Debunking “Why Are We Still So Worried About Wat­­ching Porn?” (by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause)

Introduction

This critique has two parts: Part 1 exposes how Nicole Prause, Marty Klein and Taylor Kohut completely misrepresent their solitary bit of “evidence” to support the article’s core falsehood – that “compulsive pornography viewing” was excluded from the new ICD-11 “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” diagnosis. Part 2 exposes the startling omissions, false claims, research misrepresentations, and cherry-picked data littering the Prause/Klein/Kohut article. (Note: Most of the article’s cherry-picked data and misrepresentations are recycled from this 2016 Prause “Letter to the editor” that YBOP thoroughly dismantled 2 years ago: Critique of: Letter to the editor “Prause et al. (2015) the latest falsification of addiction predictions”, 2016.)


PART 1: Debunking claim ICD-11 excluded “pornography viewing” from “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” diagnosis

The deniers of porn addiction are agitated because the latest version of the World Health Organization’s medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for diagnosing what is commonly referred to as ‘porn addiction’ or ‘sex addiction’. It’s called “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” (CSBD). Nonetheless, in a bizarre “We lost, but we won” propaganda campaign, the deniers have been pulling out all the stops to spin this new diagnosis as a rejection of both “sex addiction” and “porn addiction.”

Not satisfied with the false narrative claiming a “rejection of addiction,” veteran porn-addiction deniers Nicole Prause, Marty Klein and Taylor Kohut have taken their propaganda to new levels in this July 30, 2018 Slate article: “Why Are We Still So Worried About Wat­­ching Porn?” Without supplying any evidence beyond mere opinions, the Prause/Klein/Kohut triumvirate asserts that WHO has officially excluded pornography viewing from the “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” diagnosis:

With no support, and zero logic, Prause/Klein/Kohut would have us believe that the most common compulsive sexual behavior – compulsive pornography use – has been axed from the WHO’s new diagnostic manual edition (the ICD-11). The hollowness of the authors’ campaign is apparent for many reasons, some of the most obvious of which are:

  • It is self-evident that the language itself of the CSBD diagnosis applies to those struggling with compulsive pornography use. (See below.)
  • CSBD does not describe (or exclude) any particular sexual activity.
  • Multiple studies show that at least 80% of people with compulsive sexual behaviour (hypersexuality) report compulsive internet pornography use.
  • Most of the recent 40 neuroscience-based studies (on which the WHO relied in its decision to include CSBD) have been done on internet pornography viewers­ – so it is silly to suggest that the WHO intended to exclude pornography viewing but forgot to specify it.

Before we get to a detailed evaluation of the deniers’ remarks, let’s be clear: There is neither proclamation nor vague allusion in any WHO literature that could be interpreted as excluding pornography users. Similarly, no WHO spokesperson has ever hinted that a CSBD diagnosis excludes pornography use. Here’s the CSBD diagnosis in its entirety taken directly from the ICD-11 manual:

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder is characterized by a persistent pattern of failure to control intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges resulting in repetitive sexual behaviour. Symptoms may include repetitive sexual activities becoming a central focus of the person’s life to the point of neglecting health and personal care or other interests, activities and responsibilities; numerous unsuccessful efforts to significantly reduce repetitive sexual behaviour; and continued repetitive sexual behaviour despite adverse consequences or deriving little or no satisfaction from it. The pattern of failure to control intense, sexual impulses or urges and resulting repetitive sexual behaviour is manifested over an extended period of time (e.g., 6 months or more), and causes marked distress or significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Distress that is entirely related to moral judgments and disapproval about sexual impulses, urges, or behaviours is not sufficient to meet this requirement.

Do you see anything about excluding pornography? What about excluding compulsively visiting prostitutes? Was any particular sexual behavior at all excluded? Of course not. The Prause/Klein/Kohut article cites no official WHO communication, and quotes no WHO spokesperson or working-group member. The article is little more than propaganda peppered with a handful of cherry-picked studies that are either misrepresented or not what they appear to be. (More below.)

If you have any doubts about the true nature of the Prause/Klein/Kohut press campaign, carefully read this responsible article about compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD). Unlike their Slate article, this July 27, 2018 article in “SELF” goes straight to the source. It quotes official WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier. Lindmeier is one of only four officials WHO spokespersons listed on this page: Communications contacts in WHO headquarters – and the only WHO spokesperson to have formally commented about CSBD! The SELF article also interviewed Shane Kraus, who was at the center of the ICD-11’s Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD) working group. Excerpt with Lindmeir quotes makes it clear that WHO did not reject “sex addiction”:

In regards to CSBD, the largest point of contention is whether or not the disorder should be categorized as an addiction. “There is ongoing scientific debate on whether or not the compulsive sexual behavior disorder constitutes the manifestation of a behavioral addiction,” WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier tells SELF. “WHO does not use the term sex addiction because we are not taking a position about whether it is physiologically an addiction or not.”

Who are the authors of this article?

Before reviewing the details below, it would be well to consider the mouthpieces of the brazen serving of propaganda in Slate. Its authors are not impartial observers. Their pro-porn agenda is plain.

Nicole Prause is a former academic with a long history of harassing authors, researchers, therapists, reporters and others who dare to report evidence of harms from internet porn use. She appears to be quite cozy with the pornography industry, as can be seen from this image of her on the red carpet of the Adult Video Network’s awards ceremony. (The AVN is a large, influential porn-industry interest group.) It also appears that Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through another porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. The FSC subjects were allegedly used in her hired-gun study on the heavily tainted and very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme.

Marty Klein once boasted his very own webpage on the AVN’s Hall of Fame in recognition of his pro-porn advocacy serving the porn industry’s interests (since removed).

Taylor Kohut is a Canadian researcher who publishes biased, carefully contrived research such as: “Is Pornography Really about ‘Making Hate to Women’?” which would have gullible readers believe that porn users hold more egalitarian attitudes toward women (they don’t), and “Perceived Effects of Pornography on the Couple Relationship,” which attempts to counter the nearly 60 studies showing that porn use has negative effects on relationships. (Here’s a Vimeo presentation critiquing highly questionable Kohut and Prause studies.) Kohut’s new website and his attempt at fundraising suggest that he just may have an agenda. Kohut’s bias was clearly revealed in a brief written for the Standing Committee on Health Regarding Motion M-47 (Canada). In the brief, as in the Slate article, Kohut and his coauthors were guilty of cherry-picking a few outlying studies while misrepresenting the current state of the research on porn’s effects.

Prause/Klein/Kohut misrepresent their one and only piece of so-called “evidence”

In the following paragraph Prause/Klein/Kohut mislead the reader about “addiction” in diagnostic manuals and lie about their one and only bit of “evidence” for pornography use being excluded from the ICD-11 CSBD diagnosis:

We are also accustomed to the shock when journalists learn that “pornography addiction” is actually not recognized by any national or international diagnostic manual. With the publication of the latest International Classification of Diseases (version 11) in June, the World Health Organization once again decided not to recognize sex-film viewing as a disorder. “Pornography viewing” was considered for inclusion in the “problematic Internet use” category, but WHO decided against its inclusion because of the lack of available evidence for this disorder. (“Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include it in the ICD-11,” the organization wrote.) The common American standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, made the same decision in their latest version as well; there is no listing for porn addiction in DSM-5.

First, neither the ICD-11 nor the APA’s DSM-5 ever uses the word “addiction” to describe an addiction – whether it be gambling addiction, heroin addiction, cigarette addiction, or you name it. Both diagnostic manuals use the word “disorder” instead of “addiction” (i.e. “gambling disorder,” “nicotine use disorder,” and so on). Thus, “sex addiction” and “porn addiction” could never have been rejected, because they were never under formal consideration in the major diagnostic manuals. Put simply, there will never be a “porn addiction” diagnosis, just as there will never be a “meth addiction” diagnosis. Yet individuals with the signs and symptoms of consistent with either a “porn addiction” or a “methamphetamine addiction” can be diagnosed using the ICD-11’s provisions.

Second, the authors’ link goes to a 2014 paper by Jon Grant, Impulse control disorders and “behavioural addictions” in the ICD-11 (2014). Before I expose Nicole Prause’s long standing misuse of the outdated Jon Grant paper, here are the indisputable facts:

(1) The Jon Grant paper is over 4 years old. In fact, 32 of the 39 neurological studies on CSB subjects listed on this page were published since the 2014 Jon Grant paper.

(2) It’s just Grant’s two cents, and not an official position paper by the World Health Organization or the CSBD work-group.

(3) Most importantly, nowhere in the paper does it say that pornography use should be excluded from CSBD. In fact, Grant says the opposite: pornography use on the internet is a form of CSB! The word “pornography” is used only once in paper and here is what Grant has to say about it:

A third key controversy in the field is whether problematic Internet use is an independent disorder. The Working Group noted that this is a heterogeneous condition, and that use of the Internet may in fact constitute a delivery system for various forms of impulse control dysfunction (e.g., pathological game playing or pornography viewing). Importantly, the descriptions of pathological gambling and of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder should note that such behaviours are increasingly seen using Internet forums, either in addition to more traditional settings, or exclusively 22, 23.

There you have it, Prause/Klein/Kohut blatantly misrepresented the only bit of “evidence” they could muster (fact-check Slate?).

However, the misrepresentation of Grant’s 2014 paper, by Prause, has been occurring for at least a year. Prause created the following image, which has been passed around pro-porn propagandists’ social media accounts. It’s a doctored screenshot of the Jon Grant paragraph I excerpted above. Counting on Twitter-induced short attention-spans, the propagandists expect you to read only what’s in the red boxes, hoping you will overlook what the paragraph actually states:

If you fell for the red-box illusion, you misread the above excerpt as:

…pornography viewing… questionable whether there is enough scientific evidence at this time to justify its inclusion as a disorder. Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include it in the ICD-11.

Now read the entire paragraph, and you will see that Jon Grant is talking about “Internet gaming disorder,” not pornography. Grant believed it was questionable whether there was enough scientific evidence at that time to justify Internet Gaming Disorder’s inclusion as a disorder. (Incidentally, 4 years later Gaming disorder is in the ICD-11 and the scientific support for it is vast.)

A third key controversy in the field is whether problematic Internet use is an independent disorder. The Working Group noted that this is a heterogeneous condition, and that use of the Internet may in fact constitute a delivery system for various forms of impulse control dysfunction (e.g., pathological game playing or pornography viewing). Importantly, the descriptions of pathological gambling and of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder should note that such behaviours are increasingly seen using Internet forums, either in addition to more traditional settings, or exclusively 22,23. The DSM-5 has included Internet gaming disorder in the section “Conditions for further study”. Although potentially an important behaviour to understand, and one certainly with a high profile in some countries 12, it is questionable whether there is enough scientific evidence at this time to justify its inclusion as a disorder. Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include it in the ICD-11.

Without reading only the red squares, the above excerpt reveals that Jon Grant believes that internet pornography viewing can be an impulse control disorder that would fall under the umbrella diagnosis of “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” (CSBD). This is the exact opposite of the “red square” illusion tweeted by the propagandists.

What is Jon Grant saying 4 years later? Grant was a co-author on this 2018 paper announcing (and agreeing with) the inclusion of CSBD in the upcoming ICD-11: Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder in the ICD‐11. In a second 2018 article, “Compulsive sexual behavior: A nonjudgmental approach,” Grant says that Compulsive Sexual Behavior is also called “sex addiction” or “hypersexuality” (which have always functioned in the peer-reviewed literature as synonymous terms for any compulsive sexual behavior, including compulsive porn use):

Compulsive sexual behavior (CSB), also referred to as sexual addiction or hypersexuality, is characterized by repetitive and intense preoccupations with sexual fantasies, urges, and behaviors that are distressing to the individual and/or result in psychosocial impairment.

No wonder the propagandists such as Prause are desperately reaching back 4 years to misrepresent a Jon Grant paper. Grant’s recent 2018 paper states in the very first sentence that CSB is also called sex addiction or hypersexuality!

For an accurate account of the ICD-11, see this recent article by The Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health (SASH): “Compulsive Sexual Behaviour” has been classified by World Health Organization as Mental Health Disorder. It begins with:

Despite a few misleading rumors to the contrary, it is untrue that the WHO has rejected “porn addiction” or “sex addiction”. Compulsive sexual behavior has been called by a variety of names over the years: “hypersexuality”, “porn addiction”, “sex addiction”, “out-of-control sexual behavior” and so forth. In its latest catalogue of diseases the WHO takes a step towards legitimizing the disorder by acknowledging “Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder” (CSBD) as a mental illness. According to WHO expert Geoffrey Reed, the new CSBD diagnosis “lets people know they have “a genuine condition” and can seek treatment.”


PART 2: Exposing false claims, misrepresentations, cherry-picked studies, and egregious omissions

The remainder of the Prause/Klein/Kohut article is devoted to persuading the reader that porn addiction is a myth and that internet porn use causes no problems. In addition, they imply that only the “sex negative” would dare to suggest that porn use could produce negative effects. In this section we furnish relevant Prause/Klein/Kohut excerpts followed by analysis of both the claim and references supplied to support the claim. Where appropriate we provide studies that counter their assertions.

A sample of the article’s numerous omissions:

Before we address each of the article’s major assertions, it’s important to reveal what Prause/Klein/Kohut chose to omit from their magnum opus. The lists of studies contain relevant excerpts and links to the original papers.

  1. Porn addiction? This page lists 39 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal). They provide strong support for the addiction model as their findings mirror the neurological findings reported in substance addiction studies.
  2. The real experts’ opinions on porn/sex addiction? This list contains 16 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All support the addiction model.
  3. Porn and sexual problems? This list contains 26 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 5 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.
  4. Signs of addiction and escalation to more extreme material? About 30 studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms (all signs and symptoms associated with addiction).
  5. Porn’s effects on relationships? Almost 60 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. (As far as we know all studies involving males have reported more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction.)
  6. Porn use affecting emotional and mental health? Over 55 studies link porn use to poorer mental-emotional health & poorer cognitive outcomes.
  7. Porn use affecting beliefs, attitudes and behaviors? Check out individual studies – over 25 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views – or the summary from this 2016 meta-analysis: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015. Excerpt:

The goal of this review was to synthesize empirical investigations testing effects of media sexualization. The focus was on research published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals between 1995 and 2015. A total of 109 publications that contained 135 studies were reviewed. The findings provided consistent evidence that both laboratory exposure and regular, everyday exposure to this content are directly associated with a range of consequences, including higher levels of body dissatisfaction, greater self-objectification, greater support of sexist beliefs and of adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater tolerance of sexual violence toward women. Moreover, experimental exposure to this content leads both women and men to have a diminished view of women’s competence, morality, and humanity.

  1. What about sexual aggression and porn use? Another meta-analysis: A Meta‐Analysis of Pornography Consumption and Actual Acts of Sexual Aggression in General Population Studies (2015). Excerpt:

22 studies from 7 different countries were analyzed. Consumption was associated with sexual aggression in the United States and internationally, among males and females, and in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Associations were stronger for verbal than physical sexual aggression, although both were significant. The general pattern of results suggested that violent content may be an exacerbating factor.

  1. What about the porn use and adolescents? Check out this list of over 200 adolescent studies, or this 2012 review of the research – The Impact of Internet Pornography on Adolescents: A Review of the Research (2012). From conclusion:

Increased access to the Internet by adolescents has created unprecedented opportunities for sexual education, learning, and growth. Conversely, the risk of harm that is evident in the literature has led researchers to investigate adolescent exposure to online pornography in an effort to elucidate these relationships. Collectively, these studies suggest that youth who consume pornography may develop unrealistic sexual values and beliefs. Among the findings, higher levels of permissive sexual attitudes, sexual preoccupation, and earlier sexual experimentation have been correlated with more frequent consumption of pornography…. Nevertheless, consistent findings have emerged linking adolescent use of pornography that depicts violence with increased degrees of sexually aggressive behavior. The literature does indicate some correlation between adolescents’ use of pornography and self-concept. Girls report feeling physically inferior to the women they view in pornographic material, while boys fear they may not be as virile or able to perform as the men in these media. Adolescents also report that their use of pornography decreased as their self-confidence and social development increase. Additionally, research suggests that adolescents who use pornography, especially that found on the Internet, have lower degrees of social integration, increases in conduct problems, higher levels of delinquent behavior, higher incidence of depressive symptoms, and decreased emotional bonding with caregivers.

Prause, Ley and Klein have grossly misrepresented the current state of the research for the last few years. Now, they’ve conveniently bundled all the outlying, cherry-picked studies they regularly cite into this article. We expose the truth below. The relevant Prause/Klein/Kohut excerpts listed here are in the same sequence as in the article.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #1: Repeat after me: “Neither the DSM-5 nor the ICD-11 recognizes any addiction, only disorders”

SLATE EXCERPT: “We are also accustomed to the shock when journalists learn that “pornography addiction” is actually not recognized by any national or international diagnostic manual.”

Nice try at fooling the readers, but, again, neither the ICD-11 nor the APA’s DSM-5 ever uses the word “addiction” to describe an addiction – whether it be gambling addiction, heroin addiction, cigarette addiction or you name it. Both diagnostic manuals use the word “disorder” instead of “addiction” (i.e. “gambling disorder” “nicotine use disorder”, and so on). Thus, “sex addiction” and “porn addiction” could never have been rejected, because they were never under formal consideration in the major diagnostic manuals. Put simply, there will never be a “porn addiction” diagnosis, just as there will never be a “meth addiction” diagnosis. Yet individuals with the signs and symptoms of consistent with either a “porn addiction” or a “methamphetamine addiction” can be diagnosed using the ICD-11’s provisions.

By recognizing behavioral addictions and creating the umbrella diagnosis for compulsive sexual behaviors, the World Health Organization is coming into alignment with the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). In August, 2011 America’s top addiction experts at ASAM released their sweeping definition of addiction. From the ASAM press release:

The new definition resulted from an intensive, four‐year process with more than 80 experts actively working on it, including top addiction authorities, addiction medicine clinicians and leading neuroscience researchers from across the country. … Two decades of advancements in neurosciences convinced ASAM that addiction needed to be redefined by what’s going on in the brain.

An ASAM spokesman explained:

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.

For all practical purposes, the 2011 definition ends the debate over whether sex and porn addictions are “real addictions.” ASAM explicitly stated that sexual behavior addictions exist and must be caused by the same fundamental brain changes found in substance addictions. From the ASAM FAQs:

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: 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 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. … Food and sexual behaviors and gambling behaviors can be associated with the ‘pathological pursuit of rewards’ described in this new definition of addiction.

As for the DSM, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has so far dragged its feet on including compulsive sexual behaviors in its diagnostic manual. When it last updated the manual in 2013 (DSM-5), it didn’t formally consider “internet porn addiction,” opting instead to debate “hypersexual disorder.” The latter umbrella term for problematic sexual behavior was recommended for inclusion by the DSM-5’s own Sexuality Work Group after years of review. However, in an eleventh-hour “star chamber” session (according to a Work Group member), other DSM-5 officials unilaterally rejected hypersexuality, citing reasons that have been described as illogical.

In reaching this position, the DSM-5 disregarded formal evidence, widespread reports of the signs, symptoms and behaviors consistent with compulsion and addiction from sufferers and their clinicians, and the formal recommendation of thousands of medical and research experts at the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

Incidentally, the DSM has earned distinguished critics who object to its approach of ignoring underlying physiology and medical theory to ground its diagnoses solely in symptoms. The latter permits erratic, political decisions that defy reality. For example, the DSM once incorrectly classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Just prior to the DSM-5’s publication in 2013, Thomas Insel, then Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, warned that it was time for the mental health field to stop relying on the DSM. Its “weakness is its lack of validity,” he explained, and “we cannot succeed if we use DSM categories as the “gold standard.” He added, “That is why NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” In other words, the NIMH would stop funding research based on DSM labels (and their absence).

It will be interesting to see what occurs with the next update of the DSM. (Note: DSM-5 did create a behavioral addiction category)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #2: Crocodile tears

SLATE EXCERPT: Scientists and clinicians who present evidence that challenges these harm-focused narratives—and we count ourselves among that group—face serious social and political opposition to their research. It can be tough for this info to make it to the public too.

These authors spin the yarn that pro-porn advocates “face serious social and political opposition to their research” and that it can be “tough for this info to make it to the public.” Not so. In fact, pro-porn spokespersons are greatly over-represented in the press, and they have done much, often behind the scenes, to suppress opposing evidence of porn’s harms in both the popular and academic literature. (Examples)

Predictably, these authors offer no evidence of their supposed social and political difficulties. A few statistics will serve to reveal the true situation.

A Google search for “Nicole Prause” + pornography returns 16,600 results over relatively few years. Prause’s powerhouse media exposure includes quotations of her pro-porn/anti-porn addiction views in some of the most popular mainstream outlets, including Slate, Daily Beast, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone, CNN, NPR, Vice, The Sunday Times, and countless smaller outlets. Clearly Prause gets what she pays for from her glossy public relations firm. See http://media2x3.com/category/nikky-prause/

It should be noted that Prause’s close colleague David Ley receives similar, generous press treatment. A Google search for “David Ley” + pornography returns 18,000 results – mostly because he wrote a book entitled The Myth of Sex Addiction (without ever having studied addiction in depth). A Google search for “Marty Klein” + pornography returns 41,500 results over many years.

Not only do mainstream outlets feature the views of these 3 authors, they also typically adopt these spokespersons’ narrative at face value – without seeking out the opposing views of big name academics who have published multiple neurological studies on internet porn users demonstrating evidence of porn’s harmful effects. These include Marc Potenza, Matthias Brand, Valerie Voon, Christian Laier, Simone Kühn, Jürgen Gallinat, Rudolf Stark, Tim Klucken, Ji-Woo Seok, Jin-Hun Sohn, Mateusz Gola and others.

Here’s a sample comparison. A Google search for “Matthias Brand” + pornography returns only 6,600 results. The discrepancy between coverage of distinguished academic Brand and non-academics Prause, Ley and Klein is quite revealing. Brand has authored 290 studies, is the head of the Department of Psychology: Cognition, at the University of Duisburg-Essen, and has published more neuroscience-based studies on pornography addicts than any other researcher in the world. (See his list of his porn addiction studies here: 15 neurological studies and 3 reviews of the literature.)

Clearly, it is the serious academic researchers who are discriminated against in the press. Consequently, readers are advised to take these pro-porn authors’ narrative about the hardships they face in publicizing their pro-porn views with a healthy degree of skepticism. Journalists should do more responsible, less biased due diligence in this fractious, fractured field.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #3: A blog post by Playboy staff writer is all you got?

SLATE EXCERPT: They are also told that there is an epidemic of erectile dysfunction emerging in young men and that porn is the cause (though actual evidence suggests that there’s not).

Prause/Klein/Kohut attempt unconvincingly to debunk the well documented rise in youthful erectile dysfunction with a blog post by Justin Lehmiller, a regular paid contributor to Playboy Magazine. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Lehmiller is a close ally of Prause, having featured her in at least ten of his blog posts. ­­­These and many other Lehmiller blogs perpetuate the same false narratives: porn use causes no problems and porn addiction/porn-induced sexual dysfunctions do not exist. Before we address Lehmiller’s sleight of hand regarding porn-induced sexual dysfunction, let’s examine the evidence.

Historical ED rates: Erectile dysfunction was first assessed in 1940s when the Kinsey report concluded that the prevalence of ED was less than 1% in men younger than 30 years, less than 3% in those 30–45. While ED studies on young men are relatively sparse, this 2002 meta-analysis of 6 high-quality ED studies reported that 5 of the 6 reported ED rates for men under 40 of approximately 2%. The 6th study reported figures of 7-9%, but the question used could not be compared to the 5 other studies, and did not assess chronic erectile dysfunction: “Did you have trouble maintaining or achieving an erection any time in the last year?” (Yet this anomalous study is the one that Lehmiller irresponsibly uses for comparison.)

At the end of 2006 free, streaming porn tube sites came on line and gained instant popularity. This changed the nature of porn consumption radically. For the first time in history, viewers could escalate with ease during a masturbation session without any wait.

Nine studies since 2010: Nine studies published since 2010 reveal a tremendous rise in erectile dysfunctions. This is documented in this lay article and in this peer-reviewed paper involving 7 US Navy doctors – Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016). In the 9 studies, erectile dysfunction rates for men under 40 ranged from 14% to 37%, while rates for low libido ranged from 16% to 37%. Other than the advent of streaming porn (2006) no variable related to youthful ED has appreciably changed in the last 10-20 years (smoking rates are down, drug use is steady, obesity rates in males 20-40 up only 4% since 1999 – see this study).

The recent jump in sexual problems coincides with the publication of 26 studies linking porn use and “porn addiction” to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. It’s important to note that the first 5 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions (for some strange reason the Slate article failed to mention any of these 26 studies). In addition to the studies listed, this page contains articles and videos by over 120 experts (urology professors, urologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists, MDs) who acknowledge and have successfully treated porn-induced ED and porn-induced loss of sexual desire.

Lehmiller’s sleight of hand: Lehmiller carefully selected two mismatched studies, with data separated by 18 years, in an attempt to convince the reader that ED rates have always been around 8% for men under 40:

1) The “way things were study” from 1992 is the one that asked: “Did you have trouble maintaining or achieving an erection any time in the last year?” Rates of yes to this question were between 7-9%.

2) The “modern study” with 2010-12 data that asked whether men had trouble getting or keeping an erection for a period of three or more months during the last year.” This study reported the following rated of sexual functioning problems in 16-21 year old males:

  • Lacked interest in having sex: 10.5%
  • Difficulty reaching climax: 8.3%
  • Difficulty achieving or maintaining an erection: 7.8%

Lehmiller “summarized” these findings for the vision-impaired as he tried to mislead them:

“Although these data were collected in different Western countries and the question wording differed, it’s striking how similar the figures are considering that the data were collected 20 years apart. This suggests that perhaps rates of ED aren’t on the rise among young men after all.”

Sorry Justin, but the questions are not “worded differently”; they are completely different questions. The 1992 study asked whether over the course of the last year at any point you had trouble getting it up. This includes when you were drunk, sick, just wanked three times in a row, experienced performance anxiety, whatever. I’m surprised it’s only 7-9%. In contrast, the 2010 study asked whether you had a persistent problem of erectile dysfunction over a period of three months or more: this was for 16-21 year olds, not men 39 and under!

As one recovery-forum member observed, Justin Lehmiller’s “science analysis” is Buzzfeed level clickbait, not science journalism.

But you may ask: Why are the ED rates about 8% in the 2010-2012 study, yet 14-37% in the 9 other studies published since 2010?

