you provide no research to refute the 3000 experts of ASAM.
It’s called neuroscience, not radicalism. The following three studies confirm that Internet addiction results in the same brain changes as drug addiction (there are many more available on our site) :
——————————————-
Reduced striatal dopamine D2 receptors in people with Internet addiction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21499141
An increasing amount of research has suggested that Internet addiction is associated with abnormalities in the dopaminergic brain system.Consistent with our prediction, individuals with Internet addiction showed reduced levels of dopamine D2 receptor availability in subdivisions of the striatum including the bilateral dorsal caudate and right putamen. This finding contributes to the understanding of neurobiological mechanism of Internet addiction.
- This means desensitization of the reward circuitry caused by excessive Internet use
—————————————————-
Changes in Cue-Induced, Prefrontal Cortex Activity with Video-Game Play
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2009.0327
Brain responses, particularly within the orbitofrontal and cingulate cortices, to Internet video-game cues in college students are similar to those observed in patients with substance dependence in response to the substance-related cues. These changes in frontal-lobe activity with extended video-game play may be similar to those observed during the early stages of addiction.
- This means development of sensitization addiction pathways due to excessive Internet video games
——————————————————————————
Microstructure Abnormalities in Adolescents with Internet Addiction Disorder
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020708
Recent studies suggest that internet addiction disorder (IAD) is associated with structural abnormalities in brain gray matter. However, few studies have investigated the effects of internet addiction on the microstructural integrity of major neuronal fiber pathways, and almost no studies have assessed the microstructural changes with the duration of internet addiction.
- This means hypofrontality, which is a declined in frontal cortex volume and functioning.
——————————————————————————–
Hundreds of more studies show these very same brain changes in pathological gamblers and the obese.All addicts develop the same brain changes which are correlated to the same behaviors and symptoms.
ADDICTION QUIZ
The following is a common test that can be applied to addiction (or you can apply ASAM’ five point criteria)
———————————
Answer yes or no to the following seven questions. Most questions have more than one part, because everyone behaves slightly differently in addiction. You only need to answer yes to one part for that question to count as a positive response.
1. Tolerance. Has your use increased over time (escalation)
2. Withdrawal. When you stop using, have you ever experienced physical or emotional withdrawal? Have you had any of the following symptoms: irritability, anxiety, shakes, headaches, sweats, nausea, or vomiting?
3. Difficulty controlling your use. Do you sometimes use more or for a longer time than you would like? Do you stop after a few drink usually, or does one drink lead to more drinks?
4. Negative consequences. Have you continued to use even though there have been negative consequences to your mood, self-esteem, health, job, or family?
5. Neglecting or postponing activities. Have you ever put off or reduced social, recreational, work, or household activities because of your use?
6. Spending significant time or emotional energy. Have you spent a significant amount of time obtaining, using, concealing, planning, or recovering from your use? Have you spend a lot of time thinking about using? Have you ever concealed or minimized your use? Have you ever thought of schemes to avoid getting caught?
7. Desire to cut down. Have you sometimes thought about cutting down or controlling your use? Have you ever made unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control your use
If you answered yes to at least 3 of these questions, then you may meet the medical definition of addiction.
————————————————————–
Those with porn addiction can usually say yes to all seven questions, which mean their brains have changed.
Lets follow your particular flavor of logic:
Excessive gambling, eating to obesity and excessive video gaming, can eventually cause brain changes and corresponding behaviors that are the same as drug addicts. However, hours of daily Internet porn use, starting at age 11-12 cannot under any circumstance cause addiction.
Can you explain how that’s possible when sexual stimulation elevates dopamine twice as much as any other natural reward? Please follow the links in the our above post to understand the science behind Internet porn addiction.
PS – I’m not sure why you keep bringing up pedophiles. Very Weird.
“If you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and you’re making spurrious claims based on a few marginal scientific papers which you interpret poorly, your creds SHOULD be called into question, just as if you were a “plumber” who tried to construct a sewer system out of scotch tape and drinking straws.”
I see your point about credentials being called into question. If someone rests on their credentials, then the credentials should be subject to analysis. If it’s based on evidence or experiments, then those should be subject to analysis.
I was hoping to move the discussion away from the authors’ credentials because their messages are so slippery on the subject. They say they have science behind them. When you congratulate them on their discovery they are proud researchers, but when you critique their science they refer you to other scientists. The back and forth about who is more qualified and who’s a real scientist does not seem to get us anywhere.