  1. First, 8% isn’t low, as that would translate in a 600%-800% increase for men under 40.
  2. Second, it wasn’t men under 40 – it was 16 to 21 year olds, so virtually none of them should have chronic ED.
  3. Third, unlike the other 9 studies that employed anonymous surveys, this study used face to face in-home interviews. (It’s quite possible that adolescents would be less than fully forthcoming under such circumstances.)
  4. The study gathered its data between August, 2010 and September, 2012. Studies reporting a significant rise in under-25 ED first appeared in 2011. More recent studies on the 25 and under crowd report higher rates (see this 2014 study on Canadian adolescents).
  5. Many of the other studies used the IIEF-5 or IIEF-6, which assess sexual problems on a scale, as opposed to the simple yes or no (in the past 3 months) employed in the Lehmiller’s chosen paper.

Before leaving this topic, it would be well to look at some of the most irrefutable research that demonstrates a radical rise in ED rates over a decade using very large samples (which increase reliability). All the men were assessed using the same (yes/no) question about ED, as part of the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behavior (GSSAB), administered to 13,618 sexually active men in 29 countries. That occurred in 2001-2002.

A decade later, in 2011, the same “sexual difficulties” (yes/no) question from the GSSAB was administered to 2,737 sexually active men in Croatia, Norway and Portugal. The first group, in 2001-2002, were aged 40-80. The second group, in 2011, were 40 and under.

Based on the findings of prior studies one would predict the older men would have far higher ED scores than the younger men, whose scores should have been negligible. Not so. In just a decade, things had changed radically. The 2001-2002 ED rates for men 40-80 were about 13% in Europe. By 2011, ED rates in Europeans, ages 18-40, ranged from 14-28%!

What changed in men’s sexual environment during this time? Well, major changes were internet penetration and access to porn videos (followed by access to streaming porn in 2006, and then smartphones on which to view it). In the 2011 study on Croatians, Norwegians and Portuguese, the Portuguese had the lowest rates of ED and the Norwegians had the highest. In 2013, internet penetration rates in Portugal were only 67%, compared with 95% in Norway.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #4: What if a meme is actually fully supported by the peer-reviewed literature?

SLATE EXCERPT: People are told that porn is toxic to marriages and that viewing it will destroy your sexual appetite.

If people are being told this, perhaps it because every single study involving males has reported that more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction. In all, nearly 60 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. From the conclusion of this meta-analysis of various other studies Pornography Consumption and Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis (2017):

However, pornography consumption was associated with lower interpersonal satisfaction outcomes in cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal surveys, and experiments. Associations between pornography consumption and reduced interpersonal satisfaction outcomes were not moderated by their year of release or their publication status.

As for destroying sexual appetite, 26 studies link porn use or porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. As examples we provide 5 of the 26 studies below:

1) The Dual Control Model – The Role Of Sexual Inhibition & Excitation In Sexual Arousal And Behavior (2007) – This was the first study on porn-induced sexual problems (by the Kinsey Institute). In an experiment employing standard video porn that had “worked” in the past, 50% of the young men now couldn’t become aroused or achieve erections with porn (average age was 29). The shocked researchers discovered that the men’s erectile dysfunction was,

related to high levels of exposure to and experience with sexually explicit materials.

The men experiencing erectile dysfunction had spent a considerable amount of time in bars and bathhouses where porn was “omnipresent” and “continuously playing.” The researchers stated:

Conversations with the subjects reinforced our idea that in some of them a high exposure to erotica seemed to have resulted in a lower responsivity to “vanilla sex” erotica and an increased need for novelty and variation, in some cases combined with a need for very specific types of stimuli in order to get aroused.

2) Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014) – A Max Planck brain scan study which found 3 significant addiction-related brain changes correlating with the amount of porn consumed. It also found that the more porn consumed the less reward circuit activity in response to brief exposure (.530 second) to vanilla porn. Lead author Simone Kühn commenting in the Max Planck press release said:q988*99*********/****999

“We assume that subjects with a high porn consumption need increasing stimulation to receive the same amount of reward. That could mean that regular consumption of pornography more or less wears out your reward system. That would fit perfectly the hypothesis that their reward systems need growing stimulation.”

3) Adolescents and web porn: a new era of sexuality (2015) – This Italian study analyzed the effects of internet porn on high school seniors, co-authored by urology professor Carlo Foresta, president of the Italian Society of Reproductive Pathophysiology. The most interesting finding is that 16% of those who consume porn more than once a week report abnormally low sexual desire, as compared with 0% in non-consumers – which is exactly what you would expect for 18-year old men.

4) Patient Characteristics by Type of Hypersexuality Referral: A Quantitative Chart Review of 115 Consecutive Male Cases (2015) – A study on men (average age 41.5) with hypersexuality disorders, such as paraphilias, chronic masturbation or adultery. 27 of the men were classified as “avoidant masturbators,” meaning they masturbated to porn for one or more hours per day, or more than 7 hours per week. Findings: 71% of the men who chronically masturbated to porn reported sexual functioning problems, with 33% reporting delayed ejaculation (often a precursor to porn-induced ED).

5) “I think it has been a negative influence in many ways but at the same time I can’t stop using it”: Self-identified problematic pornography use among a sample of young Australians (2017) – Online survey of Australians, aged 15-29.  Those who had ever viewed pornography (n=856) were asked an open-ended question: ‘How has pornography influenced your life?’

“Among participants who responded to the open-ended question (n=718), problematic usage was self-identified by 88 respondents. Male participants who reported problematic usage of pornography highlighted effects in three areas: on sexual function, arousal and relationships.”

The theme of this section, repeated throughout the article, is Prause/Klein/Kohut making bold yet unsupported pronouncements in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #5: Another lesson in how to manipulate data and bury findings

SLATE EXCERPT: Amazingly, the first nationally representative peer-reviewed study on sex-film viewing was only just published in 2017 in Australia. This study found that 84 percent of men and 54 percent of women had ever viewed sexual material. Overall, 3.69 percent of men (144 of 3,923) and 0.65 percent of women (28 of 4,218) in the study believed that they were “addicted” to pornography, and only half of this group reported that using pornography had any negative impact on their lives.

With pro-porn researcher Alan McKee as an author of the study named here it’s not surprising the lead headline was buried away in the study’s tables, while a cleverly worded abstract leaves the reader with the impression that only a small percentage of porn users believe porn is having a bad effects. McKee has a long history of defending porn. He authored “The Porn Report”, which an ABC analysis said wason an ideological mission to provide an apologia for the sex industry”.

In fact, ABC revealed that: “The project on which the book is based was funded by the Australian Research Council from 2002 to 2004, and was conducted in liaison with, and with support from, the peak Australian sex industry organisation, the Eros Association, along with pornography businesses such as Gallery Entertainment and Axis Entertainment.” (emphasis supplied)

So what key finding was buried in the Australian study? 17% of males and females aged 16-30 reported that using pornography had a bad effect on them. It’s important to note that the data is 6 years old (2012), and the questions are based purely upon self-perception. Keep in mind that addicts rarely see themselves as addicted. In fact, most internet porn users are unlikely to connect symptoms to porn use unless they quit for an extended period. Here’s a screenshot of Table 5 (results):

How different would the headlines from this study have been if the authors had emphasized their key finding that nearly 1 in 5 young people believed that porn use had a “bad effect on them”? Why did they attempt to downplay this finding by ignoring it and focusing on cross-sectional results – rather than the millennial group most at risk for internet problems?

Here are a few additional reasons to take the headlines with a grain of salt:

  1. This was a cross-sectional representative study spanning age groups 16-69, males and females. It’s well established that young men are the primary users of internet porn. So, 25% of the men and 60% of the women had not viewed porn at least once in the last 12 months. Thus the statistics gathered minimize the problem by veiling the at-risk users.
  2. The single question, which asked participants if they had used porn in the last 12 months, doesn’t meaningfully quantify porn use. For example, a person who bumped into a porn site pop-up is grouped with someone who masturbates 3 times a day to hardcore porn.
  3. However, when the survey inquired of those who “had ever viewed porn” which ones had viewed porn in the past year, the highest percentage was the teen group. 93.4% of them had viewed in the last year, with 20-29 year olds just behind them at 88.6.
  4. Data was gathered between October 2012 and November 2013. Things have changed a lot in the last 4 years thanks to smartphone penetration – especially in younger users.
  5. Questions were asked in computer-assisted telephone interviews. It’s human nature to be more forthcoming in completely anonymous interviews, especially when interviews are about sensitive subjects such as porn use and porn-related problems.
  6. The questions are based purely upon self-perception. Keep in mind that addicts rarely see themselves as addicted. In fact, most internet porn users are unlikely to connect their symptoms to porn use unless they first quit for an extended period.
  7. The study did not employ standardized questionnaires (given anonymously), which would more accurately have assessed both porn addiction and porn’s effects on users.

What’s the data from recent studies where all participants intentionally viewed internet porn at least once in the last, say, 3-6 months, or even the last year?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #6: Study reveals that self-delusion is widespread in Canada

SLATE EXCERPT: Interestingly, even among the minority of users who believe they are “addicted” to pornography, remission may be spontaneous: A study following people over time found that 100 percent of women and 95 percent of men concerned about their frequent sexual behaviors (again, not assessed clinically) no longer felt that they were addicted to sex within five years despite no documented intervention.

First spin: Contrary to the excerpt, the Canadian study did not ask participants if “they believed themselves to be addicted.” Instead, once a year (2006 to 2011) participants were asked “whether their over-involvement in the behavior had caused significant problems for them in the past 12 months”. The six behaviors were: exercise, shopping, online chat, video gaming, eating or sexual behaviors. The Slate excerpt is referring to the percentage of participants who thought they had a significant problem in ALL 5 years.

Second spin: Contrary to the excerpt all the problematic sexual behaviors were lumped together into one category – like the ICD-11 has done with CSBD. There was no “remission from porn addiction” as no participant was asked if they believed themselves to be addicted to pornography.

Third spin: Contrary to the spin, problematic sexual behaviors were the most stable excessive problem, which is remarkable as it is well established that for many libido tends to fall with age. Excerpt from study:

Our data suggested that in the vast majority of cases the reported problem behaviors were transient (Table 3). Within the subsample of respondents reporting a given problem behavior, most participants reported the given excessive behavior only once during the 5-year study period. Even the most stable problem behavior (excessive sexual behavior) was reported five times only by 5.4% of those males who reported having difficulties with this problem behavior.

The study also reveals that far more people actually have a problem than perceive they have a problem: In a clear example of self-delusion only 38 out of the 4,121 participants thought they had a problem with eating (answering ‘yes’ in 4 out of 5 years). In other words, less than 1% of Canadians believe their eating habits are causing them problems or are disordered. How could this be when 30% of adult Canadians are obese, while another 43% are overweight? Let’s not forgot the remaining 27% of Canadians who are not overweight, yet may be dealing with an eating disorder, such as anorexia nervosa or bulimia.

How could more than 99% of Canadians believe their eating habits are of no concern, when the majority of them appear to have a problem? And what does the finding really tell us about this type of study? Maybe it’s not that individuals rarely have problematic behaviors, or that troublesome behaviors fade away. Maybe, it’s exposing what is commonly acknowledged: we humans are really good at lying to ourselves.

A 2018 study on internet gamers reveals high levels of this same familiar self-delusion. 44% of gamers who met the criteria for addiction thought they had no problems:  Discordance between self-report and clinical diagnosis of Internet gaming disorder in adolescents.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #7: “Not a single peer-reviewed study supports our claim, so I’ll cite a non-peer-reviewed article…in Dutch”

SLATE EXCERPT: But surely sex films are bad for relationships? In a nationally representative Dutch sample, sex-film viewing was unrelated to sexual difficulties in relationships.

In several places Prause/Klein/Kohut utilize various tactics to convince the reader that porn use has no effects of intimate relationships. They must be employing the tried and true political strategy of “attack your opponents strength,” but it won’t work. We will repeatedly cite the current state of the peer-reviewed literature and expose their subterfuge. In this excerpt suggesting that porn isn’t “bad for relationships” they cite only a single article, in Dutch, which is not peer-reviewed.

If they had a peer-reviewed study to support the assertion that porn use has no effects of relationships, they certainly would have cited it. As previously stated, nearly 60 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. As far as we know all studies involving males (which is the majority of studies) have reported more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction. While a handful of published studies correlate greater porn use in females to neutral (or better) sexual satisfaction, the vast majority most have not. See this list of 35 studies involving female subjects reporting negative effects on arousal, sexual satisfaction, and relationships.

When evaluating the research, it’s important to know that coupled females who regularly use internet porn (and can thus report on its effects) make up a relatively small percentage of all porn users. Large, nationally representative data are scarce, but the General Social Survey reported that only 2.6% of all US women had visited a “pornographic website” in the last month. The question was only asked in 2002 and 2004 (see Pornography and Marriage, 2014). Sure, porn use by younger women may have increased since 2004. Still, however, studies reporting that more porn use is correlated to greater satisfaction in women are referring to a relatively small percentage of women (perhaps only 1-2% of the female population). For example, below is a graph from one the few studies to report that more porn use is related to greater satisfaction in females.

It’s important to note that “Full” refers to males and females combined. Since the “Full” and “Men” lines are nearly identical, this tells us that almost all the frequent porn users at the far end were males. In other words the women who use 2-3 times a month or more probably comprise only 1-2% of all females. This would align with the 2004 nationally representative study mentioned above where only 2.4% of women had visited a porn site in the last month.

This raises several unanswered questions: What characteristics do the 1%-2% of female porn users have that leads to greater use, yet greater satisfaction? Are they into BDSM or other kinks? Are they in polyamorous relationships? Do these women possess extremely high libidos or have an addiction to porn? Whatever the reason for high levels of porn use in a tiny fraction of women, does this really tell us anything about the effects of regular porn on the other 98-99% of adult women?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #8: The 3 studies cited do not support the claims made

SLATE EXCERPT: Similar conclusions can also be drawn from careful laboratory research, which has found that people who are worried about the frequency of their sex-film viewing actually do not struggle with the regulation of their sexual urges nor with their erectile functioning.

The above excerpt links to three studies that do not support the claims (2 of the 3 studies are by Prause). The same 3 papers and the same 2 claims are recycled from Prause’s 2016 letter (which was thoroughly debunked here: Critique of: Letter to the editor “Prause et al. (2015) the latest falsification of addiction predictions”).

First Two Studies: Winters, Christoff, & Gorzalka, 2009 and Moholy, Prause, Proudfit, Rahman, & Fong, 2015

We will begin with the first 2 studies that are cited to support the assertion that, “people who are worried about the frequency of their sex-film viewing actually do not struggle with the regulation of their sexual urges.”

The 2 studies did not assess if compulsive porn users had trouble controlling their porn use – as the excerpt falsely implies. Instead, the two studies had subjects watch a bit of porn, instructing them to attempt reduce their sexual arousal. The studies compared subjects’ scores on a sex addiction test with subjects’ ability to control their sexual arousal while watching a short clip of vanilla porn. The results for both studies were all over the place, with no clear cut correlations between the sex addiction test and the ability to inhibit one’s arousal.

The Prause/Klein/Kohut assertion is that subjects scoring highest on the sex addiction test should score lowest on controlling their arousal. Since there was no clear cut correlation in the 2 studies then “porn addiction must not exist.”  Here’s why this is nonsense:

1) As stated, the studies did not assess subject’s “ability to control porn use despite negative consequences,” only transient arousal in a lab setting with a bunch of strangers in white coats lurking about.

2) The studies did not assess which participants were or were not “porn addicts” – as the researchers only used “sex addiction” questionnaires. For example, Prause’s study relied upon the CBSOB, which has zero questions about internet porn use. It only asks about “sexual activities,” or if subjects are worried about their activities (e.g., “I am worried I am pregnant,” “I gave someone HIV,” “I experienced financial problems”). Thus any correlations between scores on the CBSOB and ability to regulate arousal are irrelevant for internet porn use.

3) Most importantly: Even though neither study identified which participants were porn addicts, Prause/Klein/Kohut seem to claim that actual “porn addicts” should be the least able to control their sexual arousal while viewing porn. Yet why would they think porn addicts should have “higher arousal’ when Prause et al., 2015 reported that more frequent porn users had less brain activation to vanilla porn than did controls? (Incidentally, another EEG study similarly found that greater porn use in women correlated with less brain activation to porn.) The findings of Prause et al. 2015 align with Kühn & Gallinat (2014), which found that more porn use correlated with less brain activation in response to pictures of vanilla porn, and with Banca et al. 2015, which found faster habituation to sexual images in porn addicts.

It is not uncommon for frequent porn users to develop tolerance, which is the need for greater stimulation in order to achieve the same level of arousal. Vanilla porn can become boring. A similar phenomenon occurs in substance abusers who require bigger “hits” to achieve the same high. With porn users, greater stimulation is often achieved by escalating to new or extreme genres of porn. A recent study found that such escalation is very common in today’s internet porn users. 49% of the men surveyed had viewed porn that “was not previously interesting to them or that they considered disgusting.” In fact, multiple studies have reported findings consistent habituation or escalation in frequent porn users – an effect entirely consistent with the addiction model.

Key point: The authors’ entire claim rests upon the unsupported prediction that “porn addicts” should experience greater sexual arousal to static images of vanilla porn, and thus less ability to control their arousal. Yet the prediction that compulsive porn users would experience greater arousal to vanilla porn and greater sexual desire has repeatedly been refuted by several lines of research:

  1. 25 studies refute the claim that sex and porn addicts “have high sexual desire.”
  2. 26 studies link porn use to lower sexual arousal or sexual dysfunctions with sex partners.
  3. Over 55 studies link porn use with lower sexual and relationship satisfaction.

Relevant: In another example of agenda-driven bias, Prause claimed that her 2015 results of lower brain activation in response to vanilla porn had completely “debunked porn addiction.” Six peer-reviewed papers disagree with Prause. All say that Prause et al., 2015 actually found desensitization/habituation in frequent porn users (which is consistent with the addiction model): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

The Third Study (Prause & Pfaus 2015):

A single paper, co-authored by Nicole Prause, was cited to support the claim that porn use has no effects on sexual functioning (“…..nor with their erectile functioning.“) Before we address this heavily criticized paper (Prause & Pfaus), let’s review the evidence in support of porn-induced sexual dysfunctions.

As detailed in Excerpt #3 above, nine studies published since 2010 reveal a tremendous rise in erectile dysfunction. This is documented in this lay article and in this peer-reviewed paper involving 7 US Navy doctors: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016). Prior to 2001 erectile dysfunction rates for men under 40 hovered around 2-3%. Since 2010 ED rates range from 14% to 37%, while rates for low libido ranged from 16% to 37%. Other than the advent of streaming porn no variable related to youthful ED has appreciably changed in the last 10-20 years.

The recent jump in sexual problems coincides with the publication of 26 studies linking porn use and “porn addiction” to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. It’s important to note that the first 5 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions. For some strange reason the Slate article fails to mention any of these 26 studies.

In addition to the studies listed, this page contains articles and videos by over 120 experts (urology professors, urologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists, MDs) who acknowledge, and have successfully treated, porn-induced ED and porn-induced loss of sexual desire. In addition tens of thousands of young men have reported curing chronic sexual dysfunction by removing a single variable: porn. (See these pages for a few thousand such recovery stories: Rebooting accounts 1, Rebooting accounts 2, Rebooting Accounts 3, Short PIED recovery stories.)

Prause & Pfaus did not support its claims: I provide the formal critique by Richard Isenberg, MD and a very extensive lay critique, followed by my comments and excerpts from Dr. Isenberg’s critique:

Prause & Pfaus 2015 wasn’t a study on men with ED. It wasn’t a study at all. Instead, Prause claimed to have gathered data from four of her earlier studies, none of which addressed erectile dysfunction. It’s disturbing that this paper by Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus passed peer-review as the data in their paper did not match the data in the underlying four studies on which the paper claimed to be based. The discrepancies are not minor gaps, but gaping holes that cannot be plugged. In addition, the paper made several claims that were false or not supported by their data.

We begin with false claims made by both Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus. Many journalists’ articles about this study claimed that porn use led to better erections, yet that’s not what the paper found. In recorded interviews, both Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus falsely claimed that they had measured erections in the lab, and that the men who used porn had better erections. In the Jim Pfaus TV interview Pfaus states:

We looked at the correlation of their ability to get an erection in the lab.

We found a liner correlation with the amount of porn they viewed at home, and the latencies which for example they get an erection is faster.

In this radio interview Nicole Prause claimed that erections were measured in the lab. The exact quote from the show:

The more people watch erotica at home they have stronger erectile responses in the lab, not reduced.

Yet this paper did not assess erection quality in the lab or “speed of erections.” The paper only claimed to have asked guys to rate their “arousal” after briefly viewing porn (and it’s not clear from the underlying papers that this simple self-report was even asked of all subjects). In any case, an excerpt from the paper itself admitted that:

No physiological genital response data were included to support men’s self-reported experience”

In other words, no actual erections were tested or measured in the lab, which means that no such data or conclusions were peer-reviewed!

In a second unsupported claim, lead author Nicole Prause tweeted several times about the study, letting the world know that 280 subjects were involved, and that they had “no problems at home.” However, the four underlying studies contained only 234 male subjects, so “280” is way off.

A third unsupported claim: Dr. Isenberg’s Letter to the Editor (linked to above), which raised multiple substantive concerns highlighting the flaws in Prause & Pfaus , wondered how it could be possible for Prause & Pfaus to have compared different subjects’ arousal levels when three different types of sexual stimuli were used in the 4 underlying studies. Two studies used a 3-minute film, one study used a 20-second film, and one study used still images. It’s well established that films are far more arousing than photos, so no legitimate research team would group these subjects together to make claims about their responses. What’s shocking is that in their paper authors Prause and Pfaus unaccountably claim that all 4 studies used sexual films:

“The VSS presented in the studies were all films.”

This statement is false, as clearly revealed in Prause’s own underlying studies. This is the first reason why Prause and Pfaus cannot claim that their paper assessed “arousal.” You must use the same stimulus for each subject to compare all subjects.

A fourth unsupported claim: Dr. Isenberg also asked how Prause & Pfaus 2015 could compare different subjects’ arousal levels when only 1 of the 4 underlying studies used a 1 to 9 scale. One used a 0 to 7 scale, one used a 1 to 7 scale, and one study did not report sexual arousal ratings. Once again Prause and Pfaus inexplicably claim that:

“Men were asked to indicate their level of “sexual arousal” ranging from 1 “not at all” to 9 “extremely.”

This statement, too, is false, as the underlying papers show. This is the second reason why Prause and Pfaus cannot claim that their paper assessed “arousal” ratings in men. A study must use the same rating scale for each subject to compare the subjects’ results. In summary, all the Prause-generated headlines and claims about porn use improving erections or arousal, or anything else, are unsupported by her research.

Authors Prause and Pfaus also claimed they found no relationship between erectile functioning scores and the amount of porn viewed in the last month. As Dr. Isenberg pointed out:

Even more disturbing is the total omission of statistical findings for the erectile function outcome measure. No statistical results whatsoever are provided. Instead the authors ask the reader to simply believe their unsubstantiated statement that there was no association between hours of pornography viewed and erectile function. Given the authors’ conflicting assertion that erectile function with a partner may actually be improved by viewing pornography the absence of statistical analysis is most egregious.

As is customary when a letter critical of a study is published, the study’s authors were given a chance to respond. Prause’s pretentious response entitled “Red Herring: Hook, Line, and Stinker” not only evades Isenberg’s points (and Gabe Deem’s), it contains several new misrepresentations and several transparently false statements. In fact, Prause’s reply is little more than smoke, mirrors, groundless insults, and falsehoods. This extensive critique by Gabe Deem exposes the Prause and Pfaus response for what it is: A critique of the Prause & Pfaus response to Richard Isenberg’s letter.

Summary: The 2 core claims made by Klein/Kohut/Prause remain unsupported:

  1. Prause & Pfaus failed to provide data for its core claim that porn use was not related to scores on an erection questionnaire (IIEF).
  2. Prause & Pfaus failed to explain how its authors could reliably assess “arousal” when the 4 underlying studies used different stimuli (still images vs. films), and use no scale or very different number scales (1-7, 1-9, 0-7, no scale).

If Prause and Pfaus had answers to the above concerns, they would have put them in their response to Dr. Isenberg. They didn’t.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #9: When confronted with hundreds of studies linking porn use to negative outcomes just shout “correlation is not causation”

SLATE EXCERPT: However, a core problem with this area of research is that the overwhelming majority of studies are cross-sectional, meaning they just ask about your life as it is now. This means that they cannot show causality. Remember the old “correlation is not causation” principle from science class? If your marriage is not going well or you stopped being intimate years ago, chances are good that someone in that relationship is masturbating to sate their unfulfilled sexual desire.

Translation: “You are getting very, very sleepy…your eyelids are getting heavy… no matter what 58 studies on porn use relationships reveal, it’s really masturbation…. You are now asleep.… it can’t be porn….porn is good for you…. it must be masturbation…. Go deeper asleep, deeper asleep.”

As recounted under excerpt #14, the strategy fashioned by Prause and David Ley is to blame masturbation for the myriad problems related to porn use. Here and in #14 below, Prause/Klein/Kohut pick up this fabricated talking point and try to blame masturbation for the results from almost 60 studies linking porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. After Prause and Ley constructed the “porn is never the problem” tactic to explain chronic ED in otherwise healthy young men, their close ally, Jim Pfaus, repeatedly asserted that porn-induced ED is a myth, and that post-ejaculation refractory periods are the real cause of these young men’s ED. When asked about the fact that it takes 6-24 months of no porn to regain erections, Pfaus goes silent. That’s some “refractory period,” eh? (See this article exposing “their blame anything but porn” campaign: Sexologists deny porn-induced ED by claiming masturbation is the problem (2016).)

On to the “correlation doesn’t equal causation” mantra that any 7th grader can recite. When confronted with hundreds of studies linking porn use to negative outcomes, a common tactic by pro-porn PhDs is to claim that “no causation has been demonstrated.” The reality is that when it comes to psychological and medical studies, very little research reveals causation directly. For example, all studies on the relationship between lung cancer and cigarette smoking in humans are correlative. Yet cause and effect are now clear to everyone but the tobacco lobby.

For ethical reasons, researchers are usually precluded from constructing experimental research designs that would reveal definitively whether pornography causes certain harms. Therefore, they use correlational models. Over time, when a significant body of correlational studies is amassed in any given research area, there comes a point where the body of evidence can be said to demonstrate a point of theory, despite a lack of the ideal, but often unethical to conduct, experimental studies.

Put another way, no single correlation study may ever provide a “smoking gun” in an area of study, but the converging evidence of multiple correlational studies can establish cause and effect. When it comes to porn use, nearly every study published is correlative.

To “prove” that porn use is causing erectile dysfunction, relationship problems, emotional problems or addiction-related brain changes you would have to have two large groups of identical twins separated at birth. Make sure one group never watches porn. Make sure that every individual in the other group watches the exact same type of porn, for the exact same hours, at the exact same age. And continue the experiment for 30 years or so, followed by assessment of the differences.

Alternatively, research attempting to demonstrate causation could be done using the following 3 methods:

  1. Eliminate the variable whose effects you wish to measure. Specifically, have porn users stop, and assess any changes weeks, months (years?) later. This is exactly what is occurring as thousands of young men stop porn as a way to alleviate chronic non-organic erectile dysfunction and other symptoms (caused by porn use).
  2. Perform longitudinal studies, which means following subjects over a period of time to see how changes in porn use (or levels of porn use) relate to various outcomes. For example, correlate levels of porn use with rates of divorce over years (asking other questions to control for other possible variables).
  3. Expose willing participants to pornography and measure various outcomes. For example, assess subjects’ ability to delay gratification both before and after exposure to porn in a lab setting.

Below we list studies that have employed these 3 methods: elimination porn use, longitudinal studies, exposure to pornography in a lab. All of the results strongly suggest that porn use leads to negative outcomes.

Section #1: Studies where participants eliminated porn use:

The first 5 studies in this section demonstrate porn use causing sexual problems as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions. Thus, the debate about whether porn-induced sexual dysfunctions exist has been settled for some time now.

1) Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016): An extensive review of the literature related to porn-induced sexual problems. Co-authored by 7 US Navy doctors (urologists, psychiatrists, and an MD with PhD in neuroscience), the review provides the latest data revealing a tremendous rise in youthful sexual problems. It also reviews the neurological studies related to porn addiction and sexual conditioning via internet porn. The authors provide 3 clinical reports of men who developed porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. Two of the three men healed their sexual dysfunctions by eliminating porn use. The third man experienced little improvement as he was unable to abstain from porn use.

2) Male masturbation habits and sexual dysfunctions (2016): Authored by a French psychiatrist and president of the European Federation of Sexology. The paper revolves around his clinical experience with 35 men who developed erectile dysfunction and/or anorgasmia, and his therapeutic approaches for helping them. The author states that most of his patients used porn, with a quarter of them being addicted to porn. The abstract points to internet porn as the primary cause of patients’ problems. 19 of the 35 men saw significant improvements in sexual functioning. The other men either dropped out of treatment or were still trying to recover.

3) Unusual masturbatory practice as an etiological factor in the diagnosis and treatment of sexual dysfunction in young men (2014): One of the 4 case studies in this paper reports on a man with porn-induced sexual problems (low libido, fetishes, anorgasmia). The sexual intervention called for a 6-week abstinence from porn and masturbation. After 8 months the man reported increased sexual desire, successful sex and orgasm, and enjoying “good sexual practices. This is the first peer-reviewed chronicling of a recovery from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions.

4) How difficult is it to treat delayed ejaculation within a short-term psychosexual model? A case study comparison (2017): This is a report on two “composite cases” illustrating the etiology and treatments for delayed ejaculation (anorgasmia). “Patient B” represented multiple young men treated by the therapist. Patient B’s “porn use had escalated into harder material,” “as is often the case.” The paper says that porn-related delayed ejaculation is not uncommon, and on the rise. The author calls for more research on porn’s effects on sexual functioning. Patient B’s delayed ejaculation was healed after 10 weeks of no porn.

5) Situational Psychogenic Anejaculation: A Case Study (2014): The details reveal a case of porn-induced anejaculation. The husband’s only sexual experience prior to marriage was frequent masturbation to pornography (where he was able to ejaculate). He also reported sexual intercourse as less arousing than masturbation to porn. The key piece of information is that “re-training” and psychotherapy failed to heal his anejaculation. When those interventions failed, therapists suggested a complete ban on masturbation to porn. Eventually this ban resulted in successful sexual intercourse and ejaculation with a partner for the first time in his life.

6) How Abstinence Affects Preferences (2016) [preliminary results]. Results of the Second Wave – Main Findings:

– Abstaining from pornography and masturbation increases the ability to delay rewards

– Participating in a period of abstinence renders people more willing to take risks

– Abstinence renders people more altruistic

– Abstinence renders people more extroverted, more conscientious, and less neurotic

7) A Love That Doesn’t Last: Pornography Consumption and Weakened Commitment to One’s Romantic Partner (2012): Subjects attempted to abstain from porn use (only 3 weeks). Comparing this group with control participants, those who continued using pornography reported lower levels of commitment than controls. What might have occurred if they had attempted to abstain for 3 months instead of 3 weeks?

8) Trading Later Rewards for Current Pleasure: Pornography Consumption and Delay Discounting (2015): The more pornography that participants consumed, the less able they were to delay gratification. This unique study also had porn users attempt to reduce porn use for 3 weeks. The study found that continued porn use was causally related to greater inability to delay gratification (note that the ability to delay gratification is a function of the brain’s prefrontal cortex).

Section #2: Longitudinal studies:

All but two of the longitudinal studies examined the effects of porn use on intimate relationships

1) Early adolescent boys’ exposure to internet pornography: Relationships to pubertal timing, sensation seeking, and academic performance (2014): An increase in porn use was followed by a decrease in academic performance 6 months later.

2) Adolescents’ Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Sexual Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study (2009). Excerpt: Between May 2006 and May 2007, we conducted a three-wave panel survey among 1,052 Dutch adolescents aged 13–20. Structural equation modeling revealed that exposure to SEIM consistently reduced adolescents’ sexual satisfaction. Lower sexual satisfaction (in Wave 2) also increased the use of SEIM (in Wave 3).

3) Does Viewing Pornography Reduce Marital Quality Over Time? Evidence from Longitudinal Data (2016). Excerpt: This study is the first to draw on nationally representative, longitudinal data (2006-2012 Portraits of American Life Study) to test whether more frequent pornography use influences marital quality later on and whether this effect is moderated by gender. In general, married persons who more frequently viewed pornography in 2006 reported significantly lower levels of marital quality in 2012, net of controls for earlier marital quality and relevant correlates. Pornography’s effect was not simply a proxy for dissatisfaction with sex life or marital decision-making in 2006. In terms of substantive influence, frequency of pornography use in 2006 was the second strongest predictor of marital quality in 2012.

4) Till Porn Do Us Part? Longitudinal Effects of Pornography Use on Divorce, (2016). The study used nationally representative General Social Survey panel data collected from thousands of American adults. Excerpt: Beginning pornography use between survey waves nearly doubled one’s likelihood of being divorced by the next survey period, from 6 percent to 11 percent, and nearly tripled it for women, from 6 percent to 16 percent. Our results suggest that viewing pornography, under certain social conditions, may have negative effects on marital stability.

5) Internet pornography and relationship quality: A longitudinal study of within and between partner effects of adjustment, sexual satisfaction and sexually explicit internet material among newly-weds (2015). Excerpt: The data from a considerable sample of newlyweds showed that SEIM use has more negative than positive consequences for husbands and wives. Importantly, husbands’ adjustment decreased SEIM use over time and SEIM use decreased adjustment. Furthermore, more sexual satisfaction in husbands predicted a decrease in their wives’ SEIM use one year later, while wives’ SEIM use did not change their husbands’ sexual satisfaction.

6) Pornography Use and Marital Separation: Evidence from Two-Wave Panel Data (2017). Excerpt: analyses showed that married Americans who viewed pornography at all in 2006 were more than twice as likely as those who did not view pornography to experience a separation by 2012, even after controlling for 2006 marital happiness and sexual satisfaction as well as relevant sociodemographic correlates. The relationship between pornography use frequency and marital separation, however, was technically curvilinear.

7) Are Pornography Users More Likely to Experience A Romantic Breakup? Evidence from Longitudinal Data (2017). Excerpt: analyses demonstrated that Americans who viewed pornography at all in 2006 were nearly twice as likely as those who never viewed pornography to report experiencing a romantic breakup by 2012, even after controlling for relevant factors such as 2006 relationship status and other sociodemographic correlates. Analyses also showed a linear relationship between how frequently Americans viewed pornography in 2006 and their odds of experiencing a breakup by 2012.

8) Relationships between Exposure to Online Pornography, Psychological Well-Being and Sexual Permissiveness among Hong Kong Chinese Adolescents: a Three-Wave Longitudinal Study (2018): This longitudinal study found that porn use was related to depression, lower life satisfaction and permissive sexual attitudes.

Section #3: Experimental exposure to pornography:

1) Effect of Erotica on Young Men’s Aesthetic Perception of Their Female Sexual Partners (1984). Excerpt: After exposure to beautiful females, mates’ aesthetic value fell significantly below assessments made after exposure to unattractive females; this value assumed an intermediate position after control exposure. Changes in mates’ aesthetic appeal did not correspond with changes in satisfaction with mates, however.

2) Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography on Family Values (1988). Excerpt: Exposure prompted, among other things, greater acceptance of pre- and extramarital sex and greater tolerance of nonexclusive sexual access to intimate partners. Exposure lowered the evaluation of marriage, making this institution appear less significant and less viable in the future. Exposure also reduced the desire to have children and promoted the acceptance of male dominance and female servitude. With few exceptions, these effects were uniform for male and female respondents as well as for students and nonstudents.

3) Pornography’s Impact on Sexual Satisfaction (1988). Excerpt: Male and female students and nonstudents were exposed to videotapes featuring common, nonviolent pornography or innocuous content. Exposure was in hourly sessions in six consecutive weeks. In the seventh week, subjects participated in an ostensibly unrelated study on societal institutions and personal gratifications. [Porn use] strongly impacted self-assessment of sexual experience. After consumption of pornography, subjects reported less satisfaction with their intimate partners—specifically, with these partners’ affection, physical appearance, sexual curiosity, and sexual performance proper. In addition, subjects assigned increased importance to sex without emotional involvement. These effects were uniform across gender and populations.

4) Influence of popular erotica on judgments of strangers and mates (1989). Excerpt: In Experiment 2, male and female subjects were exposed to opposite sex erotica. In the second study, there was an interaction of subject sex with stimulus condition upon sexual attraction ratings. Decremental effects of centerfold exposure were found only for male subjects exposed to female nudes. Males who found the Playboy-type centerfolds more pleasant rated themselves as less in love with their wives.

5) Pornographic picture processing interferes with working memory performance (2013): German scientists have discovered that Internet erotica can diminish working memory. In this porn-imagery experiment, 28 healthy individuals performed working-memory tasks using 4 different sets of pictures, one of which was pornographic. Participants also rated the pornographic pictures with respect to sexual arousal and masturbation urges prior to, and after, pornographic picture presentation. Results showed that working memory was worst during the porn viewing and that greater arousal augmented the drop.

6) Sexual Picture Processing Interferes with Decision-Making Under Ambiguity (2013): Study found that viewing pornographic imagery interfered with decision making during a standardized cognitive test. This suggests porn might affect executive functioning, which is a set of mental skills that help you get things done. These skills are controlled by an area of the brain called the prefrontal cortex.

7) Getting stuck with pornography? Overuse or neglect of cybersex cues in a multitasking situation is related to symptoms of cybersex addiction (2015): Subjects with a higher tendency towards porn addiction performed more poorly of executive functioning tasks (which are under the auspices of the prefrontal cortex).

8) Executive Functioning of Sexually Compulsive and Non-Sexually Compulsive Men Before and After Watching an Erotic Video (2017): Exposure to porn affected executive functioning in men with “compulsive sexual behaviors,” but not healthy controls. Poorer executive functioning when exposed to addiction-related cues is a hallmark of substance disorders (indicating both altered prefrontal circuits and sensitization).

9) Exposure to Sexual Stimuli Induces Greater Discounting Leading to Increased Involvement in Cyber Delinquency Among Men (Cheng & Chiou, 2017): In two studies exposure to visual sexual stimuli resulted in: 1) greater delayed discounting (inability to delay gratification), 2) greater inclination to engage in cyber-delinquency, 3) greater inclination to purchase counterfeit goods and hack someone’s Facebook account. Taken together this indicates that porn use increases impulsivity and may reduce certain executive functions (self-control, judgment, foreseeing consequences, impulse control).

By the way, over 30 internet addiction studies have employed “longitudinal” and “remove the variable” methodologies. All strongly suggesting that internet use can cause mental/emotional problems, addiction-related brain changes, and other negative effects in some users.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #10: Prause/Klein/Kohut cherry-pick 5% of subjects from 1 of the 58 studies linking porn use to poorer relationships

SLATE EXCERPT: Longitudinal studies following people over time at least show if sex-film viewing occurred before a proposed effect, which is necessary to suggest that sex films caused the effect. For example, one longitudinal study showed that, on average, sex-film viewing increased the risk of relationship loss later. Till Porn Do Us Part? A Longitudinal Examination of Pornography Use and Divorce. However, another study found that married Americans with the highest frequencies of sex-film use actually were at the lowest risk for losing their relationship (a nonlinear effect).

The tactic here is to fool the reader into thinking that the research investigating porn’s effects on relationships is conflicted. They do this by acknowledge the existence of one study linking porn to relationship troubles (out of the 58 studies linking porn use to poorer relationship), followed by cherry-picking the only study reporting an outlier result – for a small percentage of its subjects (5% of subjects).

The study with an outlier finding for less than 5% of the subjects is “Pornography Use and Marital Separation: Evidence from Two-Wave Panel Data (2017)– Excerpt from the abstract:

Drawing on data from the 2006 and 2012 waves of the nationally representative Portraits of American Life Study, this article examined whether married Americans who viewed pornography in 2006, either at all or in greater frequencies, were more likely to experience a marital separation by 2012. Binary logistic regression analyses showed that married Americans who viewed pornography at all in 2006 were more than twice as likely as those who did not view pornography to experience a separation by 2012, even after controlling for 2006 marital happiness and sexual satisfaction as well as relevant sociodemographic correlates. The relationship between pornography use frequency and marital separation, however, was technically curvilinear. The likelihood of marital separation by 2012 increased with 2006 pornography use to a point and then declined at the highest frequencies of pornography use.

The actual results. Grouped together, the pornography users (either the men or the women) were more than twice as likely to experience a marital separation 6 years later. Specifically, for 95% of the subjects, porn use in 2006 was related with an increased likelihood of marital separation in 2012. However, once porn use frequency reached several times a week or more (only 5% of subjects) the likelihood of separation was about the same as for those who didn’t use porn.

As pointed out under excerpt #7 correlations at the far end of the bell curve may not predict results for the vast majority of porn users. In this mixed bag of 2-5% of frequent users we may find a much higher percentage of couples who identify as swingers or polyamorous. They may have open marriages. Maybe the couple has an understanding that the partner can use as much porn as desired, but divorce is never an option. Whatever the reason for high levels of porn use in one or both partners, it’s clear from this study and all the rest, that the outliers don’t line up with the vast majority of couples.

By the way, all the other longitudinal studies confirm that porn use is related poorer relationship outcomes.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #11: Oops. Prause/Klein/Kohut unknowingly cite a study that supports the addiction model

SLATE EXCERPT: Having a strong brain response to sex films in the lab also predicts a stronger drive to have sex with a partner months later.

How the study linked to supports this talking point is anyone’s guess. Perhaps they think the reader will misread this as “porn viewing leads to greater desire for sex with a real person that is sustained for several months.” But that’s not what the study reported.

This was a study about mechanisms behind compulsive behaviors (overeating and compulsive sexual behaviors). The study found that greater cue-reactivity to porn correlated with greater cravings to have sex and masturbate six months later. The study did not assess “desire to be with a partner.” It only assessed cravings to masturbate and have sex, which wasn’t limited to a single partner. The study found similar results for food: subjects with greater cue-reactivity to images of enticing food gained the most weight over the next six months. From the study’s abstract:

These findings suggest that heightened reward responsivity in the brain to food and sexual cues is associated with indulgence in overeating and sexual activity, respectively, and provide evidence for a common neural mechanism associated with appetitive behaviors.

This study supports the addiction model, as subjects with the greatest cue-reactivity (reward center activity) in response to porn experienced greater cravings to act out six months later. It appears these individuals had become sensitized to pornography, which manifested as both cue-reactivity and cravings to use. Addiction researchers view sensitization as the core brain change that leads to compulsive consumption and ultimately addiction. (See “The incentive sensitization theory of addiction”)

Sensitized pathways can be thought of as Pavlovian conditioning on turbos. When activated by thoughts or triggers, sensitized pathways blast the reward circuit, firing up hard-to-ignore cravings. Several recent brain studies on porn users assessed sensitization, and all reported the same brain response as seen in alcoholics and drug addicts. As of 2018 some 20 studies have reported findings consistent with sensitization (cue-reactivity or cravings) in porn users and porn addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

It’s important to note that sensitization is not a sign of true libido or desire to get close to a partner. Instead, it’s evidence of hyper-sensitivity to memories or cues related to the behavior. For example, cues – such as turning on the computer, seeing a pop-up, or being alone – may trigger intense, hard to ignore cravings to view porn. Studies reveal that compulsive porn users can have greater cue-reactivity or cravings for porn, and yet experience low sexual desire and erectile dysfunction with real partners. For example, in the Cambridge University brain scan studies on porn addicts the subjects had greater brain activation to porn, but many reported arousal/erectile problems with partners. From the 2014 Cambridge study:

[Compulsive sexual behaviour] subjects reported that as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials…..they experienced diminished libido or erectile function specifically in physical relationships with women (although not in relationship to the sexually explicit material).

Then we have the Nicole Prause 2013 EEG study which she touted in the media as evidence against the existence of porn/sex addiction: Sexual Desire, not Hypersexuality, is Related to Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images (Steele et al., 2013). Not so. Steele et al. 2013 actually lends support to the existence of both porn addiction and porn use down-regulating sexual desire. How so? The study reported higher EEG readings (relative to neutral pictures) when subjects were briefly exposed to pornographic photos. Studies consistently show that an elevated P300 occurs when addicts are exposed to cues (such as images) related to their addiction (as in this study on cocaine addicts).

Prause’s often-repeated claim that her subjects “brains did not respond like other addicts” is without support, and nowhere to be found in the actual study. It’s only found in her interviews. Commenting under the Psychology Today interview of Prause, senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson called Prause out for misrepresenting her findings:

“My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects’ brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts’ brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice. How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results?”

In line with the Cambridge University brain scan studies, Steele et al. 2013 also reported greater cue-reactivity to porn correlating with less desire for partnered sex. To put it another way, individuals with greater brain activation to porn would rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a real person. Shockingly, study spokesperson Prause claimed that porn users merely had “high libido,” yet the results of the study say the exact opposite (subjects’ desire for partnered sex dropped in relation to their porn use). Five peer-reviewed papers explain the truth: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also see an extensive YBOP critique.

In summary, a frequent porn user can experience higher subjective arousal (cravings) yet also experience erection problems with a partner. Arousal in response to porn is not evidence of “sexual responsiveness” or healthy erectile function with a partner.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #12: Even David Ley thinks your citation is questionable

SLATE EXCERPT: Experimental studies can demonstrate if porn viewing really causes negative relationship effects by including controls. The first large, preregistered experiment found that viewing sexual pictures did not diminish love or desire for the current romantic partner.

First, it’s absurd to claim that “Experimental studies can demonstrate if porn viewing really causes negative relationship effects.” Experiments where college-aged guys view a few Playboy centerfolds (as in the study linked to by the authors) can tell you nothing about the effects of your husband masturbating to hard-core videos clips day after day for years on end. The only relationship studies that can “demonstrate if porn viewing really causes negative relationship effects” are longitudinal studies that control for variables or studies where subjects abstain from porn. To date seven longitudinal relationship studies have been published that reveal the real-life consequences of ongoing porn use. All reported that porn use relates to poorer relationship/sexual outcomes:

  1. Adolescents’ Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Sexual Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study (2009).
  2. A Love That Doesn’t Last: Pornography Consumption and Weakened Commitment to One’s Romantic Partner (2012).
  3. Internet pornography and relationship quality: A longitudinal study of within and between partner effects of adjustment, sexual satisfaction and sexually explicit internet material among newly-weds (2015).
  4. Till Porn Do Us Part? Longitudinal Effects of Pornography Use on Divorce, (2016).
  5. Does Viewing Pornography Reduce Marital Quality Over Time? Evidence from Longitudinal Data (2016).
  6. Are Pornography Users More Likely to Experience A Romantic Breakup? Evidence from Longitudinal Data (2017).
  7. Pornography Use and Marital Separation: Evidence from Two-Wave Panel Data (2017).

On to the 2017 study Prause/Klein/Kohut linked to, and its easily dismissed results: Does exposure to erotica reduce attraction and love for romantic partners in men? Independent replications of Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg (1989).

The 2017 study attempted to replicate a 1989 study that exposed men and women in committed relationships to erotic images of the opposite sex. The 1989 study found that men who were exposed to the nude Playboy centerfolds rated their partners as less attractive and reported less love for their partner. As the 2017 failed to replicate the 1989 findings, we are told that the 1989 study got it wrong, and that porn use cannot diminish love or desire. Whoa! Not so fast.

The replication “failed” because our cultural environment has become “pornified.” The 2017 researchers didn’t recruit 1989 college students who grew up watching MTV after school. Instead their subjects grew up surfing PornHub for gang bang and orgy video clips.

In 1989 how many college students had seen an X-rated video? Not too many. How many 1989 college students spent every masturbation session, from puberty on, masturbating to multiple hard-core clips in one session? None. The reason for the 2017 results is evident: brief exposure to a still image of a Playboy centerfold is a big yawn compared to what college men in 2017 have been watching for years. Even the authors admitted the generational differences with their first caveat:

1) First, it is important to point out that the original study was published in 1989. At the time, exposure to sexual content may not have been as available, whereas today, exposure to nude images is relatively more pervasive, and thus being exposed to a nude centerfold may not be enough to elicit the contrast effect originally reported. Therefore, the results for the current replication studies may differ from the original study due to differences in exposure, access, and even acceptance of erotica then versus now.

In a rare instance of unbiased prose even David Ley felt compelled to point out the obvious:

It may be that the culture, men, and sexuality have substantially changed since 1989. Few adult men these days haven’t seen pornography or nude women—nudity and graphic sexuality are common in popular media, from Game of Thrones to perfume advertisements, and in many states, women are permitted to go topless. So it’s possible that men in the more recent study have learned to integrate the nudity and sexuality they see in porn and everyday media in a manner which doesn’t affect their attraction or love for their partners. Perhaps the men in the 1989 study had been less exposed to sexuality, nudity, and pornography.

Keep in mind that this experiment doesn’t mean internet porn use hasn’t affected men’s attraction for their lovers. It just means that looking at “centerfolds” has no immediate impact these days. Many men report radical increases in attraction to partners after giving up internet porn. And, of course, there is also the longitudinal evidence cited above demonstrating the deleterious effects of porn viewing on relationships.

Once again, Prause/Klein/Kohut provide a dubious, cherry-picked result in a feeble attempt to counter the preponderance of studies reporting porn use linked to divorce, breakups, and poorer sexual and relationship satisfaction.

Finally, it’s important to note that the authors of the paper linked to are colleagues of Taylor Kohut at the University of Western Ontario. This group of researchers, headed by William Fisher, has been publishing questionable studies, which consistently produce results that on the surface appear to counter the vast literature linking porn use to myriad negative outcomes. Moreover, both Kohut and Fisher played big roles in the defeat of Motion 47 in Canada.

Here are two recent studies from Kohut, Fisher and colleagues at Western Ontario that garnered widespread and misleading headlines:

1) Perceived Effects of Pornography on the Couple Relationship: Initial Findings of Open-Ended, Participant-Informed, “Bottom-Up” Research (2017), Taylor Kohut, William A. Fisher, Lorne Campbell

In their 2017 study, Kohut, Fisher and Campbell appear to have skewed the sample to produce the results they were seeking. Whereas most studies show that a tiny minority of porn users’ female partners use porn, in this study 95% of the women used porn on their own (85% of the women had used porn since the beginning of the relationship). Those rates are higher than in college-aged men, and far higher than in any other porn study! In other words, the researchers appear to have skewed their sample to produce the results they were seeking. Reality: Cross-sectional data from the largest US survey (General Social Survey) reported that only 2.6% of women had visited a “pornographic website” in the last month.

In addition, Kohut’s study asked only “open ended” questions where subjects could ramble on about porn. The researchers read the ramblings and decided, after the fact, what answers were “important” (fit their desired narrative?). In other words, the study did not correlate porn use with any objective, scientific variable assessment of sexual or relationship satisfaction (as did the nearly 60 studies that show porn use in linked to negative effects on relationships). Everything reported in the paper was included (or excluded) at the unchallenged discretion of the authors.

2) Critique of “Is Pornography Really about “Making Hate to Women”? Pornography Users Hold More Gender Egalitarian Attitudes Than Nonusers in a Representative American Sample” (2016),

Taylor Kohut co-authors framed egalitarianism as: Support for (1) Abortion, (2) Feminist identification, (3) Women holding positions of power, (4) Belief that family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job, and oddly enough (5) Holding more negative attitudes toward the traditional family. Secular populations, which tend to be more liberal, have far higher rates of porn use than religious populations. By choosing these criteria and ignoring endless other variables, lead author Kohut and his co-authors knew they would end up with porn users scoring higher on this study’s carefully chosen selection of what constitutes “egalitarianism.” Then the authors chose a title that spun it all. In reality, these findings are contradicted by nearly every other published study. (See this list of over 25 studies linking porn use to sexist attitudes, objectification and less egalitarianism.)

Note: This 2018 presentation exposes the truth behind 5 questionable and misleading studies, including the two studies just discussed: Porn Research: Fact or Fiction?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #13: Watching porn makes you horny and drinking improves your mood, so there can be no downside to either

SLATE EXCERPT: In other laboratory research, couples who viewed sex films, whether in the same room or apart, expressed more desire to have sex with that current partner.

Another Nicole Prause paper. Viewing porn, becoming horny, and then wanting to get off, is hardly a remarkable finding. This “laboratory finding” tells us nothing about the long-term effects of porn use on relationships (again, almost 60 studies – and every study on men – link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction). This experiment is akin to evaluating the effects of alcohol by asking bar patrons if they feel good after their first couple of beers. Does this onetime assessment tell us anything about their mood the next morning or the long-term effects of chronic alcohol use?