This debate is great. We were just learning about all this in my philosophy class. This is like a kung fu movie with bad arguments instead of weapons. Or a pokemon card game with fallacies.
“I make your argument a straw man and burn it.”
“I see your straw man and raise you an ad hominem.”
“Oh yeah? I counter your ad hominem with sarcasm.”
“Fine, I’m wielding my authority.”
“My authority’s bigger.”
“Too bad, because an appeal to authority is useless.”
“Doesn’t matter, I have you trapped in a false dichotomy.”
“Maybe you have me trapped in a false dichotomy, maybe you don’t”
“That’s just begging the question.”
Actually, That Guy’s putative Mormon Leather Queen gives us an excellent example of why a lot of this “sexual addiction” research is complete pants.
Let’s say we have John, a young man who grew up a devout Mormon but who, as he got older and for whatever reason, discovered he had an unquenchable sexual desire for Jane, his lovely next door neighbor. They get married and pump out a passle of little Mormons, humping away like two happy bunnies.
Sexual addiction? Hell no! It’s socially approved and they’re happy so it’s just good old fashioned “good sex” as Dr. Ruth would call it.
Now let’s say that John and Jane have a son, Bob, who as he grows older discovers that he has an unquenchable sexual desire for leather-dressed biker dudes in high-heels with 16 inch cocks. He knows that his family and religion strongly disapprove of this, so he hides it as much as he can. The internet is there to bring him some relief, however, and like many 15 year old boys, he spends a lot of time in masturbating to the porn he pulls up on it. He’s miserable, because he knows he’s a sinner and is going to hell. He thus constructs a defense in which he’s “not responsible” for this activity he knows is socially condemned. He’s “driven” to sin.
One day, Bob’s momma Jane finds the Tom of Finland folder on Bob’s harddrive. The jigs up. She takes her son to a psychiatrist who’s read the ASAM’s new definition of “addiction” and maybe our pal Marnia’s new book on internet pr0n. Bob is miserable and admits his situation to the psychiatrist. Self-reporting, right? His sexuality is causing problems, right?
Hey presto! A new sex addict is born!
The shrink is not going to judge Bob a victim of “Invisible Friend in the Sky Disorder” for being a Mormon, nor is he going to going to judge John and Jane victims of “Hypersexual Disorder” because they’re HAPPY and SOCIALLY PRODUCTIVE even if they do f@#k like bonobos in heat. Nor is he going to diagnose the whole family as victims of “hypocritical sexual values disorder” because hey, they’re Mormons and that’s what Mormons do, right?
So little Bobby gets the short end of a very shitty stick and is gets medded to a fare-thee-well. After enough anti-depressants and dopamine inhibitors are pumped into him, why he’ll even be able to proudly say that he’s “conquered his obsession” and now “controls it”. Of course, he doesn’t get much of a hard on for anything at all, now, but the important thing is that he’s no longer a “sexual addict”.
Doesn’t this picture give anyone here the creeps? Because this “self-reporting” crap, when combined with the elastic definitions of “problems” that Marnia espouses means that pretty near any sexually different adolescent (especially if they are male) is going to get slapped with the stigma of being a sex addict. This is why #19, above, is so insistent on keeping the rules for defining “sexual addiction or compulsion” so strict. Marnia, however, would have see incipent sexual addiction every time a little boy squirts out a load to an up-the-skirt shit of Lady Gaga. Furthermore, many of the psychiatrists she most often cites are just itching to medicate that little boy into normality. All in the name of science, of course.
Tell me people, is this the world you really want your sons to live in?
For once, we partially agree with you Thaddeus. The thought that doctors will feel justified in resorting to addiction meds to address the brain changes caused by today’s hyperstimulating porn makes us cringe, too. Psychotropic meds are alarmingly dull hammers, with lots of side-effects.
That said, there’s no point in running from the fact that supranormal stimuli have the power to cause dysregulation in some brains. Only when we educate ourselves, parents and kids about the science of brain plasticity, the risks of superstimuli, and the signs that overstimulation is causing brain changes, will we be able to chart our own course by managing our own behavior. This, not medication, is the way to go.
Addiction has nothing to do with sexual orientation, so as Danny (above) would say: No points for that straw man.