Not surprisingly, Dr. Prause omitted the rest of her study’s findings:

Viewing the erotic films also induced greater reports of negative affect, guilt, and anxiety

Negative affect means negative emotions. Prause has resorted to cherry-picking her own results.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #14: In order to protect porn, let’s blame masturbation for all the negative effects linked to porn

SLATE EXCERPT: While one study reported that reducing pornography consumption increased commitment to a partner, no study has yet shown that this was due to the sex films themselves and not some other confounding variable, such as differences in masturbation that resulted from adjusting viewing habits. In our view, there are not yet compelling data to confirm that sexual arousal via sex films always decreases desire for the regular sex partner; certainly, under some conditions, sex films appear to stoke the fire at home.

Actually, the vast preponderance of the evidence demonstrates convincingly that as pornography consumption increases, relationship and sexual satisfaction decline. This isn’t a case of some studies “say yes” and some studies “say no”, as every study on males and porn use (55 studies) links greater porn use to decreased sexual or relationship satisfaction. In fact, a recent study pointed out that for men, porn use that was more frequent than once per month correlated with reduced sexual satisfaction. (For women, the cut off was even lower. Use that was more frequent than “several times per year” was associated with reduced sexual satisfaction.)

Also, the porn-commitment study cited above actually did show that viewing porn was the most likely cause of reduced commitment in those who viewed more porn. It is one of the few studies to ask people to (attempt to) eliminate porn use (for 3 weeks) to compare the effects with a control group. Incidentally some of the same researchers published another study comparing delayed discounting in those who temporarily tried to quit porn as well. They found that the more porn participants viewed the less able they were to defer gratification. The

It’s ironic that sexologists like Klein, Prause and Kohut are so bent on defending porn use that they’re willing to imply that masturbation causes relationship problems! (Prause and colleague Ley have also claimed masturbation causes chronic ED in young men – without a shred of medical or other evidence)

Yet at the same time Prause has long insisted publicly that masturbation is an unqualified benefit. So, which is it? Here these authors point the finger at masturbation as the cause of relationship problems, but they offer no formal evidence supporting their hunch. It seems their claim that “it’s masturbation” is only a convenient red herring whenever actual scientific evidence demonstrates that more porn use correlates problems.

Incidentally, in 2017 scientists actually tested the “masturbation-red herring” theory, and found no support for it. See “Can Pornography be Addictive? An fMRI Study of Men Seeking Treatment for Problematic Pornography Use” Sensitivity to addiction-related cues was related to both porn use and masturbation frequency. This makes sense, as watching porn is neurologically akin to masturbation:

Take the example of pornography. Thinking about ways to gain access to it, or actively searching for it, and perhaps experiencing desire during the process, is considered sexual wanting. Watching selected pornographic material, even without masturbation, can be considered “having sex” when there is genital arousal.

Humanity urgently needs researchers who will use sound science (and neuroscience) to investigate human sexuality and the effects of today’s unique sexual environment. Not propagandists serving up red herrings.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #15: Sorry kids, only one study has correlated “self-identification as a porn addict” with hours of use, religiousness and moral disapproval of porn use

SLATE EXCERPT: Speaking to the heart of the issue, one of the biggest problems for some porn users is shame. Shame about viewing sex films is heaped on the public by the sex-addiction treatment industry (for profit), by the media (for clickbait), and by religious groups (to regulate sexuality). Unfortunately, whether you believe porn viewing is appropriate or not, stigmatizing sex-film viewing may be contributing to the problem. In fact, an increasing number of studies show that many people who identify as “porn addicted” do not actually view sex films more than other people. They simply feel more shame about their behaviors, which is associated with growing up in a religious or sexually restrictive society.

The response to excerpt #15 has been combined with the response to excerpt #19 below, as both deal with a single pornography questionnaire (CPUI-9) and the mythology surrounding it and the studies that employ it.

Note: The core claim in the above excerpt is false as there is only one study that directly correlated self-identification as a porn addict with hours of use, religiousness and moral disapproval of porn use. Its findings contradict the carefully constructed narrative about “perceived addiction” (that “porn addiction is just religious shame/moral disapproval”) – which is grounded in studies employing the flawed instrument called the CPUI-9. In the only direct-correlation study, the strongest correlation with self-perception as an addict was with hours of porn use. Religiousness was irrelevant, and while there was predictably some correlation between self-perception as an addict and moral incongruence regarding porn use, it was roughly half the hours-of-use correlation.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #16: Compulsivity is not synonymous with the “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” diagnosis in the ICD-11

SLATE EXCERPT: It is very important to note that compulsivity is not an umbrella term that includes addiction. Addiction, compulsivity, and impulsivity are all different models with different patterns of response that require different treatments. For example, addiction models predict withdrawal symptoms, but compulsivity models do not predict withdrawal. Impulsivity models predict a strong aversion to delaying decisions or delaying expected pleasure, whereas compulsivity models predict rigid, methodical perseverance.

Once again Prause/Klein/Kohut attempt a clever sleight of hand. They want you to believe that “compulsivity” is synonymous with the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder diagnosis, and that therefore the ICD-11 intended to prevent healthcare givers from using it to diagnose those with porn and sex addiction. However, these terms are not synonymous, which means we could disregard excerpt #17 and its muddled attempts to confuse the reader.

Yet we want to unpack this excerpt further because addiction-deniers like Prause/Klein/Kohut and their colleagues seem to have a bit of a compulsion themselves. They insist on relabeling problematic porn use as a “compulsion” – thus implying that it can never be an “addiction.”

RE: “compulsivity is not an umbrella term that includes addiction.” Depends on whom you ask, but such a question is irrelevant to the ICD-11 Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder diagnosis. The use of “Compulsive” in the new ICD-11 diagnosis isn’t meant to denote the neurological underpinnings of CSBD: “continued repetitive sexual behaviour despite adverse consequences.” Instead “Compulsive,” as used in the ICD-11, is a descriptive term that’s been in use for years, and is often employed interchangeably with “addiction.” (For example a Google scholar search for compulsion + addiction returns 130,000 citations.)

Excerpt #17 preys on general ignorance of a well established fact: The ICD and DSM systems are descriptive, largely atheoretical classification systems. They rely on the presence or absence of specific signs and symptoms to establish diagnoses. In other words, the ICD and DSM stay away from endorsing any particular biological theory underlying a mental disorder, whether for depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism, or CSBD.

Thus, whatever you or your healthcare giver want to call it – “hypersexuality,” “porn addiction,” “sex addiction,” “out-of-control sexual behavior,” “cybersex addiction” – if the behaviors fall within the “Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder” description, the condition can be diagnosed using the ICD-11 CSBD diagnosis.

Incidentally, as the press release of the Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health explained, the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder is under “impulse control disorders” for now but that may change as it did for Gambling Disorder.

For now, the parent category of the new CSBD diagnosis is Impulse Control Disorders, which includes diagnoses such as Pyromania [6C70], Kleptomania [6C71] and Intermittent Explosive Disorder [6C73]. Yet doubts remain about the ideal category. As Yale neuroscientist Marc Potenza MD PhD and Mateusz Gola PhD, researcher at the Polish Academy of Sciences and the University of California San Diego point out, “The current proposal of classifying CSB disorder as an impulse-control disorder is controversial as alternate models have been proposed …There are data suggesting that CSB shares many features with addictions.” 7

It might be worth noting that ICD-11 includes diagnoses of Gambling Disorder under both Disorders Due to Addictive Behaviors and under Impulse Control Disorders. Thus, categorization of disorders need not always be mutually exclusive.5 Classification may also shift with time. Gambling Disorder was originally classified as an impulse disorder in both the DSM-IV and the ICD-10, but based on advances in empirical understanding, Gambling Disorder has been reclassified as a “Substance-Related and Addictive Disorder” (DSM-5) and a “Disorder Due to Addictive Behaviour” (ICD-11). It is possible that this new CSBD diagnosis may follow a similar developmental course as Gambling Disorder has.

While CSBD looks like an addiction and quacks like an addiction, it starts out in the “Impulse Control Disorders” for political reasons. Politics aside, neuroscientists who publish brain studies on CSB subjects strongly believe its rightful home is with other addictions. From the Lancet commentary, Is excessive sexual behaviour an addictive disorder? (2017):

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder seems to fit well with non-substance addictive disorders proposed for ICD-11, consistent with the narrower term of sex addiction currently proposed for compulsive sexual behaviour disorder on the ICD-11 draft website. We believe that classification of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder as an addictive disorder is consistent with recent data and might benefit clinicians, researchers, and individuals suffering from and personally affected by this disorder.

By the way, even if “Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder” is eventually moved to the “Disorder Due to Addictive Behaviour” section it will still likely be called “Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder.” Again, “compulsivity” is not synonymous with the diagnosis of CSBD.

RE: Addiction, compulsivity, and impulsivity are all different models with different patterns of response that require different treatments.

First, the link goes to a confused paper that proposes a theoretical “sex addiction” model that just happens to mirror normal sexual patterns of feeling horny, doing the deed, and not feeling longer horny. The model:

Specifically, the sexhavior cycle suggests that the cycle of sexual behavior comprises four distinct and sequential stages described as sexual urge, sexual behavior, sexual satiation, and post-sexual satiation.

That’s it. This inspires me to announce my theoretical model of food intake, with four sequential stages: feeling hungry, urge to eat, eating, feeling full and stopping. The journal solicited commentaries on this proposed “sexhavior cycle.” I recommend this one: Separating Models Obscures the Scientific Underpinnings of Sex Addiction as a Disorder.

Second, addiction studies repeatedly report that addiction features elements of both impulsivity and compulsivity. (A Google Scholar search for addiction + impulsivity + compulsivity returns 22,000 citations.) Here are simple definitions of impulsivity and compulsivity:

  • Impulsivity: Acting quickly and without adequate thought or planning in response to internal or external stimuli. A predisposition to accept smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed gratification and an inability to stop a behavior toward gratification once it’s set in motion.
  • Compulsivity: Refers to repetitive behaviors that are performed according to certain rules or in a stereotypical fashion. These behaviors persevere even in the face of adverse consequences.

Predictably, addiction researchers often characterize addiction as developing from impulsive pleasure-seeking behavior to compulsive repetitive behaviors to avoid discomfort (such as the pain of withdrawal). Thus, addiction comprises a bit of both, along with other elements. So the differences between “models” of impulsivity and compulsivity as they relate to CSBD are anything but cut and dried.

Third, the concern about different treatment requirements for each model is a red herring as the ICD-11 doesn’t endorse any particular treatment for CSBD or any other mental or physical disorder. That’s up to the healthcare practitioner. In his 2018 paper, “Compulsive sexual behavior: A nonjudgmental approach, CSBD workgroup member Jon Grant (the same expert whom Prause/Klein/Kohut misrepresented earlier) covered misdiagnosis, differential diagnosis, co-morbidities and various treatments options related to the new CSBD diagnosis. Incidentally, Grant says that Compulsive Sexual Behavior is also called “sex addiction” in that paper!

“It’s not an addiction, it’s a compulsion.” This brings us to the ‘compulsion’ versus ‘addiction’ discussion. Addiction and compulsion are both terms that have entered our everyday language. Like many words that are in common use, they may be misused and misunderstood.

In arguing against the concept of behavioral addictions, especially porn addiction, skeptics often claim that pornography addiction is a ‘compulsion’ and not a true ‘addiction’. Some even insist that addiction is “like” Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). When further pressed as to how a ‘compulsion to use X’ differs neurologically from an ‘addiction to X’, a common comeback by these uninformed skeptics is that “behavioral addictions are simply a form of OCD.” Not true.

Multiple lines of research demonstrate that addictions differ from OCD in many substantive ways, including neurological differences. This is why the DSM-5 and ICD-11 have separate diagnostic categories for obsessive-compulsive disorders and for addictive disorders. Studies leave little doubt that CSBD is not a type of OCD. In fact, the percentage of CSB individuals with co-occurring OCD is surprisingly small. From Conceptualization and Assessment of Hypersexual Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2016)

Obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders have been considered to conceptualize sexual compulsivity (40) because some studies have found individuals with hypersexual behavior are on the obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) spectrum. OCD for hypersexual behavior is not consistent with DSM-5 (1) diagnostic understandings of OCD, which exclude from the diagnosis those behaviors from which individuals derive pleasure. Although obsessive thoughts of the OCD type often have sexual content, the associated compulsions performed in response to the obsessions are not carried out for pleasure. Individuals with OCD report feelings of anxiety and disgust rather than sexual desire or arousal when confronted with situations triggering obsessions and compulsions, with the latter being performed only to quell uneasiness the obsessive thoughts arouse. (41)

From this June, 2018 study: Revisiting the Role of Impulsivity and Compulsivity in Problematic Sexual Behaviors:

Few studies have examined associations between compulsivity and hypersexuality. Among males with nonparaphilic hypersexual disorder [CSBD], the lifetime prevalence of obsessive-compulsive disorder—a psychiatric disorder characterized by compulsivity—ranges from 0% to 14%

Obsessiveness—which may be associated with compulsive behavior—in treatment-seeking men with hypersexuality has been found to be elevated relative to a comparison group, but the effect size of this difference was weak. When the association between the level of obsessive-compulsive behavior—assessed by a subscale of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-II) —and the level of hypersexuality was examined among treatment-seeking males with hypersexual disorder, a trend toward a positive, weak association was found. On the basis of the aforementioned results, compulsivity appears to contribute in a relatively small manner to hypersexuality [CSBD].

In one study, general compulsivity was examined in relation to problematic pornography use among men, showing positive but weak associations. When investigated in a more complex model, the relationship between general compulsivity and problematic pornography use was mediated by sexual addiction and Internet addiction, as well as an addiction more generally. Taken together, the associations between compulsivity and hypersexuality and compulsivity and problematic use appear relatively weak.

There is a current debate regarding how best to consider problematic sexual behaviors (such as hypersexuality and problematic pornography use), with competing models proposing classifications as impulse-control disorders, obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders, or behavioral addictions. Relationships between transdiagnostic features of impulsivity and compulsivity and problematic sexual behaviors should inform such considerations, although both impulsivity and compulsivity have been implicated in addictions.

The finding that impulsivity related moderately to hypersexuality provides support both for the classification of compulsive sexual behavior disorder (as proposed for ICD-11; World Health Organization as an impulse-control disorder or as a behavioral addiction. In considering the other disorders currently being proposed as impulse-control disorders (e.g., intermittent explosive disorder, pyromania, and kleptomania) and the central elements of compulsive sexual behavior disorder and proposed disorders due to addictive behaviors (e.g., gambling and gaming disorders), the classification of compulsive sexual behavior disorder in the latter category appears better supported. (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, all the physiological and neuropsychological studies published on porn users and porn addicts (often denoted as CSB) report findings consistent with the addiction model (as do studies reporting escalation or tolerance).

In 2016 George F. Koob and Nora D. Volkow  published their landmark review in The New England Journal of Medicine: Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction. Koob is the Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), and Volkow is the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The paper describes the major brain changes involved with both drug and behavioral addictions, while stating in its opening paragraph that sexual behavioral addictions exist:

We conclude that neuroscience continues to support the brain disease model of addiction. Neuroscience research in this area not only offers new opportunities for the prevention and treatment of substance addictions and related behavioral addictions (e.g., to food, sex, and gambling)….

The Volkow & Koob paper outlined four fundamental addiction-related brain changes, which are: 1) Sensitization, 2) Desensitization, 3) Dysfunctional prefrontal circuits (hypofrontality), 4) Malfunctioning stress system. All 4 of these brain changes have been identified among the many physiological and neuropsychological studies listed on this page:

  • Studies reporting sensitization (cue-reactivity & cravings) in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
  • Studies reporting desensitization or habituation (resulting in tolerance) in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
  • Studies reporting poorer executive functioning (hypofrontality) or altered prefrontal activity in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
  • Studies indicating a dysfunctional stress system in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3.

The preponderance of evidence surrounding CSBD fits the addiction model.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #17: Porn users experience both withdrawal and tolerance

SLATE EXCERPT: For example, addiction models predict withdrawal symptoms, but compulsivity models do not predict withdrawal. Impulsivity models predict a strong aversion to delaying decisions or delaying expected pleasure, whereas compulsivity models predict rigid, methodical perseverance.

RE: withdrawal symptoms. The fact is, withdrawal symptoms are not required to diagnose an addiction. First, you will find the language “neither tolerance nor withdrawal is necessary or sufficient for a diagnosis…” in both the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5. Second, claiming that “real” addictions cause severe life-threatening withdrawal symptoms conflates physiological dependence with addiction-related brain changes. An excerpt from this 2015 review of literature provides a more technical explanation (Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update):

A key point of this stage is that withdrawal is not about the physiological effects from a specific substance. Rather, this model measures withdrawal via a negative affect resulting from the above process. Aversive emotions such as anxiety, depression, dysphoria, and irritability are indicators of withdrawal in this model of addiction [43,45]. Researchers opposed to the idea of behaviors being addictive often overlook or misunderstand this critical distinction, confusing withdrawal with detoxification [46,47].

That said, internet porn research and numerous self-reports demonstrate that some porn users experience withdrawal and/or tolerance – which are often characteristic of addiction. In fact, ex-porn users regularly report surprisingly severe withdrawal symptoms, which are reminiscent of drug withdrawals: insomnia, anxiety, irritability, mood swings, headaches, restlessness, poor concentration, fatigue, depression, social paralysis and the sudden loss of libido that guys call the ‘flatline’ (apparently unique to porn withdrawal).

Changing the label or “model” applied to these users doesn’t alter the very real symptoms they report. (See What does withdrawal from porn addiction look like? and this PDF with reports of “Withdrawal Symptoms.”)

As for recent studies, consider this graph from a 2017 study reporting the development and testing of a problematic porn use questionnaire. Note that substantial evidence of both “tolerance” and “withdrawal” was found in at-risk users and low-risk users.

A 2018 paper that reported on The Development and Validation of the Bergen-Yale Sex Addiction Scale With a Large National Sample also assessed withdrawal and tolerance. The most prevalent “sex addiction” components seen in the subjects were salience/craving and tolerance, but the other components, including withdrawal, also showed up. Additional studies reporting evidence of withdrawal or tolerance are collected here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #18: A “Business Insider” article is all you have to support your core assertion?

SLATE EXCERPT: “Sex addiction” was specifically excluded from the ICD-11 for insufficient evidence. This decision is consistent with the opinions of six professional organizations with clinical and research expertise, which also found insufficient evidence to support the idea that sex or porn is addictive.

Regarding the assertion that, “Sex addiction” was specifically excluded from the ICD-11 for insufficient evidence, actually, no, it wasn’t. As explained elsewhere, neither the ICD-11 nor the APA’s DSM-5 ever uses the word “addiction” to describe an addiction – whether it be gambling addiction, or heroin addiction. Both diagnostic manuals title such diagnoses as “disorders” instead. (Details about the peculiar last-minute exclusion of “Hypersexual Disorder” from the DSM-5 are found above under Excerpt #1.) Thus, “sex addiction” was never formally considered for inclusion in either manual (and consequently never “rejected” either).

As for the first link, it goes to a short Business Insider article, not to an official WHO statement. That’s right. Popular media is all the Slate article offers to support the authors’ wishful thinking. Even so, Prause/Klein/Kohut should have read the article before relying on it, as the only scientist quoted states that sexual behavior addictions exist:

Endocrinologist Robert Lustig told Business Insider earlier this year that many activities that can bring feelings of pleasure, like shopping, eating, playing video games, using porn, and even using social media all have addictive potential when taken to extremes. “It does the same thing to your central nervous system as all those drugs do,” he said. “It just doesn’t do the peripheral nervous system part. That doesn’t make it not addiction. It’s still addiction, it’s just that it’s addiction without the peripheral effects.”

Why didn’t the Slate article link to a scientific journal, such as this 2017 Lancet commentary, co-authored by CSBD work-group member Shane Kraus, Ph.D? Well, because the Lancet commentary says the empirical evidence supports CSBD being classified as an addictive disorder:

We believe that classification of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder as an addictive disorder is consistent with recent data and might benefit clinicians, researchers, and individuals suffering from and personally affected by this disorder.

The ICD-11’s Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder diagnosis is under “impulse control disorders” for now, but that may change in the future, just as it did for Gambling Disorder. In this responsible article quoting WHO representatives, Kraus leaves open the possibility that CSBD will eventually be placed in the “Disorders Due to Addictive Behaviour” section of the World Health Organization’s diagnostic manual.

And as Kraus puts it, “This is definitely not the final solution, but it’s a good starting place for more research and treatment for people.”

Whatever you or your healthcare giver want to call it – “hypersexuality,” “porn addiction,” “sex addiction,” “out-of-control sexual behavior,” “cybersex addiction” – if the behaviors fall within the “Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder” description, the condition can be diagnosed using ICD-11 the CSBD code.

Re: “six professional organizations.” Actually, the Slate article provided 3 links to “professional organizations” and one link to a 2012 David Ley blog post about the DSM-5 omitting Hypersexual Disorder (which was discussed under excerpt #1). Let’s take a closer look at this impressive-sounding support.

Link #1: Link goes to the infamous 2016 AASECT proclamation. AASECT is not a scientific organization and cited nothing to support the assertions in its own press release – rendering its opinion meaningless.

Most importantly AASECT’s proclamation was pushed through by Michael Aaron and a few other AASECT members using unethical “guerrilla tactics” as Aaron admitted in this Psychology Today blog post: Analysis: How the AASECT Sex Addiction Statement Was Created. An excerpt from this analysis Decoding AASECT’s “Position on Sex Addiction, summarizes Aaron’s blog post:

Finding AASECT’s tolerance of the “sex addiction model” to be “deeply hypocritical,” in 2014 Dr. Aaron set out to eradicate support for the concept of “sex addiction” from AASECT’s ranks. To accomplish his goal, Dr. Aaron claims to have deliberately sowed controversy among AASECT members in order to expose those with viewpoints that disagreed with his own, and then to have explicitly silenced those viewpoints while steering the organization toward its rejection of the “sex addiction model.” Dr. Aaron justified using these “renegade, guerilla [sic] tactics” by reasoning that he was up against a “lucrative industry” of adherents to the “sex addiction model” whose financial incentives would prevent him from bringing them over to his side with logic and reason. Instead, to effect a “quick change” in AASECT’s “messaging,” he sought to ensure that pro-sex addiction voices were not materially included in the discussion of AASECT’s course change.

Dr. Aaron’s boast comes across as a little unseemly. People rarely take pride in, much less publicize, suppressing academic and scientific debate. And it seems odd that Dr. Aaron spent the time and money to become CST certified by an organization he deemed “deeply hypocritical” barely a year after joining it (if not before). If anything, it is Dr. Aaron who appears hypocritical when he criticizes pro-“sex addiction” therapists for having a financial investment in the “sex addiction model”, when, quite obviously, he has a similar investment in promoting his opposing viewpoint

Several commentaries and critiques expose AASECT’s proclamation for what it truly is: sexual politics:

Link #2: Link goes to a statement by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). Nowhere does the position statement suggest that sex addiction does not exist. Instead ATSA reminds us that non-consensual sexual activity is sexual abuse (e.g., Harvey Weinstein) and “likely … not the result of sexual addiction.” Absolutely true.

Link #3: Link goes to a November, 2017 position statement by three non-profit kink organizations. The ‘evidence” they cited was summarily dismantled line by line in the following critique: Dismantling the “group position” paper opposing porn and sex addiction (November, 2017).

Incidentally, it appears that both AASECT and the 3 kink organizations produced their proclamations in a desperate effort to stop the new “CSBD” diagnosis from going into the ICD-11. Evidently, the experts at the World Health Organization were not taken in by this jointly created paper tiger, as the new diagnosis appears in the implementation version of the ICD-11.

Link #4: Link goes to Sex Addiction: Rejected Yet Again by APA. Hypersexual Disorder Will NOT be Included in the DSM5. This David Ley post is noteworthy because it exemplifies the circular tactic employed throughout the Slate article by Ley’s close allies. When the DSM-5 rejected the umbrella diagnosis of “Hypersexual Disorder” Ley and his chums painted it as rejection of “Sex Addiction.” Yet when the ICD-11 included the umbrella diagnosis of “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” they painted it as excludingSex Addiction.” Why worry about internal inconsistencies, right? Just say black is white, and repeat in tweets, on listserves and Facebook and articles like this one by Klein/Kohut/Prause.

Next, back your spin up using an expensive PR firm. It can get you and your propaganda placed in dozens of different mainstream media outlets, touting you as world experts. It matters not if you aren’t an academic, haven’t been affiliated with a university for years, or obtained your PhD from an unaccredited sexology institution.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPTS #15 & #19: The only study to correlate “self-identification as a porn addict” with hours of use, religiousness and moral disapproval found that porn use was by far the best predictor of believing you are addicted to pornography

SLATE EXCERPT: Speaking to the heart of the issue, one of the biggest problems for some porn users is shame. Shame about viewing sex films is heaped on the public by the sex-addiction treatment industry (for profit), by the media (for clickbait), and by religious groups (to regulate sexuality). Unfortunately, whether you believe porn viewing is appropriate or not, stigmatizing sex-film viewing may be contributing to the problem. In fact, an increasing number of studies show that many people who identify as “porn addicted” do not actually view sex films more than other people. They simply feel more shame about their behaviors, which is associated with growing up in a religious or sexually restrictive society.

SLATE EXCERPT: The decision to include sexual compulsivity in ICD-11 strikes us as odd because the exact diagnostic criteria that were chosen have never been tested. Specifically, the ICD-11 asserts that anyone distressed about their frequent sexual behaviors due purely to “moral judgments and disapproval about sexual impulses, urges, or behaviours” should be excluded from diagnosis. However, moral judgments and disapproval are the strongest predictors of someone believing that they are addicted to pornography in the first place.

The following is a combined response to excerpts 15 and 19 as both deal with a single pornography questionnaire (CPUI-9) and the studies that employ it.

Note: The core claim put forth in both excerpts is false as there is only one study that directly correlated self-identification as a porn addict with hours of use, religiousness and moral disapproval of porn use. Its findings contradict the carefully constructed narrative about “perceived addiction” (that “porn addiction is just religious shame/moral disapproval”) – which is grounded in studies employing the
flawed instrument called the CPUI-9. In the only direct-correlation study, the strongest correlation with self-perception as an addict was with hours of porn use. Religiousness was irrelevant, and while there was predictably some correlation between self-perception as an addict and moral incongruence regarding porn use, it was roughly half the hours-of-use correlation.

Here we present a relatively short synopsis of the Joshua Grubbs questionnaire (CPUI-9), the myth of “perceived pornography addiction,” and what the relevant data actually reveal. Since this involves a complex and tangled web with many layers, these three articles and a presentation were produced to fully explain the CPUI-9 studies:

To understand how the only direct-correlation research undermines all of the CPUI-9 studies, more background is helpful. The phrase “perceived pornography addiction” indicates nothing more than a number: the total score on the following 9-item pornography-use questionnaire with its three extraneous questions. The key insight is that the CPUI-9 includes 3 “guilt and shame/emotional distress” questions not normally found in addiction instruments. These skew its results, causing religious porn users to score higher and non-religious users to score lower than subjects do on standard addiction-assessment instruments. It doesn’t sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of perceived vs. genuine addiction. Nor does the CPUI-9 assess actual porn addiction accurately.

Perceived Compulsivity Section

  1. I believe I am addicted to Internet pornography.
  2. I feel unable to stop my use of online pornography.
  3. Even when I do not want to view pornography online, I feel drawn to it

Access Efforts Section

  1. At times, I try to arrange my schedule so that I will be able to be alone in order to view pornography.
  2. I have refused to go out with friends or attend certain social functions to have the opportunity to view pornography.
  3. I have put off important priorities to view pornography.

Emotional Distress Section

  1. I feel ashamed after viewing pornography online.
  2. I feel depressed after viewing pornography online.
  3. I feel sick after viewing pornography online.

Subjects never “label themselves as porn addicts” in any Grubbs study: They simply answer the 9 questions above, and earn a total score.

The term “perceived pornography addiction” is misleading in the extreme, because it’s just a meaningless score on an instrument that produces skewed results. But people have assumed they understood what “perceived addiction” meant. They presumed it meant that the CPUI-9’s creator, Grubbs, had figured out a way to distinguish actual “addiction” from “belief in addiction.” He hadn’t. He had just given a deceptive label to his “porn use inventory,” the CPUI-9. Grubbs has made no effort to correct the misperceptions about his work that rolled out into the media, pushed by anti-porn addiction sexologists and their media chums.

Misled journalists mistakenly summed up CPUI-9 findings as:

  • Believing in porn addiction is the source of your problems, not porn use itself.
  • Religious porn users are not really addicted to porn (even if they score high on the Grubbs CPUI-9) – they just have shame.

The Key: the Emotional Distress questions (7-9) cause religious porn users to score much higher and secular porn users to score far lower, as well as creating a strong correlation between “moral disapproval” and total CPUI-9 score (“perceived addiction”). To put it another way, if you use only results from CPUI-9 questions 1-6 (which assess the signs and symptoms of an actual addiction), the correlations dramatically change – and all the dubious articles claiming shame is the “real” cause porn addiction would never have been written.

To look at a few revealing correlations, let’s use data from the 2015 Grubbs paper (“Transgression as Addiction: Religiosity and Moral Disapproval as Predictors of Perceived Addiction to Pornography“). It comprises 3 separate studies and its provocative title suggests that religiosity and moral disapproval “cause” a belief in pornography addiction.

Tips for understanding the numbers in the table: zero means no correlation between two variables; 1.00 means a complete correlation between two variables. The bigger the number the stronger the correlation between the 2 variables.

In this first correlation we see how moral disapproval correlates powerfully with the 3 guilt and shame questions (Emotional Distress), yet weakly with the two other sections that assess actual addiction (questions 1-6). The Emotional Distress questions cause moral disapproval to be the strongest predictor of total CPUI-9 scores (“perceived addiction”).

But if we use only the actual porn addiction questions (1-6), the correlation is pretty weak with Moral Disapproval (in science-speak, Moral Disapproval is a weak predictor of porn addiction).

The second half of the story is how the same 3 Emotional Distress correlate very poorly with levels of porn use, while the actual porn addiction questions (1-6) correlate robustly with porn use levels.

This is how the 3 Emotional Distress questions skew results. They lead to reduced correlations between “hours of porn use” and total CPUI-9 scores (“perceived addiction”). Next, the sum total of all 3 sections of the CPUI-9 test is deceptively re-labeled as “perceived addiction” by Grubbs. Then, at the hands of determined anti-porn-addiction activists, “perceived addiction” morphs into “self identifying as a porn addict.” The activists have pounced on the strong correlation with moral disapproval, which the CPUI-9 always produces, and presto! they now claim that, “a belief in porn addiction is nothing more than shame!”

It’s a house of cards built on 3 guilt and shame question not found in any other addiction assessment, in combination with the misleading term the questionnaire’s creator uses to label his 9 questions (as a measure of “perceived porn addiction”).

The CPUI-9 house of cards came tumbling down with a 2017 study that pretty much invalidates the CPUI-9 as an instrument to assess either “perceived pornography addiction” or actual pornography addiction: Do Cyber Pornography Use Inventory-9 Scores Reflect Actual Compulsivity in Internet Pornography Use? Exploring the Role of Abstinence Effort. It also found that 1/3 of the CPUI-9 questions should be omitted to return valid results related to “moral disapproval,” “religiosity,” and “hours of porn use.” You see all the key excerpts here, but Fernandez et al., 2018 sums things up:

Second, our findings cast doubts on the suitability of the inclusion of the Emotional Distress subscale as part of the CPUI-9. As consistently found across multiple studies (e.g., Grubbs et al., 2015a,c), our findings also showed that frequency of IP use had no relationship with Emotional Distress scores. More importantly, actual compulsivity as conceptualized in the present study (failed abstinence attempts x abstinence effort) had no relationship with Emotional Distress scores.

Emotional Distress scores were significantly predicted by moral disapproval, in line with previous studies which also found a substantial overlap between the two (Grubbs et al., 2015a; Wilt et al., 2016)…. As such, the inclusion of the Emotional Distress subscale as part of the CPUI-9 might skew results in such a way that it inflates the total perceived addiction scores of IP users who morally disapprove of pornography, and deflates the total perceived addiction scores of IP users who have high Perceived Compulsivity scores, but low moral disapproval of pornography.

This may be because the Emotional Distress subscale was based on an original “Guilt” scale which was developed for use particularly with religious populations (Grubbs et al., 2010), and its utility with non-religious populations remains uncertain in light of subsequent findings related to this scale.

Here’s is the core finding: The 3 “Emotional Distress” questions have no place in the CPUI-9, or any porn addiction questionnaire. These guilt and shame questions do not assess distress surrounding addictive porn use or “perception of addiction.” These 3 questions merely artificially inflate total CPUI-9 scores for religious individuals while deflating total CPUI-9 scores for nonreligious porn addicts.

In summary, the conclusions and claims spawned by the CPUI-9 are simply invalid. Joshua Grubbs created a questionnaire that cannot, and was never validated for, sorting “perceived” from actual addiction: the CPUI-9. With zero scientific justification he re-labeled his CPUI-9 as a “perceived pornography addiction” questionnaire.

Because the CPUI-9 included 3 extraneous questions assessing guilt and shame, religious porn users’ CPUI-9 scores tend to be skewed upward. The existence of higher CPUI-9 scores for religious porn users was then fed to the media as a claim that, “religious people falsely believe they are addicted to porn.” This was followed by several studies correlating moral disapproval with CPUI-9 scores. Since religious people as a group score higher on moral disapproval, and (thus) the total CPUI-9, it was pronounced (without actual support) that religious-based moral disapproval is the true cause of pornography addiction. That’s quite a leap, and unjustified as a matter of science.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCERPT #20: A study accused of using porn stars as its subjects and funded by a controversial for-profit company trying to legitimize its very expensive sexual technique…yeah, that will debunk porn addiction

SLATE EXCERPT: More importantly, we have no laboratory studies about actual sexual behaviors in those who relabport this difficulty. The first study of partnered sexual behaviors in the laboratory, which tests the compulsivity model, is currently under peer review at a scientific journal. (Disclosure: One of this article’s co-authors, Nicole Prause, is the lead author of that study.) The World Health Organization should wait to see if any science supports their novel diagnosis before risking pathologizing millions of healthy people.

“We have no laboratory studies?” Not so. There are plenty of laboratory studies published on porn’s immediate effects on the viewer (listed in Excerpt #9). More importantly, there are 39 “laboratory studies” assessing brain functions and structures in porn users and those with CSB.

We also have hundreds of studies on adults linking real-life porn use to various negative outcomes such as lower relationship satisfaction, lower sexual satisfaction, divorce, marital separation, relationship breakups, lower levels of commitment, more negative communication, less sex, erectile dysfunctions, anorgasmia, low libido, delayed ejaculation, poorer concentration, poorer working memory, loneliness, depression, anxiety, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, paranoid thinking, psychoticism, addiction, narcissism, reduced happiness, difficulties in intimacy, less relationship trust, devaluation of sexual communication, romantic attachment anxiety, negative body attitude, greater dissatisfaction with muscularity, body fat and height, greater stress, more sexual concerns, less enjoyment of intimate behaviors, increased sexual boredom, less positive communication for both partners, diminished view of women’s competence/morality/humanity, loss of compassion toward women as rape victims, greater belief that women are sex objects, less progressive gender role attitudes, more hostile sexism, opposition to affirmative action, callousness toward sexual violence, thinking of women as entities that exist for men’s sexual gratification, higher adherence to belief that power over women is desirable, lower responsivity to “vanilla sex” erotica, an increased need for novelty and variety…. and a whole lot more.

We have over 200 studies on adolescents reporting that porn use is related to such factors as poorer academics, more sexist attitudes, more aggression, poorer health, poorer relationships, lower life satisfaction, viewing people as objects, increased sexual risk taking, less condom use, greater sexual violence, unexplained anxiety, greater sexual coercion, less sexual satisfaction, lower libido, greater permissive attitudes, social maladjustment, lower self-worth, lower health status, sexually aggressive behavior, addiction, greater gender role conflict, more avoidant and anxious attachment styles, antisocial behaviours, heavy drinking, fighting, ADHD symptoms, cognitive deficits, greater acceptance of pre- and extramarital sex, lower evaluation of marriage, promotion of the acceptance of male dominance and female servitude, less gender egalitarianism, more likely to believe rape myths and prostitution myth…. and a whole lot more.

Will Prause’s upcoming “laboratory study” negate hundreds of studies performed over the last few decades? Highly unlikely as we already know a great deal about her upcoming research on “partnered sexual behaviors.” Both Prause and the lucrative commercial enterprise that funded this research have been crowing about it for years.

What will the partners be doing in the lab? Will the couple be watching porn? Nope. Will the study have a group of carefully screened porn addicts and a control group for comparison? Nope. These are important questions, because Prause’s most famous EEG study suffered from several fatal methodological flaws: 1) subjects were heterogeneous (males, females, non-heterosexuals); 2) subjects were not screened for mental disorders or addictions; 3) study had no control group for comparison; 4) questionnaires were not validated for porn use or porn addiction. 5) Many of the study’s so-called porn addicts really weren’t really porn addicts. Despite this Prause misrepresented her study’s findings, as psychology professor John A. Johnson exposes in two separate comments under a Nicole Prause interview on Psychology Today (comment #1, comment #2).

In fact, all existing indications are that her partnered subjects will not be doing anything relevant to this article by Prause/Kohut/Klein. Here’s what we know about this as yet unpublished work: Prause was commissioned by the California company that her website lists as her major source of income, Orgasmic Meditation (also called ‘OM’ and ‘OneTaste’), to study the benefits of clitoral stroking. From Prause’s Liberos website:

Neurological effects and health benefits of orgasmic meditation” Principal Investigator, Direct costs: $350,000, Duration: 2 years, OneTaste Foundation, co-Investigators: Greg Siegle, Ph.D.

OneTaste charges high fees to attend workshops where participants learn “orgasmic meditation” (how to stroke women’s clitorises). This enterprise has recently received some unflattering, revealing publicity. Here are the news items:

The OM/OneTaste company plans to use Prause’s upcoming studies to “scale” their marketing up to new heights. According to the Bloomberg article The Dark Side of the Orgasmic Meditation Company,

The newish CEO is betting that the study OneTaste has funded on the health benefits of OM, which has taken brain-activity readings from 130 pairs of strokers and strokees, will draw fresh crowds. Led by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh, the study is expected to yield the first of multiple papers later this year. “The science that’s coming out to back what this is and what the benefits are is going to be huge in terms of scaling,” Van Vleck says

Regardless of the fact that Prause’s OM research business is addressing partnered clitoral stroking, she is already hinting (as here) or openly claiming (elsewhere) that it invalidates the ICD-11’s new “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” (CSBD) diagnosis. (Much as her diametrically opposed results in her 2013 and 2015 studies both somehow debunked sex addiction.) In short, whatever research this scientist is hired to perform, you can bet she will claim it debunks porn and sex addiction, as well as the new CSBD that will be used to diagnose both!

Incidentally, where did Prause obtain subjects for her clitoral-stroking investigation? According to tweets by an adult performer, Prause obtained porn performers as OM study subjects, via the most powerful lobbying arm of the porn industry, the Free Speech Coalition. See this Twitter exchange between Prause and adult performer, Ruby the Big Rubousky, who is vice president of the Adult Performers Actors Guild (Prause has since deleted this thread):

 

Prause has been quick to accuse others of bias without supplying any hard evidence whatsoever, but her OM research is a powerful example of an egregious conflict of interest: taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to find benefits of a dubious, commercially driven practice…and possibly obtaining subjects via the most powerful lobbying arm of the porn industry. All while conveniently serving the porn industry by also claiming this research invalidates the new CSBD diagnosis that will be used for those suffering from compulsive sexual behaviors (more than 80% of whom report problems with internet pornography use).

Debunking a July, 2018 article by Gavin Evans: “Can Watching Too Much Porn Give You Erectile Dysfunction?” (Men’s Health)

Introduction

Unfortunately YBOP must thoroughly debunk yet another Men’s Health propaganda piece denying porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. The current article mirrors another misleading article YBOP debunked just a few months ago: Debunking “Should you be worried about porn-induced erectile dysfunction?” – by The Daily Dot’s Claire Downs. (2018).

Before I address specific assertions, here are the studies that :

Misrepresentations and omissions

The Men’s Health articles featured Dr. Nicole Prause, a non-academic who’s extensive history of actively campaigning against porn-induced ED and porn addiction is well documented. Let’s begin with Prause’s string of misinformation and false assertions:

Most men watch porn, so the thought of missing out on actual sex because you watched too many X-rated videos is, understandably, a pretty terrifying prospect. We were a bit hesitant to use the experiences of just two men to generalize about a world full of men who watch porn, so we talked to a few sex researchers with Ph.D.s to get a few more details on whether your habit can cause serious problems with your sex life.

The verdict? There’s no scientific evidence that supports the idea of “porn-induced erectile dysfunction.”

“There are three laboratory studies that have shown sex film viewing is unrelated to erectile functioning,” said Nicole Prause, Ph.D., founder of Liberos, a sex research and biotechnology company in Los Angeles. (You can find those studies here, here, and here.)

“No study has ever linked the two,” she says. “The therapists are literally manufacturing the idea that these are connected in their patients.”

Um…it is patently false to claim that no study has linked porn use to sexual problems. In reality, there are now 26 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. It’s not just correlation studies: the first 5 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions. Put simply, porn-induced sexual problems exist because medical professionals asked young men to refrain from porn – and they healed chronic sexual problems (ED, Anorgasmia, delayed ejaculation, low sexual desire). Fact check anyone?

What about Prause’s claim concerning the 3 studies she cited:

“There are three laboratory studies that have shown sex film viewing is unrelated to erectile functioning.” (You can find those studies here, here, and here.)

First, none of the studies were “laboratory studies”, so ignore that claim. The first study listed actually supports the hypothesis that porn use causes sexual problems as 71% of the heavy porn users in the study had developed chronic sexual problems! This is another example of a journalist failing to fact-check, as journalists writing articles about pornography so often fail to do. The second and third papers (one wasn’t a study) on the list were roundly criticized in the peer-reviewed literature, with many questioning both findings and methodologies. Below we examine the 3 papers separately:

PAPER #1: Sutton et al., 2015:

Patient Characteristics by Type of Hypersexuality Referral: A Quantitative Chart Review of 115 Consecutive Male Cases (2015) – A study on men (average age 41.5) with hypersexuality disorders, such as paraphilias, chronic masturbation or adultery. 27 of the men were classified as “avoidant masturbators,” meaning they masturbated (typically with porn use) one or more hours per day, or more than 7 hours per week. 71% of the men who chronically masturbated to porn reported sexual functioning problems, with 33% reporting delayed ejaculation (often a precursor to porn-induced ED).

What sexual dysfunction do 38% of the remaining men have? The study doesn’t say, and the authors have ignored repeated requests for details. Two primary choices for male sexual dysfunction are ‘erectile dysfunction’ and ‘low libido’. It should be noted that the men were not asked about their erectile functioning without porn. This, if all their sexual activity involved masturbating to porn, and not sex with a partner, many might be unaware they had porn-induced ED. (For reasons known only to her, Prause chronically cites this paper as debunking the existence of porn-induced sexual dysfunctions.)

PAPER #2: Prause & Pfaus, 2015.

I provide the formal critique by Richard Isenberg, MD and a very extensive lay critique, followed by my comments and excerpts from the  paper co-authored by US Navy doctors:

The reality behind Prause & Pfaus 2015: This wasn’t a study on men with ED. It wasn’t a study at all. Instead, Prause claimed to have gathered data from four of her earlier studies, none of which addressed erectile dysfunction. It’s disturbing that this paper by Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus passed peer-review as the data in their paper did not match the data in the underlying four studies on which the paper claimed to be based. The discrepancies are not minor gaps, but gaping holes that cannot be plugged. In addition, the paper made several claims that were false or not supported by their data.

We begin with false claims made by both Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus. Many journalists’ articles about this study claimed that porn use led to better erections, yet that’s not what the paper found. In recorded interviews, both Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus falsely claimed that they had measured erections in the lab, and that the men who used porn had better erections. In the Jim Pfaus TV interview Pfaus states:

“We looked at the correlation of their ability to get an erection in the lab.”

“We found a liner correlation with the amount of porn they viewed at home, and the latencies which for example they get an erection is faster.”

In this radio interview Nicole Prause claimed that erections were measured in the lab. The exact quote from the show:

“The more people watch erotica at home they have stronger erectile responses in the lab, not reduced.”

Yet this paper did not assess erection quality in the lab or “speed of erections.” The paper only claimed to have asked guys to rate their “arousal” after briefly viewing porn (and it’s even not clear from the underlying papers that this simple self-report was asked of all subjects). In any case, an excerpt from the paper itself admitted that:

“No physiological genital response data were included to support men’s self-reported experience.”

In other words, no actual erections were tested or measured in the lab!

In a second unsupported claim, lead author Nicole Prause tweeted several times about the study, letting the world know that 280 subjects were involved, and that they had “no problems at home.” However, the four underlying studies contained only 234 male subjects, so “280” is way off.

A third unsupported claim: Dr. Isenberg’s Letter to the Editor (linked to above), which raised multiple substantive concerns highlighting the flaws in the Prause & Pfaus paper, wondered how it could be possible for Prause & Pfaus 2015 to have compared different subjects’ arousal levels when three different types of sexual stimuli were used in the 4 underlying studies. Two studies used a 3-minute film, one study used a 20-second film, and one study used still images. It’s well established that films are far more arousing than photos, so no legitimate research team would group these subjects together to make claims about their responses. What’s shocking is that in their paper Prause & Pfaus unaccountably claim that all 4 studies used sexual films:

“The VSS presented in the studies were all films.”

This statement is false, as clearly revealed in Prause’s own underlying studies. This is the first reason why Prause & Pfaus cannot claim that their paper assessed “arousal.” You must use the same stimulus for each subject to compare all subjects.

A fourth unsupported claim: Dr. Isenberg also asked how Prause & Pfaus 2015 could compare different subjects’ arousal levels when only 1 of the 4 underlying studies used a 1 to 9 scale. One used a 0 to 7 scale, one used a 1 to 7 scale, and one study did not report sexual arousal ratings. Once again Prause & Pfaus inexplicably claim that:

“Men were asked to indicate their level of “sexual arousal” ranging from 1 “not at all” to 9 “extremely.”

This statement, too, is false, as the underlying papers show. This is the second reason why Prause & Pfaus cannot claim that their paper assessed “arousal” ratings in men. A study must use the same rating scale for each subject to compare the subjects’ results. In summary, all the Prause-generated headlines about porn use improving erections or arousal, or anything else, are unwarranted.

Prause & Pfaus 2015 also claimed they found no relationship between erectile functioning scores and the amount of porn viewed in the last month. As Dr. Isenberg pointed out:

Even more disturbing is the total omission of statistical findings for the erectile function outcome measure. No statistical results whatsoever are provided. Instead the authors ask the reader to simply believe their unsubstantiated statement that there was no association between hours of pornography viewed and erectile function. Given the authors’ conflicting assertion that erectile function with a partner may actually be improved by viewing pornography the absence of statistical analysis is most egregious.

In the Prause & Pfaus response to the Dr. Isenberg critique, the authors once again failed to provide any data to support their “unsubstantiated statement.” As this analysis documents, the Prause & Pfaus response not only evades Dr. Isenberg’s legitimate concerns, it contains several new misrepresentations and several transparently false statements. Finally, a review of the literature I wrote with 7 Navy doctors commented on Prause & Pfaus 2015:

Our review also included two 2015 papers claiming that Internet pornography use is unrelated to rising sexual difficulties in young men. However, such claims appear to be premature on closer examination of these papers and related formal criticism. The first paper contains useful insights about the potential role of sexual conditioning in youthful ED [50]. However, this publication has come under criticism for various discrepancies, omissions and methodological flaws. For example, it provides no statistical results for the erectile function outcome measure in relation to Internet pornography use. Further, as a research physician pointed out in a formal critique of the paper, the paper’s authors, “have not provided the reader with sufficient information about the population studied or the statistical analyses to justify their conclusion” [51]. Additionally, the researchers investigated only hours of Internet pornography use in the last month. Yet studies on Internet pornography addiction have found that the variable of hours of Internet pornography use alone is widely unrelated to “problems in daily life”, scores on the SAST-R (Sexual Addiction Screening Test), and scores on the IATsex (an instrument that assesses addiction to online sexual activity) [52, 53, 54, 55, 56]. A better predictor is subjective sexual arousal ratings while watching Internet pornography (cue reactivity), an established correlate of addictive behavior in all addictions [52, 53, 54]. There is also increasing evidence that the amount of time spent on Internet video-gaming does not predict addictive behavior. “Addiction can only be assessed properly if motives, consequences and contextual characteristics of the behavior are also part of the assessment” [57]. Three other research teams, using various criteria for “hypersexuality” (other than hours of use), have strongly correlated it with sexual difficulties [15, 30, 31]. Taken together, this research suggests that rather than simply “hours of use”, multiple variables are highly relevant in assessment of pornography addiction/hypersexuality, and likely also highly relevant in assessing pornography-related sexual dysfunctions.

This review also highlighted the weakness in correlating only “current hours of use” to predict porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. The amount of porn currently viewed is just one of many variables involved in the development of porn-induced ED. These may include:

  1. Ratio of masturbation to porn versus masturbation without porn
  2. Ratio of sexual activity with a person versus masturbation to porn
  3. Gaps in partnered sex (where one relies only on porn)
  4. Virgin or not
  5. Total hours of use
  6. Years of use
  7. Age started using porn voluntarily
  8. Escalation to new genres
  9. Development of porn-induced fetishes (from escalating to new genres of porn)
  10. Level of novelty per session (i.e. compilation videos, multiple tabs)
  11. Addiction-related brain changes or not
  12. Presence of hypersexuality/porn addiction

The better way to research this phenomenon, is to remove the variable of internet porn use and observe the outcome, which was done in the case studies in which men removed internet porn use and healed. Such research reveals causation instead of fuzzy correlations open to conflicting interpretation. My site has documented a few thousand men who removed porn and recovered from chronic sexual dysfunctions.

PAPER #3: Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015.

Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015 was designated as a “brief communication” by the journal that published it, and the two authors selected certain data to share, while omitting other pertinent data (more later). As with Prause & Pfaus, the journal later published a critique of Landripet & Štulhofer: Comment on: Is Pornography Use Associated with Sexual Difficulties and Dysfunctions among Younger Heterosexual Men? by Gert Martin Hald, PhD

As for the claim that Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015 found no relationships between porn use and sexual problems. This is not true, as documented in both this YBOP critique and the this review of the literature. Furthermore, Landripet & Štulhofer’s paper omitted three significant correlations they presented to a European conference (more below). Let’s start with the first of three paragraphs from our paper that addressed Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015:

A second paper reported little correlation between frequency of Internet pornography use in the last year and ED rates in sexually active men from Norway, Portugal and Croatia [6]. These authors, unlike those of the previous paper, acknowledge the high prevalence of ED in men 40 and under, and indeed found ED and low sexual desire rates as high as 31% and 37%, respectively. In contrast, pre-streaming Internet pornography research done in 2004 by one of the paper’s authors reported ED rates of only 5.8% in men 35–39 [58]. Yet, based on a statistical comparison, the authors conclude that Internet pornography use does not seem to be a significant risk factor for youthful ED. That seems overly definitive, given that the Portuguese men they surveyed reported the lowest rates of sexual dysfunction compared with Norwegians and Croatians, and only 40% of Portuguese reported using Internet pornography “from several times a week to daily”, as compared with the Norwegians, 57%, and Croatians, 59%. This paper has been formally criticized for failing to employ comprehensive models able to encompass both direct and indirect relationships between variables known or hypothesized to be at work [59]. Incidentally, in a related paper on problematic low sexual desire involving many of the same survey participants from Portugal, Croatia and Norway, the men were asked which of numerous factors they believed contributed to their problematic lack of sexual interest. Among other factors, approximately 11%–22% chose “I use too much pornography” and 16%–26% chose “I masturbate too often” [60]

As my co-authors, the Navy doctors, and I described, this paper found a rather important correlation: Only 40% of the Portuguese men used porn “frequently,” while the 60% of the Norwegians used porn “frequently.” The Portuguese men had far less sexual dysfunction than the Norwegians. With respect to the Croat subjects, Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015 acknowledge a statistically significant association between more frequent porn use and ED, but claim the effect size was small. However, this claim may be misleading according to an MD who is a skilled statistician and has authored many studies:

Analyzed a different way (Chi Squared), … moderate use (vs. infrequent use) increased the odds (the likelihood) of having ED by about 50% in this Croatian population. That sounds meaningful to me, although it is curious that the finding was only identified among Croats.