The studies you cite are a long way from proving that “supranormal stimuli” exist, let alone proving that it “causes deregulation in the brain”.
Again, you are making fantastic claims based on very spotty, incomplete and in some cases highly questionable data. Worse, you are using public forums such as this magazine and Psychology Today to air these claims which you feel – based upon your inner intuition, apparently, because nothing in neuroscience out there shows this as yet – that a “perfect storm” is brewing.
This is a great deal for Gary and Marnia – who is apparently trying to rebrand herself as a autodidact neuroscientist after a failed career in corporate law – but have you ever stopped to consider JUST ONCE what the likely effects of all this alarmist, pseudoscientific bullshit you’re spreading are going to be on kids?
Do you even care, Marnia/Gary? Does it even occur to you that there’s a good, ethical reason WHY DSM-V sets 18 as an age limit for their diagnosis of “hypersexual disorder”?
Because if you’d taken time from your busy self-improvement and self-promotional schedules to actually READ the history and sociology of human sexuality, the very first thing you’d be forced to conclude is that alarmist bullshit about adolescents and sex almost always results in increased and generally violent enforced discipline over adolescents.
You claim that “psychotropic meds are alarmingly dull hammers”, but your half-baked theories on the effects of internet porn are going to give every single unethical adolescent psych professional out there wagons of really big hammers to play with. And if there’s one thing the history of the past 50 years of “tough love” and “scared straight” and “meds for kids” should show you is that your brand of alarmist crap ALWAYS gets turned into a justification to crack down on kids. American adults LOVE to abuse authority when it comes to adolescents and you’re giving them a cracking good excuse to engage in the kind of dominance games they enjoy.
You two are playing with fire on very big scale and you apparently don’t seem to give one flying f#$k.
THADDEUS: “The studies you cite are a long way from proving that “supranormal stimuli” exist, let alone proving that it “causes deregulation in the brain”.
This quote alone demonstrates your ignorance about current state of addiction research. Junk food, Internent porn are just a few examples of artificial enhanced stimuli we never encountered in our evolution.
Supernormal Stimuli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_Stimuli
Perhaps you may want to read this recent book by Deirdre Barrett Phd:
Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/978-0-393-06848-1/
A short synopsis:
“Our instincts-for food, sex, or territorial protection- evolved for life on the savannahs 10,000 years ago, not in today’s world of densely populated cities, technological innovations, and pollution. We now have access to a glut of larger-than-life objects, from candy to pornography to atomic weapons-that gratify these gut instincts with often-dangerous results. Animal biologists coined the term “supernormal stimuli” to describe imitations that appeal to primitive instincts and exert a stronger pull than real things, such as soccer balls that geese prefer over eggs. Evolutionary psychologist Deirdre Barrett applies this concept to the alarming disconnect between human instinct and our created environment, demonstrating how supernormal stimuli are a major cause of today’s most pressing problems, including obesity and war.”
I also suggest reading this great book covering the mismatch between our hunter-gatherer stimuli and modern stimuli.
Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts
http://www.meangenes.org/reviews/index.html
Our following articles (with citations) explain the supernormal concept as it applies to modern food and Internet porn. Multiple experiments and research show that excessive consumption of junk food alters the reward circuitries of animal and human brains (follow the links in the articles to the supporting studies).
Intoxicating Behaviors: 300 Vaginas = A Lot of Dopamine
http://yourbrainonporn.com/intoxicating-behaviors-300-vaginas-a-lot-of-dopamine
Protect Your Appetite for Pleasure
http://yourbrainonporn.com/protect-your-appetite-for-pleasure
Has Evolution Trained Our Brains to Gorge on Food and Sex?
http://yourbrainonporn.com/has-evolution-trained-our-brains-to-gorge-on-food-and-sex
As for addiction having nothing to do with sexual orientation, read what I wrote again: how can it NOT have something to do with sexual orientation if your parameters for addiction are “self-reporting” and “dysfunctional relationships with others”?
Practically every gay friend I’ve ever had felt guilty and depressed as hell about being gay and had HUGE dysfucntional relationships with their parents because of their sexuality?
How does that NOT become “sexual addiction” based on that definition of yours? It fits every item on that ABCDE list you like to quote from, as it were the rosary.
Please give me an honest answer here.