In addition, Landripet & Štulhofer 2015 omitted three significant correlations, which one of the authors presented to a European conference. He reported a significant correlation between erectile dysfunction and “preference for certain pornographic genres”:

Reporting a preference for specific pornographic genres were [sic] significantly associated with erectile (but not ejaculatory or desire-related) male sexual dysfunction.

It’s telling that Landripet & Štulhofer chose to omit this significant correlation between erectile dysfunction and preferences for specific genres of porn from their paper. It’s quite common for porn users to escalate into genres (or fetishes) that do not match their original sexual tastes, and to experience ED when these conditioned porn preferences do not match real sexual encounters. As we pointed out above, it’s very important to assess the multiple variables associated with porn use – not just hours in the last month or frequency in the last year.

The second significant finding omitted by Landripet & Štulhofer 2015 involved female participants:

Increased pornography use was slightly but significantly associated with decreased interest for partnered sex and more prevalent sexual dysfunction among women.

A significant correlation between greater porn use and decreased libido and more sexual dysfunction seems pretty important. Why didn’t Landripet & Štulhofer 2015 report that they found significant correlations between porn use and sexual dysfunction in women, as well as a few in men? And why haven’t these findings been reported in any of Štulhofer’s many studies arising from these same data sets? His teams seem very quick to publish data they claim debunks porn-induced ED, yet very slow to inform users about the negative sexual ramifications of porn use.

Finally, Danish porn researcher Gert Martin Hald’s formal critical comments echoed the need to assess more variables (mediators, moderators) than just frequency per week in the last 12 months:

The study does not address possible moderators or mediators of the relationships studied nor is it able to determine causality. Increasingly, in research on pornography, attention is given to factors that may influence the magnitude or direction of the relationships studied (i.e., moderators) as well as the pathways through which such influence may come about (i.e., mediators). Future studies on pornography consumption and sexual difficulties may also benefit from an inclusion of such focuses.

Bottom line: All complex medical conditions involve multiple factors, which must be teased apart before far-reaching pronouncements in the press are appropriate. Landripet & Štulhofer’s statement that, “Pornography does not seem to be a significant risk factor for younger men’s desire, erectile, or orgasmic difficulties” goes too far, since it ignores all the other possible variables related to porn use that might be causing sexual performance problems in users, including escalation to specific genres, which they found, but omitted from the “Brief Communication.” Paragraphs 2 & 3 in our discussion of Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015:

Again, intervention studies would be the most instructive. However, with respect to correlation studies, it is likely that a complex set of variables needs to be investigated in order to elucidate the risk factors at work in unprecedented youthful sexual difficulties. First, it may be that low sexual desire, difficulty orgasming with a partner and erectile problems are part of the same spectrum of Internet pornography-related effects, and that all of these difficulties should be combined when investigating potentially illuminating correlations with Internet pornography use.

Second, although it is unclear exactly which combination of factors may best account for such difficulties, promising variables to investigate in combination with frequency of Internet pornography use might include (1) years of pornography-assisted versus pornography-free masturbation; (2) ratio of ejaculations with a partner to ejaculations with Internet pornography; (3) the presence of Internet pornography addiction/hypersexuality; (4) the number of years of streaming Internet pornography use; (5) at what age regular use of Internet pornography began and whether it began prior to puberty; (6) trend of increasing Internet pornography use; (7) escalation to more extreme genres of Internet pornography, and so forth.

A 500% – 1000% increase in youthful ED since 2010 cannot be explained away by the usual factors

Studies assessing young male sexuality since 2010 report historic levels of sexual dysfunctions and startling rates of a new scourge: low libido (for partnered sex). Documented in this lay article and in our review Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016).

Prior to the advent of free streaming porn (2006), cross-sectional studies and meta-analysis consistently reported erectile dysfunction rates of 2-5% in men under 40. Erectile dysfunction rates in 9 studies published since 2010 range from 14% to 35%, while rates for low libido (hypo-sexuality) range from 16% to 37%. Some studies involve teens and men 25 and under, while other studies involve men 40 and under. One of the most dramatic recent examples (2018) is a survey of ED in porn actors. Those under 30 had twice the rate of ED as the older ones (whose sexuality developed without access to highspeed Internet porn during adolescence). See Erectile Dysfunction Among Male Adult Entertainers: A Survey.

In short there has been a 500%-1000% increase in youthful ED rates in the last 10 years. What variable has changed in the last 15 years that could account for this astronomical rise? Before confidently claiming that today’s porn consumers have nothing to worry about from Internet porn use, researchers still need to account for the very recent, sharp rise in youthful ED and low sexual desire, the many studies linking porn use to sexual problem, the thousands of self reports and clinician reports of men healing ED by eliminating a single variable: porn.

Men’s Health quotes Ian Kerner, but in the past Kerner stated that porn causes sexual problems!

In the Men’s Health article Kerner (who is an AASECT spokesman) twists and turns to avoid blaming porn, asserting that masturbation causes chronic ED in health young men:

Though there may not be a direct connection between watching porn and erectile dysfunction, there is an indirect one in that in certain cases masturbation can lead to erection issues. “In my clinical experience I do not find porn to be a direct cause of [erectile disorder, premature ejaculation, and delayed ejaculation]” explains Ian Kerner, Ph.D. and licensed psychotherapist and sexuality counselor.

Notice that Kerner cited nothing, because no urologist would agree with his unsupported claim that masturbation causes chronic ED in young men. Kerner, Prause, and David Ley have all contrived to misdirect the public away from porn as the true cause. YBOP wrote about this smoke & mirrors tactic here: Sexologists deny porn-induced ED by claiming masturbation is the problem (2016).

Before Ian Kerner became the chair of public relations for AASECT, he had a different opinion on porn-induced sexual problems. See the following 2013 article by Kerner, which undercuts 2018 Kerner (Maybe by becoming AASECT’s official spokesperson he felt compelled to follow the company line.):

Too Much Internet Porn: The SADD Effect

By Ian Kerner

Easy access to internet porn and the sheer variety of novelty it contains have affected average guys who wouldn’t normally have a problem.

As a sex therapist and founder of Good in Bed, I’ve seen a sharp increase in men who suffer from a new syndrome I’ve dubbed “Sexual Attention Deficit Disorder,” or SADD. And the source of this problem is just a click away — too much internet porn.

Just as people with ADD are easily distracted, guys with SADD have become so accustomed to the high levels of visual novelty and stimulation that comes from internet porn that they’re unable to focus on real sex with a real woman. As a result, guys with SADD often find it difficult to maintain an erection during intercourse, or they experience delayed ejaculation and can only climax with manual or oral stimulation.

Bored in bed?

Men with SADD tend to find themselves getting bored or impatient during sex. They may be physiologically aroused and erect, but they’re not at peak mental arousal. Guys with SADD may also simply lack the mojo for real sex because they’re depleted from masturbation. They’re not running on a full tank, physically or mentally.

Believe it or not, I first became aware of SADD via the complaints of women who wondered why their guys couldn’t ejaculate (and were often faking it) or who noticed that their partners seemed disconnected or uninterested during sex. When I dug a little deeper, or talked to the guys themselves, I realized that these men were masturbating more than usual due to their easy access to internet porn. Sometimes, they were masturbating about the same as always, but hadn’t realized that their natural refractory period — the recovery time between erections — was increasing as they aged.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of masturbation. It helps a guy blow off some steam and is like a 30-second spa day. But easy access to internet porn and the sheer variety of novelty it contains have affected average guys who wouldn’t normally have a problem. Because of this, these men have rewired their brains to crave the instant gratification of a porn-enabled orgasm. This means that they’re developing what’s clinically referred to as an idiosyncratic masturbatory style: They’ve accustomed themselves to an intense type of physical stimulation that’s not approximated during real sex. Their overall levels of sexual desire for their partners are down, and they need to fantasize during real sex in order to maintain a full erection.

Think you suffer from SADD? Here’s what to do…

What’s a guy with SADD to do?

First, give yourself a masturbation break. Save your mojo for your partner. If you’re single, decrease your frequency of masturbation. When you do masturbate, try using your non-dominant hand. For example, if you’re a righty, touch yourself with your left. You won’t be able to apply the same levels of physical intensity as you can with your dominant hand, so you won’t be as physically numbed to the sensations of intercourse.

Second, lay off the porn. When you masturbate, use your mind to create the pictures and try to recall single episodes of sex. Think of it as the difference between reading and watching TV. Use this opportunity to reconnect with your erotic history and your own catalog of sexy memories.

Increase the mental novelty with your partner: Share fantasies and experiment with role play. Before you have intercourse, get yourself to a point where you’re at peak physical and mental arousal. SADD doesn’t have to be sad for you or your partner. Step away from your computer and toward your bedroom, and you can put your attention back where it belongs — on your real sex life.

Gavin Evans may wish to update his article in Men’s Health… but I won’t hold my breath.

Experts who recognize & treat porn-induced sexual dysfunctions

See this page for the many studies linking porn use or porn/sex addiction to sexual problems and relationship & sexual dissatisfaction (the first 5 studies demonstrate causation as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions):

Since 2011, when urology professor Carl Foresta first described porn-induced sexual dysfunctions, over 110 sexual experts (urology professors, urologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists, MDs) have been quoted as saying that porn causes sexual problems. Below are published articles or radio and TV segments featuring these experts. Note – Urologists have twice presented evidence of porn-induced sexual dysfunctions at annual conferences of the American Urological Association:

  1. Video of a lecture: Porn-induced ED (parts 1-4) presented at the American Urologic Association Conference, May 6-10, 2016. Urologist Tarek Pacha.
  2. New findings: Study sees link between porn and sexual dysfunction (2017) – Data from an upcoming study, presented at the 2017 American Urological Association Conference.

List of articles, broadcasts, radio shows, and podcasts that involve sexual experts who confirm the existence of porn-induced sexual dysfunctions:

  1. Too Much Internet Porn May Cause Impotence, urology professor Carlo Foresta, president of The Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine (2011)
  2. The Young Turks discuss porn-induced ED (2011)
  3. Porning too much? by Robert Taibbi, L.C.S.W. (2012)
  4. Does Porn Contribute to ED? by Tyger Latham, Psy.D. in Therapy Matters (2012)
  5. Urologist Lim Huat Chye:  Pornography can cause erectile dysfunction for young men (2012)
  6. Director of Middlebury College Health Center, Dr. Mark Peluso, sees rise in ED: blames porn (2012)
  7. Sexual Dysfunction: The Escalating Price of Abusing Porn (2012)
  8. “Addicted to Viagra: They should be at their most virile, but a growing number of young men can’t cope without those little blue pills” (2012)
  9. Hardcore corruption of the human hard disk (2012)
  10. The Dr. Oz Show addresses Porn-induced ED (2013)
  11. Erectile dysfunction increases among young men, sex therapist Brandy Engler, PhD (2013)
  12. Internet Porn and Erectile Dysfunction, by Urologist James Elist, F.A.C.S., F.I.C.S. (2013)
  13. How porn is destroying modern sex lives: Feminist writer Naomi Wolf has an unsettling explanation for why Britons are having less sex (2013)
  14. Pornography & Erectile Dysfunction, by Lawrence A. Smiley M.D. (2013)
  15. Urologist Andrew Kramer discusses ED – including porn-induced ED (2013)
  16. Is Porn Destroying Your Sex Life? By Robert Weiss LCSW, CSAT-S (2013)
  17. Too Much Internet Porn: The SADD Effect, by Ian Kerner PhD. (2013)
  18. Solutions for porn-induced erectile dysfunction, by Sudeepta Varma, MD, Psychiatry (2013)
  19. Dr. Rosalyn Dischiavo on porn-induced ED (2013)
  20. Did porn warp me forever? Salon.com (2013)
  21. Radio Show: Young Psychiatrist Discusses His Porn-induced ED (2013)
  22. Video by Medical Doctor: Causes of ED in young men – includes Internet porn (2013)
  23. Chris Kraft, Ph.D. – Johns Hopkins sexologist discusses porn-induced sexual dysfunctions (2013)
  24. Why A Sex Therapist Worries About Teens Viewing Internet Porn, by Dr. Aline Zoldbrod (2013)
  25. Is “Normal” Porn Watching Affecting Your Manhood? by sexologist Maryline Décarie, M.A. (2013)
  26. ‘Porn’ makes men hopeless in bed: Dr Deepak Jumani, Sexologist Dhananjay Gambhire (2013)
  27. Need porn diet for three to five months to get an erection again, Alexandra Katehakis MFT, CSAT-S (2013)
  28. Just Can’t Get It Up: ZDoggMD.com (2013)
  29. Time-out cures man of Internet porn addiction & ED: CBS video, Dr. Elaine Brady (2013)
  30. Seven Sharp with Caroline Cranshaw – The damage caused by internet porn addiction (2013)
  31. Reality is not enough exciting (Swedish), psychiatrist Goran Sedvallson. urologist Stefan Arver, psychotherapist Inger Björklund (2013)
  32. Why porn and masturbation can be too much of a good thing, Dr. Elizabeth Waterman (2013)
  33. Dan Savage answers question about porn-induced ED (12-2013)
  34. Irish Times: ‘I can’t get stimulated unless I watch porn with my girlfriend’ (2016)
  35. Erection problems from too much porn – Swedish (2013)
  36. Internet porn wrecking conjugal ties in India (Porn-induced ED), Dr. Narayana Reddy (2013)
  37. Pornography was the only one who got Donald aroused: Swedish (2013)
  38. Men who watch too much porn can’t get it up, warns Manchester sex therapist (2014)
  39. What causes erectile dysfunction?, Dr. Lohit K, M.D (2014)
  40. Has Porn Ruined Our Sex Lives Forever? The Daily Dose. (2014)
  41. Suffering from ED? This Reason May Surprise You, by Michael S Kaplan, MD (2014)
  42. Is porn addiction on the rise in Bangalore? (2014)
  43. YBOP review of “The New Naked” by urologist Harry Fisch, MD (2014)
  44. Behind the documentary: Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction, Global News Canada (2014)
  45. ‘Generation X-Rated’ (Porn-Induced ED) – Urologist Abraham Morgentaler (2014)
  46. Porn-induced erectile dysfunction in healthy young men, Andrew Doan MD, PhD (2014)
  47. Catastrophic effects of adolescent porn addiction. Wrishi Raphael, MD (2014)
  48. Porn causing erectile dysfunction in young men, by Global News Canada (2014)
  49. LIVE BLOG: Porn-induced erectile dysfunction. Dr. Abraham Morgentaler, Gabe Deem (2014)
  50. Watching porn can cause male sexual dysfunction. Urologists David B. Samadi & Muhammed Mirza (2014)
  51. Looking at porn on the internet could ruin your sex life, doctor says. Harry Fisch, MD (2014)
  52. Online Videos Causing IRL Erectile Problems? by Andrew Smiler PhD (2014)
  53. Do You Masturbate Too Much? Urologist Tobias Köhler, Therapist Dan Drake (2014)
  54. How Online Sexual Stimulation Can Lead to In Real Life Sexual Dysfunction, by Jed Diamond PhD (2014)
  55. Too Much Porn Contributing to ED: Urologist Fawad Zafar (2014)
  56. Is Porn Erectile Dysfunction Fact or Fiction? by Kurt Smith, LMFT, LPCC, AFC (2015)
  57. When porn becomes a problem (Irish Times). Sex therapists Trish Murphy, Teresa Bergin, Tony Duffy (2015)
  58. Porn Addiction, Porn Creep and Erectile Dysfunction By Billi Caine, B.Sc Psych, RN (2015)
  59. Online pornography and compulsive masturbation cause impotence in young, Emilio Loiacono MD (2015)
  60. Counsellors battle ‘plague of pornography’, psychologists Seema Hingorrany & Yolande Pereira, paediatrician, Samir Dalwai (2015)
  61. Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”, Vanity Fair (2015)
  62. TEDX talk about porn-induced ED & reclaiming one’s sexuality: “How to Become a Sex God” by Gregor Schmidinger (2015)
  63. Torn on porn: A look at addiction & pornography. Dr. Charlotte Loppie, University of Victoria Professor in the School of Public Health (2016)
  64. Nurse wants residents to talk about erectile dysfunction. Lesley Mills, a consultant nurse in sexual dysfunction (2016)
  65. How internet porn is creating a generation of men desensitised to real life sex. Dr Andrew Smiler, Dr Angela Gregory (2016)
  66. BBC: Easy access to online porn is ‘damaging’ men’s health, says NHS therapist. Psychosexual therapist Angela Gregory (2016)
  67. What to Do When You’re Dating a Guy with Problems Below the Belt. Sexologist Emily Morse, Ph.D. (2016)
  68. Non-prescription Viagra has infiltrated the bedrooms of today’s young black men. Urology professor David B. Samadi & Muhammed Mirza, MD founder of ErectileDoctor.com (2016)
  69. The Devastating Consequences of Pornography. Dr. Ursula Ofman (2016)
  70. “Porn addiction could ruin your sex life and here’s why”. Sexual function specialist Anand Patel MD, Sex therapist Janet Eccles, Neuroscientist Dr Nicola Ray (2016)
  71. Podcast: Porn-induced erectile dysfunction (PIED). By world renowned urologist Dudley Danoff & Dr. Diana Wiley (2016)
  72. The REAL reason young men suffer from erectile dysfunction, by Anand Patel, MD (2016)
  73. Turn away! Why pornography can harm your sex life. By urology professor Dr. David Samadi (2016)
  74. Urology Times asks: “What is driving younger men to seek treatment for ED?” Jason Hedges, MD, PhD (2016)
  75. Why Men are quitting Internet Porn (porn-induced ED), Andrew Doan, MD, PhD (2016)
  76. How the proliferation of porn is ruining men’s love lives. By Angela Gregory Lead for Psychosexual Therapy, Chandos Clinic, Nottingham U. Secretary British Society of Sexual Medicine (2016)
  77. A lot of cases relating to erectile dysfunction relate to pornography addiction and use. Zoe Hargreaves, NHS Psychosexual Therapist (2016)
  78. The insidious impact of internet porn. by Rose Laing MD (2016)
  79. Salvaging sex life from erectile dysfunction, Dalal Akoury MD (2016)
  80. Too much porn can lead to ED, Malaysian men warned. Clinical andrologist Dr Mohd Ismail Mohd Tambi (2016)
  81. The black and white of blue films: How porn addiction damages relationships. by Sandip Deshpande, MD (2016)
  82. Private school principals get a lesson in porn. Sexuality educator Liz Walker (2016)
  83. Six Signs that your Partner has a Pornography Addiction & What you can Do. by Diana Baldwin LCSW (2016)
  84. Is Porn Good For Us or Bad For Us? by Philip Zimbardo PhD. (2016)
  85. How Porn is Hijacking the Sex Lives of Our Young Men. by Dr. Barbara Winter (2016)
  86. A shocking new TV show aired last night and it sees young people encouraged to air their sexual problems and woes. Dr. Vena Ramphal (2016)
  87. How To Solve Common Sexual Issues, Because They May Be Mental, Physical, Or Both. Eyal Matsliah author of “Orgasm Unleashed” (2016)
  88. South African therapists and sex educators say interventions are needed to stop today’s youngsters suffering serious health effects later in life due to pornography addiction (2016)
  89. Cybersex Addiction: A Case Study. Dorothy Hayden, LCSW (2016)
  90. How Porn Wrecks Relationships, Barbara Winter, Ph.D. (2016)
  91. Porn Can Help A Relationship, But Proceed With Caution. Amanda Pasciucco LMFT, CST; Wendy Haggerty LMFT, CST (2016)
  92. How Internet Porn Is Making Young Men Impotent. Sex therapist and associate of Impotence Australia, Alinda Small (2016)
  93. Video – Guyology founder Melisa Holmes MD talks about how boys develop porn-induced erectile dysfunction with many needing Viagra (2017)
  94. Video: Hormone expert Dr. Kathryn Retzler discusses porn-induced erectile dysfunction (2017)
  95. Video: Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction by Brad Salzman, LCSW, CSAT (2017)
  96. Irish children as young as seven are being exposed to porn. Dr Fergal Rooney (2017)
  97. Here’s how porn is affecting Irish relationships. Sex therapist Teresa Bergin (2017)
  98. Is Technology Ruining Our Brains? (Comedy Central show). Alexandra Katehakis, MFT, CSAT-S, CST-S (2017)
  99. How to educate our youth about pornography addiction and dangers. Psychosexual therapists Nuala Deering & Dr. June Clyne (2017)
  100. Video – Can Porn Induce Erectile Dysfunction and Impotence? by Paul Kattupalli MD (2016)
  101. ‘Porn is a public health crisis’: experts call for government inquiry into health effects of porn. Sex therapist Mary Hodson (2017)
  102. Everything You Need To Know About Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction. Dr. Ralph Esposito; Elsa Orlandini Psy.D. (2017)
  103. Don’t let erectile dysfunction get you down. Psychotherapist Nuala Deering (2017)
  104. How watching porn can cause erectile dysfunction. Dr Lubda Nadvi (2017)
  105. This Is How Therapists Treat Young Men With “Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction”. Sex therapist Alinda Small, clinical sexologist Tanya Koens, psychotherapist Dan Auerbach (2017)
  106. TEDx Talk “Sex, Porn & Manhood” (Professor Warren Binford, 2017)
  107. Excessive Porn Consumption Can Cause Erectile Dysfunction – Myth or Truth? by Takeesha Roland-Jenkins, MS (2017)
  108. Online Porn: Fastest growing addiction in the U.S. Sex addiction therapist, Chris Simon (2017)
  109. Can Watching Too Much Porn Affect Your Sex Life? Jenner Bishop, LMFT; Psychotherapist Shirani M. Pathak (2017)
  110. Young people report ‘persistent and distressing’ problems with sex lives: study (2017)
  111. ‘Tidal wave’ of porn addiction as experts warn action is needed to save the next ‘lost generation’. Psychosexual therapist Pauline Brown (2017)
  112. Young men who view more pornography experiencing erectile dysfunction, study says (Sex therapist Dr. Morgan Francis 2017)
  113. Erectile dysfunction pills are now the top party drug for British millennials. Sexual psychotherapist Raymond Francis, (2017)
  114. What You Can Do to Prevent Erectile Dysfunction. Urology professor Aaron Spitz. (2017)
  115. If you’re having problems “getting it up” you are far from alone and plenty of help is out there. Dr Joseph Alukal (2018)
  116. Ministry of Health wants more research into impact of pornography. Sex therapist Jo Robertson (2018)
  117. We need to take ownership of what porn’s doing to NZ kids. Dr Mark Thorpe (2018)
  118. Performance issues in the bedroom are not just an old man’s problem. Sex therapist Aoife Drury (2018)
  119. Porn is a ‘Mean Castration of the Male Population’ – Evgeny Kulgavchuk, a Russian sexologist, psychiatrist and therapist (2018)
  120. Erectile dysfunction: how porn, bike riding, alcohol and ill-health contribute to it, and six ways to maintain peak performance. Urologist Amin Herati (2018)

Debunking “Should you be worried about porn-induced erectile dysfunction?” – by The Daily Dot’s Claire Downs. (2018)

Introduction

Here we have yet another propaganda piece, this one attempting to deny the existence of widespread porn-induced sexual problems. This one is by The Daily Dot’s Claire Downs whose expertise is described asA third-generation worker in the Chicago futures industry, she specializes in cryptocurrencies and altcoins.” Interestingly, none of the recent hit pieces attempting to debunk porn-induced ED are by science journalists, let alone academics or health professionals.

Like other such articles, Downs cites the same two studies (which did not, in fact, find what Downs asserts they did) while ignoring the preponderance of empirical and clinical evidence in the field.

Before I address specific sections of The Daily Dot article, here are studies that Claire Downs chose to neglect. (I say ‘chose’ because most of the following studies were cited in this 2016 review of literature, which Downs mentioned in her piece, yet disregarded because she wished to disparage one of its 8 authors):

In her intro Downs claims that “we spoke to doctors and sexual health experts about this research“, but the article only quotes two so-called experts. Neither is a heath professional who sees males suffering from sexual problems:

  1. Dr. Nicole Prause, a non-academic who’s extensive history of actively campaigning against porn-induced ED and porn addiction is well documented.
  2. Dr. Heather Berg, who is described as a teacher of gender studies at USC working on a book about the adult film industry.” The book? “Porn Work: Adult Film at the Point of Production, investigates porn performance, precarity, and worker organizing

The article relies on two porn-friendly PhD’s, without a medical professional in sight, let alone an actual urologist. Perhaps Claire Downs should have perused this page containing articles and videos by over 110 experts (urology professors, urologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists, MDs) who acknowledge and have successfully treated porn-induced ED and porn-induced loss of sexual desire.

The rest of this response will consist of excerpts from the Claire Downs article followed by YBOP comments.

Tries to debunk urology professor Carlo Foresta, but mixes up two completely separate studies

In a failed attempt to “debunk” the Foresta findings, Downs cites a 2015 Foresta study, yet all her excerpts come from a 2011 Foresta press release that has nothing to do with the 2015 study. Sloppy.

CLAIRE DOWNS: Believers in the “epidemic” of PIED often cite one 2015 study from the International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. It surveyed 28,000 Italian men about pornography and masturbation tendencies. The study concluded that boys—first exposed to porn around age 14 on average—experienced a drop in libido and a decreased interest in IRL sexual partners later in life.

Here’s the catch, though: It didn’t. This conclusion is how websites like the Blaze reported the study. Participants’ libido levels were never actually measured—the “study” was simply an opinion survey.

When Downs said “Believers in the “epidemic” of PIED often cite one 2015 study,” she linked to this study: Adolescents and web porn: a new era of sexuality (2015). This Foresta study analyzed the effects of internet porn on high school seniors (age 18). Incidentally, Dr. Foresta is the President (or past President) of the Italian Society of Reproductive Pathophysiology. His team’s most interesting finding is that 16% of those who consume porn more than once a week report abnormally low sexual desire, compared with 0% in non-consumers (and 6% for those who consume less than once a week).

However, the second link (“websites like the Blaze reported the study”) and all her excerpts refer only to a 2011 press release from the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine (SIAMS). See Too Much Internet Porn May Cause Impotence, urology professor Carlo Foresta (2011) for several more articles covering that SIAMS press release.

This 2014 PDF of a Foresta lecture, contains more observations and statistics, including a dramatic rise in the percentage of teens reporting sexual problems and loss of libido. Foresta also mentions his upcoming study, “Sexuality media and new forms of sexual pathology sample 125 young males, 19-25 years.” Italian name: “Sessualità mediatica e nuove forme di patologia sessuale Campione 125 giovani maschi”

Because of her amateurish error, everything Downs says about “the 2015 study” is incorrect. This is just one of several glaring inaccuracies and omissions made by Claire Downs.

Downs employs ad hominem and false statements to blow off a peer-reviewed paper involving 7 US Navy medical doctors

In the next paragraph Downs resorts of to false statements and ad hominem:

CLAIRE DOWNS: Another paper, “Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunction?” was cited in this Herald article warning about a generation who grew up on porn. Upon further investigation, one of the authors of that paper was Gary Wilson, the founder of YourBrainOnPorn.com, which leads political and religious campaigns against pornography.

For some strange reason Downs forgot to mention that the paper’s other authors are seven US Navy medical doctors, including 2 urologists, 2 psychiatrists, and an MD with a PhD in neuroscience from John Hopkins. Oops.

Downs also omitted the fact that our review of the literature provides recent data revealing a tremendous rise in youthful sexual problems. It also reviews the neurological studies related to porn addiction and sexual conditioning, both of which appear to be substantial risks for some of today’s Internet porn users. The doctors provide 3 clinical reports of men who developed porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. Two of the three men healed their sexual dysfunctions by eliminating Internet porn use. The third man experienced little improvement as he was unable to abstain from porn use.

The old adage is “Always try ad hominem when you cannot address the substance.” Or in Downs case, “Why bother to fact-check a ghost-written article?” I do not lead political or religious campaigns against porn. I’m an atheist, as were my parents, and my politics are far-left liberal. This widely known fact is stated on the About Us page. A lesser known fact is that my very liberal Seattle-raised father taught sex education.

I have explained in multiple interviews my history and how I ended up creating www.yourbrainonporn in 2011. (For more see this 2016 interview of me by Noah B. Church.) I had no opinion on porn. Through a fluke in search engine categorization, around 2007 (shortly after the advent of streaming tube porn), men complaining of porn-induced erectile dysfunction and low libido for real partners began posting on my wife’s rather obscure forum created for discussions around sexual relationships. Over the next few years many otherwise healthy men on that forum healed their sexual dysfunctions by giving up porn. Eventually we blogged about this phenomenon, because so many men found reading their peers’ experiences helpful. Soon my wife’s forum was overflowing with relatively young men seeking to heal the unexpected effects of their internet porn use. During this period, we cannot count how many times we asked academic sexologists to look into this phenomenon. They refused.

Sadly, many of the men suffering from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions had been suicidal when they arrived, fearing that they were broken for life. In the face of continued stonewalling by the experts who should have been investigating the sufferers’ circumstances, we felt a need make a cyberspace available that presented the relevant science and the stories of the men who recovered from a range of porn-induced sexual dysfunctions (chiefly delayed ejaculation, loss of attraction for real partners, and fleeting or unreliable erections). Www.yourbrainonporn.com was born. If it campaigns for anything, it would be sexual health.

Claire Downs cites two highly criticized papers while ignoring 2 dozen contradictory studies.

As stated above, Downs omitted 24 studies linking porn use/sex addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. More importantly, Downs omitted 5 studies demonstrate porn use causing sexual problems (the first 5 studies in the list). In all 5 studies young patients with chronic sexual dysfunctions eliminated porn use and healed their sexual problems

Ignoring the 5 papers suggesting that cessation of Internet porn use reversed sexual dysfunctions, and 19 other studies that link internet porn use to sexual dysfunctions and low arousal, Claire Downs instead cited 2 papers as “reputable sources”: Prause & Pfaus, 2015 and Landripet & Stulhofer, 2015. First, neither paper was an actual study. Prause & Pfaus, 2015 cobbled together data from older papers that had nothing to do with erectile dysfunction. As you will see, none of the data from the 4 older papers came close to matching the number of subjects or claims made that composite paper. Landripet & Stulhofer, 2015 was a brief communication that omitted several relevant correlations that were reported at a conference. Both papers have been criticized in the peer-reviewed literature, and elsewhere. Relevant excerpts from the Downs article:

CLAIRE DOWNS: It’s much easier to find reputable sources that support and promote pornography’s virtues. For example, this 2015 study, conducted by researchers at the Sexual Psychophysiology and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory found no relationship between ED and the number of sex films men view. In one case, Dr. Nicole Prause found stronger sexual arousal in men who reported viewing more pornography at home.

Another 2015 cross-sectional online study of nearly 4,000 European men, published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, found no significant risk factor related to ED and porn and even cited “greater sexual responsiveness” in porn viewers.

Both papers were discussed at length in the review of the literature co-authored by the 7 US Navy doctors and myself, which I will excerpt below. I have a lot to say about both papers, so I have created separate sections for each. Let’s get one thing out of the way: neither paper found that porn use was correlated with “greater sexual responsiveness,” despite what Downs has been told by her sources. I will start with the second paper because we addressed it first in our review of the literature.


PAPER 1: Prause & Pfaus, 2015.

I provide the formal critique by Richard Isenberg, MD and a very extensive lay critique, followed by my comments and excerpts from the  paper co-authored by US Navy doctors:

The claim: Contrary to Downs’s claim (and Prause & Pfaus’s claim), the men who watched more porn did not have “stronger responses in the lab.” None of the 4 studies underlying the paper’s claims even assessed genital or sexual responses in the lab. What Prause & Pfaus claimed in their paper was that men who watched more porn rated their excitement slightly higher while watching porn. The key phrase is “while watching porn.”  That is, not while having sex with an actual person.

Arousal ratings while viewing porn tell us nothing about one’s arousal or erections when not viewing porn (which is when most guys with porn-induced sexual dysfunctions show impaired sexual function). Such ratings also tell us nothing about porn-induced ED, which is the inability to become sufficiently aroused without using porn. That said, details from Prause & Pfaus, 2015 reveal that they could not have accurately assessed their subjects’ arousal ratings (much more below).

For argument’s sake let’s suppose that men viewing more porn rated their arousal a bit higher than men who viewed less. Another, more legitimate, way to interpret this arousal difference between the two porn-use groups is that men who watched the most porn experienced slightly greater cravings to use porn. This is quite possibly evidence of sensitization, which is greater reward circuit (brain) activation and craving when exposed to (porn) cues. Sensitization (cue-reactivity and cravings) is a prime addiction-related brain change.

Several recent Cambridge University brain studies demonstrated sensitization in compulsive porn users. Participants’ brains were hyper-aroused in response to porn video clips, even though they didn’t “like” some of the sexual stimuli more than control participants. In a dramatic example of how sensitization can affect sexual performance, 60% of the Cambridge subjects reported arousal/erectile problems with partners but not with porn. From the Cambridge study:

[Porn addicts] reported that as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials…..they experienced diminished libido or erectile function specifically in physical relationships with women (although not in relationship to the sexually explicit material).

Put simply, a heavy porn user can report higher subjective arousal (cravings) yet also experience arousal/erection problems with a partner. Certainly, his arousal in response to porn is not evidence of his “sexual responsiveness” or erectile functioning with a partner. See these studies reporting sensitization/cravings or cue-reactivity in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

The reality behind Prause & Pfaus 2015: This wasn’t a study on men with ED. It wasn’t a study at all. Instead, Prause claimed to have gathered data from four of her earlier studies, none of which addressed erectile dysfunction. It’s disturbing that this paper by Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus passed peer-review as none of the data in their paper matched the data in the underlying four studies on which the paper claimed to be based. The discrepancies are not minor gaps, but gaping holes that cannot be plugged. In addition, the paper made several claims that were patently false or not supported by their data.

We begin with false claims made by both Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus. Many journalists’ articles about this study claimed that porn use led to better erections, yet that’s not what the paper found. In recorded interviews, both Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus falsely claimed that they had measured erections in the lab, and that the men who used porn had better erections. In the Jim Pfaus TV interview Pfaus states:

“We looked at the correlation of their ability to get an erection in the lab.”

“We found a liner correlation with the amount of porn they viewed at home, and the latencies which for example they get an erection is faster.”

In this radio interview Nicole Prause claimed that erections were measured in the lab. The exact quote from the show:

“The more people watch erotica at home they have stronger erectile responses in the lab, not reduced.”

Yet this paper did not assess erection quality in the lab or “speed of erections.” The paper only claimed to have asked guys to rate their “arousal” after briefly viewing porn (and it’s even not clear from the underlying papers that this simple self-report was asked of all subjects). In any case, an excerpt from the paper itself admitted that:

“No physiological genital response data were included to support men’s self-reported experience.”

In other words, no actual erections were tested or measured in the lab!

In a second unsupported claim, lead author Nicole Prause tweeted several times about the study, letting the world know that 280 subjects were involved, and that they had “no problems at home.” However, the four underlying studies contained only 234 male subjects, so “280” is way off.

A third unsupported claim: Dr. Isenberg’s Letter to the Editor (linked to above), which raised multiple substantive concerns highlighting the flaws in the Prause & Pfaus paper, wondered how it could be possible for Prause & Pfaus 2015 to have compared different subjects’ arousal levels when three different types of sexual stimuli were used in the 4 underlying studies. Two studies used a 3-minute film, one study used a 20-second film, and one study used still images. It’s well established that films are far more arousing than photos, so no legitimate research team would group these subjects together to make claims about their responses. What’s shocking is that in their paper Prause & Pfaus unaccountably claim that all 4 studies used sexual films:

“The VSS presented in the studies were all films.”

This statement is false, as clearly revealed in Prause’s own underlying studies. This is the first reason why Prause & Pfaus cannot claim that their paper assessed “arousal.” You must use the same stimulus for each subject to compare all subjects.

A fourth unsupported claim: Dr. Isenberg also asked how Prause & Pfaus 2015 could compare different subjects’ arousal levels when only 1 of the 4 underlying studies used a 1 to 9 scale. One used a 0 to 7 scale, one used a 1 to 7 scale, and one study did not report sexual arousal ratings. Once again Prause & Pfaus inexplicably claim that:

“Men were asked to indicate their level of “sexual arousal” ranging from 1 “not at all” to 9 “extremely.”

This statement, too, is false, as the underlying papers show. This is the second reason why Prause & Pfaus cannot claim that their paper assessed “arousal” ratings in men. A study must use the same rating scale for each subject to compare the subjects’ results. In summary, all the Prause-generated headlines about porn use improving erections or arousal, or anything else, are unwarranted.

Prause & Pfaus 2015 also claimed they found no relationship between erectile functioning scores and the amount of porn viewed in the last month. As Dr. Isenberg pointed out:

“Even more disturbing is the total omission of statistical findings for the erectile function outcome measure. No statistical results whatsoever are provided. Instead the authors ask the reader to simply believe their unsubstantiated statement that there was no association between hours of pornography viewed and erectile function. Given the authors’ conflicting assertion that erectile function with a partner may actually be improved by viewing pornography the absence of statistical analysis is most egregious.”

In the Prause & Pfaus response to the Dr. Isenberg critique, the authors once again failed to provide any data to support their “unsubstantiated statement.” As this analysis documents, the Prause & Pfaus response not only evades Dr. Isenberg’s legitimate concerns, it contains several new misrepresentations and several transparently false statements. Finally, our review of the literature commented on Prause & Pfaus 2015:

“Our review also included two 2015 papers claiming that Internet pornography use is unrelated to rising sexual difficulties in young men. However, such claims appear to be premature on closer examination of these papers and related formal criticism. The first paper contains useful insights about the potential role of sexual conditioning in youthful ED [50]. However, this publication has come under criticism for various discrepancies, omissions and methodological flaws. For example, it provides no statistical results for the erectile function outcome measure in relation to Internet pornography use. Further, as a research physician pointed out in a formal critique of the paper, the paper’s authors, “have not provided the reader with sufficient information about the population studied or the statistical analyses to justify their conclusion” [51]. Additionally, the researchers investigated only hours of Internet pornography use in the last month. Yet studies on Internet pornography addiction have found that the variable of hours of Internet pornography use alone is widely unrelated to “problems in daily life”, scores on the SAST-R (Sexual Addiction Screening Test), and scores on the IATsex (an instrument that assesses addiction to online sexual activity) [52, 53, 54, 55, 56]. A better predictor is subjective sexual arousal ratings while watching Internet pornography (cue reactivity), an established correlate of addictive behavior in all addictions [52, 53, 54]. There is also increasing evidence that the amount of time spent on Internet video-gaming does not predict addictive behavior. “Addiction can only be assessed properly if motives, consequences and contextual characteristics of the behavior are also part of the assessment” [57]. Three other research teams, using various criteria for “hypersexuality” (other than hours of use), have strongly correlated it with sexual difficulties [15, 30, 31]. Taken together, this research suggests that rather than simply “hours of use”, multiple variables are highly relevant in assessment of pornography addiction/hypersexuality, and likely also highly relevant in assessing pornography-related sexual dysfunctions.”

This review also highlighted the weakness in correlating only “current hours of use” to predict porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. The amount of porn currently viewed is just one of many variables involved in the development of porn-induced ED. These may include:

  1. Ratio of masturbation to porn versus masturbation without porn
  2. Ratio of sexual activity with a person versus masturbation to porn
  3. Gaps in partnered sex (where one relies only on porn)
  4. Virgin or not
  5. Total hours of use
  6. Years of use
  7. Age started using porn voluntarily
  8. Escalation to new genres
  9. Development of porn-induced fetishes (from escalating to new genres of porn)
  10. Level of novelty per session (i.e. compilation videos, multiple tabs)
  11. Addiction-related brain changes or not
  12. Presence of hypersexuality/porn addiction

The better way to research this phenomenon, is to remove the variable of internet porn use and observe the outcome, which was done in the case studies in which men removed internet porn use and healed. Such research reveals causation instead of fuzzy correlations open to conflicting interpretation. My site has documented a few thousand men who removed porn and recovered from chronic sexual dysfunctions.


PAPER 2: Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015.

Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015 was designated as a “brief communication” by the journal that published it, and the two authors selected certain data to share, while omitting other pertinent data (more later). As with Prause & Pfaus, the journal later published a critique of Landripet & Štulhofer: Comment on: Is Pornography Use Associated with Sexual Difficulties and Dysfunctions among Younger Heterosexual Men? by Gert Martin Hald, PhD

As for the claim that Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015 found no relationships between porn use and sexual problems. This is not true, as documented in both this YBOP critique and the US Navy review of the literature. Furthermore, Landripet & Štulhofer’s paper omitted three significant correlations they presented to a European conference (more below). Let’s start with the first of three paragraphs from our paper that addressed Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015:

A second paper reported little correlation between frequency of Internet pornography use in the last year and ED rates in sexually active men from Norway, Portugal and Croatia [6]. These authors, unlike those of the previous paper, acknowledge the high prevalence of ED in men 40 and under, and indeed found ED and low sexual desire rates as high as 31% and 37%, respectively. In contrast, pre-streaming Internet pornography research done in 2004 by one of the paper’s authors reported ED rates of only 5.8% in men 35–39 [58]. Yet, based on a statistical comparison, the authors conclude that Internet pornography use does not seem to be a significant risk factor for youthful ED. That seems overly definitive, given that the Portuguese men they surveyed reported the lowest rates of sexual dysfunction compared with Norwegians and Croatians, and only 40% of Portuguese reported using Internet pornography “from several times a week to daily”, as compared with the Norwegians, 57%, and Croatians, 59%. This paper has been formally criticized for failing to employ comprehensive models able to encompass both direct and indirect relationships between variables known or hypothesized to be at work [59]. Incidentally, in a related paper on problematic low sexual desire involving many of the same survey participants from Portugal, Croatia and Norway, the men were asked which of numerous factors they believed contributed to their problematic lack of sexual interest. Among other factors, approximately 11%–22% chose “I use too much pornography” and 16%–26% chose “I masturbate too often” [60]

As my co-authors, the Navy doctors, and I described, this paper found a rather important correlation: Only 40% of the Portuguese men used porn “frequently,” while the 60% of the Norwegians used porn “frequently.” The Portuguese men had far less sexual dysfunction than the Norwegians. With respect to the Croat subjects, Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015 acknowledge a statistically significant association between more frequent porn use and ED, but claim the effect size was small. However, this claim may be misleading according to an MD who is a skilled statistician and has authored many studies:

Analyzed a different way (Chi Squared), … moderate use (vs. infrequent use) increased the odds (the likelihood) of having ED by about 50% in this Croatian population. That sounds meaningful to me, although it is curious that the finding was only identified among Croats.

In addition, Landripet & Štulhofer 2015 omitted three significant correlations, which one of the authors presented to a European conference. He reported a significant correlation between erectile dysfunction and “preference for certain pornographic genres”:

Reporting a preference for specific pornographic genres were [sic] significantly associated with erectile (but not ejaculatory or desire-related) male sexual dysfunction.”

It’s telling that Landripet & Štulhofer chose to omit this significant correlation between erectile dysfunction and preferences for specific genres of porn from their paper. It’s quite common for porn users to escalate into genres (or fetishes) that do not match their original sexual tastes, and to experience ED when these conditioned porn preferences do not match real sexual encounters. As we pointed out above, it’s very important to assess the multiple variables associated with porn use – not just hours in the last month or frequency in the last year.

The second significant finding omitted by Landripet & Štulhofer 2015 involved female participants:

Increased pornography use was slightly but significantly associated with decreased interest for partnered sex and more prevalent sexual dysfunction among women.”

A significant correlation between greater porn use and decreased libido and more sexual dysfunction seems pretty important. Why didn’t Landripet & Štulhofer 2015 report that they found significant correlations between porn use and sexual dysfunction in women, as well as a few in men? And why hasn’t this finding been reported in any of Štulhofer’s many studies arising from these same data sets? His teams seem very quick to publish data they claim debunks porn-induced ED, yet very slow to inform women about the negative sexual ramifications of porn use.

Finally, Danish porn researcher Gert Martin Hald’s formal critical comments echoed the need to assess more variables (mediators, moderators) than just frequency per week in the last 12 months:

“The study does not address possible moderators or mediators of the relationships studied nor is it able to determine causality. Increasingly, in research on pornography, attention is given to factors that may influence the magnitude or direction of the relationships studied (i.e., moderators) as well as the pathways through which such influence may come about (i.e., mediators). Future studies on pornography consumption and sexual difficulties may also benefit from an inclusion of such focuses.

Bottom line: All complex medical conditions involve multiple factors, which must be teased apart before far reaching pronouncements are appropriate. Landripet & Štulhofer’s statement that, “Pornography does not seem to be a significant risk factor for younger men’s desire, erectile, or orgasmic difficulties” goes too far, since it ignores all the other possible variables related to porn use that might be causing sexual performance problems in users, including escalation to specific genres, which they found, but omitted from the “Brief Communication.” Paragraphs 2 & 3 in our discussion of Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015:

Again, intervention studies would be the most instructive. However, with respect to correlation studies, it is likely that a complex set of variables needs to be investigated in order to elucidate the risk factors at work in unprecedented youthful sexual difficulties. First, it may be that low sexual desire, difficulty orgasming with a partner and erectile problems are part of the same spectrum of Internet pornography-related effects, and that all of these difficulties should be combined when investigating potentially illuminating correlations with Internet pornography use.

Second, although it is unclear exactly which combination of factors may best account for such difficulties, promising variables to investigate in combination with frequency of Internet pornography use might include (1) years of pornography-assisted versus pornography-free masturbation; (2) ratio of ejaculations with a partner to ejaculations with Internet pornography; (3) the presence of Internet pornography addiction/hypersexuality; (4) the number of years of streaming Internet pornography use; (5) at what age regular use of Internet pornography began and whether it began prior to puberty; (6) trend of increasing Internet pornography use; (7) escalation to more extreme genres of Internet pornography, and so forth.


A 500% – 1000% increase in youthful ED since 2010 cannot be explained away by the usual factors

Studies assessing young male sexuality since 2010 report historic levels of sexual dysfunctions, and startling rates of a new scourge: low libido. Documented in this lay article and in our review, Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016).

Prior to the advent of free streaming porn (2006), cross-sectional studies and meta-analysis consistently reported erectile dysfunction rates of 2-5% in men under 40. Erectile dysfunction rates in 9 studies published since 2010 range from 14% to 35%, while rates for low libido (hypo-sexuality) range from 16% to 37%. Some studies involve teens and men 25 and under, while other studies involve men 40 and under. That’s nearly a 500%-1000% increase in youthful ED rates in the last 10 years. What variable has changed in the last 15 years that could account for this astronomical rise? Downs implies that the same old variables related to youthful ED are to blame for this jump in sexual problems:

CLAIRE DOWNS: ED is unfortunately common, and it’s not just a result of getting old. Although age increases the likelihood of experiencing dysfunction, one in four men under the age of 40 will seek treatment for ED. Whether chronic or temporary, erectile dysfunction is caused by a myriad of things like drug use, medication side effects, mental issues, and relationship communication problems, as well as heart disease, sleep disorders, and nerve injuries.

As explained in our paper, smoking, diabetes and heart disease rarely cause ED in men under 40 (citation 16). It takes years of smoking or uncontrolled diabetes to manifest neuro-vascular damage severe enough to cause chronic ED. From our paper:

Traditionally, ED has been seen as an age-dependent problem [2],and studies investigating ED risk factors in men under 40 have often failed to identify the factors commonly associated with ED in older men, such as smoking, alcoholism, obesity, sedentary life, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and hyperlipidemia [16].

As for “medications, smoking, alcohol and drug use,” none of rates of these correlative factors have increased over the last 15 years (smoking has actually decreased). From the US Navy paper:

However, none of the familiar correlative factors suggested for psychogenic ED seem adequate to account for a rapid many-fold increase in youthful sexual difficulties. For example, some researchers hypothesize that rising youthful sexual problems must be the result of unhealthy lifestyles, such as obesity, substance abuse and smoking (factors historically correlated with organic ED). Yet these lifestyle risks have not changed proportionately, or have decreased, in the last 20 years: Obesity rates in U.S. men aged 20–40 increased only 4% between 1999 and 2008 [19]; rates of illicit drug use among US citizens aged 12 or older have been relatively stable over the last 15 years [20]; and smoking rates for US adults declined from 25% in 1993 to 19% in 2011 [21].

As for “mental issues: depression, anxiety, nervousness,” none of these cause erectile dysfunction, they are simply weakly correlative to ED. In fact, some studies report that depressed and anxious patients have higher sexual desire. Other studies suggest the obvious: depression doesn’t cause ED; having ED increases scores on depression tests. From the US Navy paper:

Other authors propose psychological factors. Yet, how likely is it that anxiety and depression account for the sharp rise in youthful sexual difficulties given the complex relationship between sexual desire and depression and anxiety? Some depressed and anxious patients report less desire for sex while others report increased sexual desire [22, 23, 24, 25]. Not only is the relationship between depression and ED likely bidirectional and co-occurring, it may also be the consequence of sexual dysfunction, particularly in young men [26].

As we said in our paper’s conclusion:

Traditional factors that once explained sexual difficulties in men appear insufficient to account for the sharp rise in sexual dysfunctions and low sexual desire in men under 40.

Finally, this 2018 study on urology patients under the age of 40 found that patients with ED did not differ from men without ED, thus debunking Claire Downs assertions (Factors For Erectile Dysfunction Among Young Men–Findings of a Real-Life Cross-Sectional Study):

Overall, 229 (75%) and 78 (25%) patients had normal and impaired Erectile Function (EF); among patients with ED, 90 (29%) had an IIEF-EF score suggestive for severe ED. Patients with and without ED did not differ significantly in terms of median age, BMI, prevalence of hypertension, general health status, smoking history), alcohol use, and median IPSS score. Similarly, no differences were reported in terms of serum sex hormones and lipid profile between the two groups.

These findings showed that young men with ED do not differ in terms of baseline clinical characteristics from a comparable-age group with normal EF, but depicted lower sexual desire scores, clinically suggesting a more probable psychogenic cause of ED.

For some reason those with ED had low sexual desire (should’ve asked about porn!) To repeat, Claire Downs, like other porn-induced ED deniers, argue that young men’s ED is caused by the exact same risk factors that are related to ED in men over 40. These claims do not match the peer-reviewed literature.

Before confidently claiming that today’s porn consumers have nothing to worry about from Internet porn use, researchers still need to account for the very recent, sharp rise in youthful ED and low sexual desire, the many studies linking porn use to sexual problem, the thousands of self reports and clinician reports of men healing ED by eliminating a single variable: porn.

Downs may wish to update her article in The Daily Dot accordingly.

Commentary on “Everything We Think We Know About Addiction Is Wrong – In a Nutshell” (Johann Hari)

What you really need to know about Johann Hari’s claims

The popular Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell video, based on Johann Hari’s TED talk, makes a couple of very good points. First, the benefits of human connection are indeed a major contributor to wellbeing for all of us.

As a species, we would be wise to steer for deeply fulfilling connection – and away from mindless stimulation, both chemical and behavioral. Second, drug addicts shouldn’t be treated like criminals. They should be trained on how best to manage what often proves to be a chronic disease – a disease of pathological learning, which is accompanied by physical changes in the brain that drive continued use despite negative consequences.

However, neither the benefits of connection nor Hari’s plea for compassionate treatment of addicts justifies his title implying that addiction science is off the mark, or has overlooked either of these points. Hari could have promoted his messages without ignoring or dismissing mountains of solid research published on addiction.

Others have insightfully addressed the weaknesses of Hari’s claim with respect to drug use (chemical addiction). See “4 Things Johann Hari Gets Wrong About Addiction” (The Fix) and “Everything We Think We Know About Addiction Is Wrong – In a Nutshell, Potentially Misleading” (Reddit). After correcting some of the general misinformation in this video, we’ll focus on behavioral addictions that involve supernormal versions of natural rewards.

The video is based on a false premise

The video starts out with a straw-man argument. It claims that if “what we think we know about addiction” were true, everyone given heroin in the hospital would be hooked. Actually, no addiction expert believes this.  Researchers report that only 10-20% of users offered addictive drugs become addicted, in both humans and animals. Hari’s false premise is the claim that every isolated caged rat becomes addicted if given access to heroin or cocaine. It’s more like 20% as this 2010 study reveals (with heroin rates somewhat higher):

“In a study published in the June 25th edition of Science, a team of researchers attached laboratory rats to a device that allowed the rodents to self-administer doses of cocaine—a coke IV of sorts. After a month, the researchers began identifying which rats had become hooked on the drug by looking for the hallmark signs of addiction: difficulty stopping or limiting drug use; high motivation to continue use; and continued use despite negative consequences. Only 20 percent of the rats exhibited all three signs of addiction, while 40 percent exhibited none.”

The difference between the addicted 20% and non-addicted 80% wasn’t lousy parenting or bad living conditions. Instead, it was how the rats’ brains adapted to drug use. Plain old genetics (or maybe epigenetics). The article continues:

“At first, drug use alters the physiology of every user’s brain as they go through a sort of reward-response learning: If you take the drug, you will feel better—certainly a dangerous mindset to be in when you’re wired to an unlimited supply of cocaine. Luckily, in most cases a brain eventually re-learns how to control its intake of the drug. Addict brains, not so much. Unlike their non-addict furry friends, the brains of addict rats lack sufficient “plasticity”—a property of the brain that allows it to adapt to changes over time—to get a handle on their habit. These rats are stuck in a reward-response frame of mind, and with it a downward spiral of addiction.”

Incidentally, 10 – 20% are the rates for situations where the user can self-administer a drug, thus reinforcing the connection between the “high” and using. Reinforcement of this type is different from hospitals, where pain medication is managed, and the presence of pain itself weakens reinforcement (because the body is already producing its own opioids so the drug “high” is less noticeable).

The exception to the 10-20% rate of addiction is nicotine, which is considered by many experts humanity’s most addictive drug. Its use is more socially acceptable and its immediate effects are less debilitating (characteristics it shares with internet porn use). There was a time when almost 50% of adult Americans were smokers. Did all nicotine addicts have attachment issues? Were all these smokers lonely? No. Even today we have millions of Americans who are quite happy and successful, yet cannot stop smoking. This alone refutes Hari’s premise.

While the 10-20% addiction rate may apply to substance use, we will see that supernormal versions of natural rewards (internet porn, junk food) can hook a higher percentage of users. For example, given a choice between sugar and cocaine, 85% of rats forgo cocaine to eat the sweet stuff. From this study:

“A retrospective analysis of all experiments over the past 5 years revealed that no matter how heavy was past cocaine use most rats readily give up cocaine use in favor of the non-drug alternative. Only a minority, fewer than 15% at the heaviest level of past cocaine use, continued to take cocaine, even when hungry and offered a natural sugar.”

If “In a Nutshell” viewers were told the truth, that only a minority of rats become drug addicts, Hari’s message would lose most of its impact.

Rat park experiment not replicated

Hari asks us to take the 1979 “Rat Park” experiment as gospel even though replication of the experiment failed. In doing so, Hari also asks us to ignore nearly 40 years of addiction neuroscience, which has identified cellular, molecular and epigenetic changes that account for the behaviors we recognize as addiction. For example, artificially increasing levels of a single molecule (DeltaFosB) makes rats compulsively crave drugs and junk food. Blocking this same reward-center molecule prevents addiction in lab animals. Similarly, in humans, active cocaine addicts (who died suddenly) had abnormally high levels of DeltaFosB in their brains’ reward centers.

Even more telling, an extensive body of brain-scan research reports that various addiction-induced brain changes are the best predictor of who will relapse (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ). In fact, in direct opposition to Hari’s claim, the only consistent factors related to either success or relapse were the magnitudes of certain addiction-related brain changes. From one of the studies:

“ER-fMRI data was compared with psychiatric, neuropsychological, demographic, personal- and family- history of drug use in order to form predictive models, and was found to predict abstinence with higher accuracy than any other single measure obtained in this study.”

How could brain changes predict relapse if the only cause of addiction were a lack of human connection?

There’s more to the Vietnam story

The author of this article “Vietnam Heroin Researcher May Have Disagreed With Johann Hari’s Take On The Causes of Addiction” further dismantles Hari’s claim (although he ultimately concludes addiction is a choice, a view we do not share). He points out that heroin was cheap and readily available in Vietnam, with more than 80% of servicemen offered it within the first week. However, the 1974 study reports that narcotic use wasn’t all that rampant:

“Approximately 13,760 Army enlisted men returned to the United States from Vietnam in September 1971. Within the population of 13,760, approximately 1,400 had been found to have urines positive for narcotics at time of departure.”

Only 10% of returning soldiers tested positive for opiates. It’s highly unlikely that all 1400 were heroin addicts, especially when we consider that some would have been given narcotics for pain relief. A ten percent addiction rate is far below the current addiction rate for drugs and alcohol in the US population.

Was widespread heroin use due to the stress of Vietnam or was it due to easy access to cheap heroin? A key finding was that most of the soldiers who eventually did become heroin addicts had prior histories of substance use, which suggests a strong genetic component for these soldiers’ addictions. Said the researcher,

“the greater the variety of drugs used before entering service, the greater the likelihood that narcotics would be used in Vietnam.”

If it was combat stress, why did the men who eventually became addicts generally start their heroin use early in their tours, before being exposed to combat? Why didn’t heroin use correlate with combat action? Said the researcher:

“Those who saw more active combat were not more likely to use than veterans who saw less, once one took into account their pre-service histories.”

Is it really surprising that most heroin-using soldiers stopped when they got back home? Heroin is costly, often hard to get, and interferes with civilian life: finding a job, working, renewing relationships, etc.

What about internet porn use?

Hari’s material has received an enthusiastic response on internet porn recovery forums where many users have been so glued to their screens that they feel socially isolated. Hari’s hypothesis encourages them to ascribe their addictive behavior to lack of human connection. However, Hari completely misses a key piece of information, which in turn leaves internet overconsumers with a major blind spot.

The relationship between human connection and addiction goes both ways, not one way. Many guys who quit discover that their inability to connect was due to their addiction, and that they become social magnets once they stop. That is, although isolation can drive self-medication via addiction, addiction itself impedes connection and mutes its benefits. An addicted brain is altered such that attachment doesn’t generally register normally or feel particularly good, compared with the drug or behavior the user has become “sensitized” to.

Over and over, we see that guys who quit report they become able to connect much more deeply with others, and with much greater satisfaction. Some even discover they were extroverts, not introverts. They are often amazed at how much more enjoyable they find social interaction, sexual activity with a partner, and even climax itself during sex. But they need a period of abstinence from overstimulation before they can fully benefit from the beneficial effects of connection. Their brain’s reward system needs time to rebalance. Hari does not address this need.

The power of supernormal versions of natural rewards

One implication of Hari’s message is that “as long as someone has a good social environment, he/she can engage in addictive behaviors without risk of becoming addicted.” This is just as misguided as a belief that addictive substances are equally dangerous for all users. We see lots of users struggling with internet porn’s effects who have had happy upbringings and plenty of social activity. We see happily married men struggling with it. Let’s look more closely at why internet porn is compelling even for those with good social connections.

Back up for a moment to reconsider drugs. The side effects of most drugs that offer a “high” are aversive. Many alter consciousness, interfere with ability to drive, cause debilitating hangovers, etc. Drugs are also risky to obtain or expensive (or both). Moreover, drugs are a poor substitute for natural rewards. Eons of evolution have tailored mammalian brains to light up for food, sex, bonding, achievement, play and novelty. While Hari informs us that connection is the true reward we are seeking, he ignores these other natural rewards. As psychologist Stanton Peele pointed out in this Psychology Today blog post:

“Rat Park is a classic experiment in which rats, once habituated to a morphine solution, preferred to continue drinking it over water in small isolated cages, but eschewed the morphine in favor of water in Rat Park, a spacious and enriched environment where there were many rats of both sexes. In such an environment the ability to compete for sex quickly took precedence over seeking narcosis – i.e., sex is better than drugs for rats.”

Nor does Hari explain to his viewers that supernormal versions of natural rewards (modern junk food and internet porn, for example) are far more universally appealing and addictive than drugs or alcohol. Supernormal stimuli are exaggerated versions of normal stimuli, but we falsely perceive them as more valuable. This helps explain why 35% of adult Americans are obese and 70% are overweight, even though none of them want to be. With our brain’s reward circuit lighting up, we can easily slam down 1500 calories in burgers, fries and milkshakes. Try slamming down 1500 calories of dried chewy venison and boiled roots in one sitting (or in one day).

Several animal studies have shown that junk food is more addictive than cocaine, (rats prefer sugar to cocaine) and that overeating to obesity can bring about addiction-related brain changes. In fact, when rats are given unlimited access to “cafeteria food,” nearly 100% binge to obesity. The obese rats’ brains and behaviors mirror those of drug addicts. These same rats don’t overeat on regular rat chow, just as hunter-gathers don’t get fat on their native diets.

To say this another way, there are no innate circuits for seeking heroin, alcohol, or cocaine. Yet there are various brain circuits devoted to seeking out and consuming both food and sex. And, while we like a good meal, sexual arousal and orgasm release the highest levels of rewarding neurochemicals (dopamine and opioids). That’s as it should be: reproduction is our genes’ #1 job.

While only a minority of rats become drug addicts; 100% copulate to exhaustion

What happens when you drop a male rat into a cage with a receptive female rat? First, you see a frenzy of copulation. Then, progressively, the male tires of that particular female. Even if she wants more, he has had enough. However, replace the original female with a fresh one, and the male immediately revives and gallantly struggles to fertilize her. You can repeat this process with fresh females until he is completely wiped out.

This is called the Coolidge effect—the automatic response to novel mates. Here’s how the Coolidge effect works: The rat’s reward circuitry is producing less and less exciting neurochemicals (dopamine and opioids) with respect to the current female, but produces a big surge for a new female. His genes want to make sure he leaves no female unfertilized…or exhaust himself trying.

Not surprisingly, rats and humans aren’t that different when it comes to response to novel sexual stimuli. For example, when Australian researchers (graph) displayed the same erotic film repeatedly, test subjects’ penises and subjective reports both revealed a progressive decrease in sexual arousal. The “same old same old” just gets boring.

After 18 viewings—just as the test subjects were nodding off—researchers introduced novel erotica for the 19th and 20th viewings. Bingo! The subjects and their penises sprang to attention. (Yes, women showed similar effects.)

Of course, a sedentary mammal experiencing a endless parade of willing females would occur only in a lab and not in nature. Or would it?

Internet porn as a supernormal stimulus

Internet porn is especially enticing to the reward circuitry because it offers an endless parade of sexual novelty. It could be a novel “mate,” unusual scene, strange sexual act, or—you fill in the blank. With multiple tabs open and clicking for hours a viewer can experience more novel sex partners every session than our hunter-gatherer ancestors experienced in a lifetime.

With internet porn, it’s not just the unending sexual novelty that buzzes our reward circuit. Strong emotions such as anxiety, shock or surprise also light up our reward circuit. Unlike scoring heroin on the street corner, today’s porn is easy to access, available 24/7, free and private. Unlike food and drugs, for which there is a limit to consumption, there are no physical limitations to internet porn consumption. The brain’s natural satiation mechanisms are not activated unless one climaxes. Even then, a user can click to something more exciting to become aroused again.

Unlike addictive drug use, porn use is now widespread, and almost universal among adolescent males with internet access. Moreover, many under the age of 30 view porn use as “healthy” and a normal part of “sexual expression.” Young men today use porn because they like it, not necessarily because they lack connection or love. (All neuroscience-studies published to date support the porn addiction model.)

Elephant in the room: the adolescent brain

Hari – who is no addiction expert – does not acknowledge the heightened vulnerability of the adolescent brain to addictive substances and behaviors, which exists quite apart from degree of social connection. For example, studies show that for teen brains, using drugs is far more permanently damaging than for adult brains.

Also, the risk of falling into addiction of all kinds is greater in teens, as is the risk of porn-induced sexual conditioning. Rates of erectile dysfunction, delayed ejaculation and low desire for real partners are soaring in today’s young men. A teen’s brain is at its peak of dopamine production and neuroplasticity, making it highly vulnerable to addiction and sexual conditioning. Adolescent animals produce higher levels of DeltaFosB in response to drugs and natural rewards.

What we have now is adolescents chronically using a compelling supernormal stimulus during the time when their brains are rewiring to the sexual environment. One primary goal of adolescence is to learn everything possible about sex (consciously and subconsciously) in order to successfully reproduce later on. Internet porn can thus alter or sculpt our extensive brain circuitry for sexuality and reproduction –  as well as distract us from learning the very social skills we need for connection.

Inadvertently or not, Hari’s animation leaves the impression that a good social environment prevents addiction. This simply isn’t true, especially for adolescents with their super-sensitive brains. As recovery forum host Gabe Deem points out:

Those rats in the Rat Park could have sex instead of heroin, but what they didn’t have is the option to “fertilize” millions of female rats on internet devices.


Analysis of “A Profile of Pornography Users in Australia: Findings From the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships” (2016)

COMMENTS: Many claim this study supports the argument that Internet porn doesn’t really cause serious problems. For example, this pro-porn advocate falsely states that only 2% of participants felt that porn was leading to adverse effects. In reality, 17% of males & females aged 16-30 reported that using pornography had a bad effect on them.

There are several reasons to take the headlines with a grain of salt. First a few caveats about this study:

  1. This was a cross-sectional representative study spanning age groups 16-69, males and females. It’s well established that young men are the primary users of internet porn. So, 25% of the men and 60% of the women had not viewed porn at least once in the last 12 months. Thus the statistics gathered minimize the problem by veiling the at-risk users.
  2. The single question, which asked participants if they had used porn in the last 12 months, doesn’t meaningfully quantify porn use. For example, a person who bumped into a porn site pop-up is considered no different from someone who masturbates 3 times a day to hardcore porn.
  3. However, when the survey inquired of those who “had ever viewed porn” which ones had viewed porn in the past year, the highest percentage was the teen group. 93.4% of them had viewed in the last year, with 20-29 year olds just behind them at 88.6.
  4. Data was gathered between October 2012 and November 2013. Things have changed a lot in the last 4 years, thanks to smartphone penetration – especially in younger users.
  5. Questions were asked in computer-assisted telephone interviews. It’s human nature to be more forthcoming in completely anonymous interviews, especially when interviews are about sensitive subjects such as porn use and porn addiction.
  6. The questions are based purely upon self-perception. Keep in mind that addicts rarely see themselves as addicted. In fact, most internet porn users are unlikely to connect their symptoms to porn use unless they quit for an extended period.
  7. The study did not employ standardized questionnaires (given anonymously), which would more accurately have assessed both porn addiction and porn’s effects on the users.

Check out the study’s conclusion:

Looking at pornographic material appears to be reasonably common in Australia, with adverse effects reported by a small minority.

However, for males & females aged 16-30, it’s not a small minority. According to Table 5 in the study, 17% of this age group reported that using pornography had a bad effect on them. (In contrast, among people 60-69, only 7.2% thought porn had a bad effect.)

How different would the headlines from this study have been if the authors had emphasized their finding that nearly 1 in 5 young people believed that porn use had a “bad effect on them”? Why did they attempt to downplay this finding by ignoring it and focusing on cross-sectional results – rather than the group most at risk for internet problems?

Once again, few regular porn users realize how porn has affected them until well after they cease using. Often ex-users need several months to fully recognize the negative effects. Thus, a study like this one has major limitations.


J Sex Res. 2016 Jul 15:1-14.

Rissel C1, Richters J2, de Visser RO3, McKee A4, Yeung A2, Caruana T2.

Abstract

There are societal concerns that looking at pornography has adverse consequences among those exposed. However, looking at sexually explicit material could have educative and relationship benefits. This article identifies factors associated with looking at pornography ever or within the past 12 months for men and women in Australia, and the extent to which reporting an “addiction” to pornography is associated with reported bad effects. Data from the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships (ASHR2) were used: computer-assisted telephone interviews (CASIs) completed by a representative sample of 9,963 men and 10,131 women aged 16 to 69 years from all Australian states and territories, with an overall participation rate of 66%. Most men (84%) and half of the women (54%) had ever looked at pornographic material. Three-quarters of these men (76%) and more than one-third of these women (41%) had looked at pornographic material in the past year. Very few respondents reported that they were addicted to pornography (men 4%, women 1%), and of those who said they were addicted about half also reported that using pornography had had a bad effect on them. Looking at pornographic material appears to be reasonably common in Australia, with adverse effects reported by a small minority.

 

Critique of “Is Pornography Really about “Making Hate to Women”? Pornography Users Hold More Gender Egalitarian Attitudes Than Nonusers in a Representative American Sample” (2016)

The authors of this study (abstract below) framed egalitarianism as support for Feminist identification, Women holding positions of power, Women working outside home, Abortion. Secular populations, which tend to be more liberal, have far higher rates of porn use than religious populations. By choosing these criteria and ignoring endless other variables, lead author Taylor Kohut knew he would end up with porn users scoring higher on his study’s carefully chosen selection of what constitutes “egalitarianism.” Then he chose a title that spun it all.

In reality, almost all studies report opposing results. See this list of over 25 studies linking porn use to sexist attitudes, objectification and less egalitarianism.

Taylor Kohut has a history of publishing ‘creative’ studies designed to find little or no problems arising from the use of porn. In this 2016 study, Kohut appears to have skewed the sample to produce the results he was seeking. Whereas most studies show that a tiny minority of porn users’ female partners use porn, in this study 95% of the women used porn on their own (85% of the women had used porn since the beginning of the relationship)! Reality: Cross-sectional data from the largest US survey (General Social Survey) reported that only 2.6% of women had visited a “pornographic website” in the last month.

Kohut’s new website and his attempt at fundraising suggest that he just may have an agenda. Kohut’s bias is revealed in a recent brief written for the Standing Committee on Health Regarding Motion M-47 (Canada). In the brief Kohut and his coauthors are guilty of cherry-picking a few outlying studies while misrepresenting the current state of the research on porn’s effects. Their distorted and laughable description of the published neurological studies on porn users leaves no doubt as to their bias.


J Sex Res. 2016;53(1):1-11. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427.

Kohut T1, Baer JL1, Watts B2.

Abstract

According to radical feminist theory, pornography serves to further the subordination of women by training its users, males and females alike, to view women as little more than sex objects over whom men should have complete control. Composite variables from the General Social Survey were used to test the hypothesis that pornography users would hold attitudes that were more supportive of gender nonegalitarianism than nonusers of pornography. Results did not support hypotheses derived from radical feminist theory. Pornography users held more egalitarian attitudes–toward women in positions of power, toward women working outside the home, and toward abortion–than nonusers of pornography. Further, pornography users and pornography nonusers did not differ significantly in their attitudes toward the traditional family and in their self-identification as feminist. The results of this study suggest that pornography use may not be associated with gender nonegalitarian attitudes in a manner that is consistent with radical feminist theory.

PMID: 26305435

DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427

Dismantling the “group position” paper opposing porn and sex addiction (November, 2017)

Introduction

In early November, 2017 three non-profit kink organizations (Center for Positive Sexuality, National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, and The Alternative Sexualities Health Research Alliance) released a group position paper “opposing the addiction model in relation to frequent sexual behavior and pornography viewing.” The groups’ press release, Position statement opposing sex/porn addiction model, explained their motivations:

“These organizations cite AASECT’s statement as one of the reasons for their joint statement, as well as citing many scientific studies that reject the addiction model in relation to these sexual behaviors.”

Contrary to this PR statement, there are no “scientific studies that reject the addiction model,” and ASSECT’s proclamation provided no studies to support its own assertions. As for the 3 kink organizations’ proclamation, all their “evidence” (which we examine below) is packed into this handy PDF: Addiction to Porn/Sex Position Statement.

We suspect the primary reason for yet another public relations push (as it was with AASECT) is that the World Health Organization’s upcoming edition of its diagnostic manual, the ICD-11, includes a diagnosis for “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”  Due out in 2018, “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” (CSB) will function as an umbrella to diagnose both sex addiction and pornography addiction. And some sexual communities incorrectly perceive this as an attack on their behavior. It isn’t.

Like the other items now being pushed out as part of this campaign to manufacture “astroturf” resistance to porn/sex addiction, the current proclamation relies primarily on a single flawed study to support its bald assertions, while simultaneously disregarding 3 dozen neurological studies that support the addiction model. For more, see this article: How to Recognize Biased Articles: They Cite Prause et al 2015 (falsely claiming it debunks porn addiction), While Omitting Over 35 Neurological Studies Supporting Porn Addiction.

The opening paragraph of the proclamation

Let’s start with the proclamation’s opening paragraph, which omitted some 50 relevant neurological studies and reviews of the literature, while misrepresenting many of the studies it did cite.

“Although some academic and professional reports have supported the application of an addiction model to frequent sexual behavior and/or pornography viewing (i.e., Hilton & Watts, 2011; Kafka, 2010), others point out serious potential or actual problems with applying an addiction model to sexual behavior and pornography viewing (Ley, 2012; Ley, Prause, & Finn, 2014; Reid & Kafka, 2014; Giugliano, 2009; Hall, 2014; Karila et al., 2014; Moser, 2013; Kor, Fogel, Reid, & Potenza, 2013; Ley et al., 2014; Prause & Fong, 2015; Prause, Steele, Staley, Sabatinelli, & Hajcak, 2015).”

What this proclamation purposely omitted: 

Next, let’s look at the proclamation’s scientific support for its statement that “others point out serious potential or actual problems with applying an addiction model to sexual behavior and pornography viewing”:

1) Ley, 2012: Not peer-reviewed. It’s a book: The Myth of Sex Addiction by David Ley.

2) Ley, Prause, & Finn, 2014: An opinion piece commissioned by a minor journal (Current Sexual Health Reports). The lead author has never published any original research, yet was asked to give his opinion of pornography addiction and addiction in general. Virtually nothing in the opinion piece is backed up by the studies it cited. This extensive critique dismantles Ley et al., 2014 – claim by claim and documents dozens of misrepresentations of the research the authors cited. The most shocking aspect of the Ley paper is that it omitted ALL the many studies that reported negative effects related to porn use or found porn addiction. Also know that Current Sexual Health Reports has a short and rocky history. It started publishing in 2004, and then went on hiatus in 2008, only to be resurrected in 2014, just in time to feature Ley et al.’s “review.”

3) Reid & Kafka, 2014: This paper hypothesizes why hypersexuality didn’t make it into the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual). However, both Reid & Kafka favored hypersexuality for inclusion in the DSM. See this 2012 UCLA press release by Rory Reid: Science supports sex addiction as a legitimate disorder.

4) Giugliano, 2009: This older paper, by a past president of SASH, set out to question sex addiction, but results didn’t support the author’s hypothesis. Nowhere does it suggest that sex addiction doesn’t exist. See the SASH position paper on sex and porn addiction.

5) Hall, 2014: This article by UK therapist Paula Hall supports the existence of sex addiction. See this TEDx talk by Paula Hall – We Need To Talk About Sex Addiction.

6) Karila et al., 2014: This paper supports the existence of sex addiction. From the abstract: “Sexual addiction, which is also known as hypersexual disorder, has largely been ignored by psychiatrists, even though the condition causes serious psychosocial problems for many people.”

7) Moser, 2013: Charles Moser is a known “sex addiction” skeptic. In fact, as the Section Editor of Current Sexual Health Reports, he is the one who invited Ley, Prause and Finn to do their pseudo-review discussed above, Ley et al., 2014.

8) Kor, Fogel, Reid, & Potenza, 2013: This paper supports the existence of sex addiction. From the conclusion: “Although many gaps exist in knowledge in our understanding of HD, available data suggest that considering hypersexuality disorder within an addiction framework may be appropriate and helpful.

9) Ley et al., 2014: Same citation as #2.

10) Prause & Fong, 2015: This item was not peer-reviewed. It’s a short opinion piece in a lay volume, much of which is devoted to chronicling the mythology of Prause’s victimization.

11) Prause, Steele, Staley, Sabatinelli, & Hajcak, 2015: A single EEG study. No less than six peer-reviewed papers say that this paper, Prause et al., 2015, lends support to the addition model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The neuroscientists on these six papers state that Prause et al. actually found desensitization/habituation (consistent with the development of addiction), as less brain activation to vanilla porn (pictures) was related to greater porn use.

So, let’s summarize the evidence for the campaign by these 3 organizations: Five of the eleven references explicitly support the addiction model, two references aren’t peer-reviewed, and one is a repeat of an earlier reference.

The three remaining references arise from 3 individuals who have often teamed up to “debunk” porn and sex addiction: David Ley, Nicole Prause and Charles Moser. Ley and Prause wrote Ley et al., 2014 (which Moser commissioned), and at least two Psychology Today blog posts. Charles Moser also teamed up with Ley and Prause to “debunk” porn addiction at the February 2015 ISSWSH conference. They presented a 2-hour symposium: “Porn Addiction, Sex Addiction, or just another OCD?” The lone neurological study out of the remaining three (Prause et al., 2015) is regarded by six peer-reviewed papers as consistent with the addiction model.

Why didn’t the proclamation cite any of the 13 recent reviews of the literature by some of the top neuroscientists working at Yale University, Cambridge University, University of Duisburg-Essen or the Max Planck Institute? Because the reviews lend support to the addiction model, contradicting the claims of these organizations.

The proclamation divides the rest of its claims into five sections: A, B, C, D, E.

The proclamation’s first main assertion (A)

A) The American Psychiatric Association (APA) does not identify sex/porn addiction as mental disorders. Similarly, the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT) does not recognize sex/porn addiction as mental disorders and has concluded that an addiction model “cannot be advanced as a standard of practice for sexuality education delivery, counseling, or therapy”.

Re AASECT: First, AASECT is not a scientific organization and cited nothing to support the assertions in its own press release – rendering its support meaningless.

Most importantly AASECT’s proclamation was pushed through by Michael Aaron and a few other AASECT members using unethical “guerrilla tactics” as Aaron admitted in this Psychology Today blog post: Analysis: How the AASECT Sex Addiction Statement Was Created. An excerpt from this analysis Decoding AASECT’s “Position on Sex Addiction, summarized Aaron’s blog post:

Finding AASECT’s tolerance of the “sex addiction model” to be “deeply hypocritical”, in 2014 Dr. Aaron set out to eradicate support for the concept of “sex addiction” from AASECT’s ranks. To accomplish his goal, Dr. Aaron claims to have deliberately sowed controversy among AASECT members in order to expose those with viewpoints that disagreed with his own, and then to have explicitly silenced those viewpoints while steering the organization toward its rejection of the “sex addiction model.” Dr. Aaron justified using these “renegade, guerilla [sic] tactics” by reasoning that he was up against a “lucrative industry” of adherents to the “sex addiction model” whose financial incentives would prevent him from bringing them over to his side with logic and reason. Instead, to effect a “quick change” in AASECT’s “messaging,” he sought to ensure that pro-sex addiction voices were not materially included in the discussion of AASECT’s course change.

Dr. Aaron’s boast comes across as a little unseemly. People rarely take pride in, much less publicize, suppressing academic and scientific debate. And it seems odd that Dr. Aaron spent the time and money to become CST certified by an organization he deemed “deeply hypocritical” barely a year after joining it (if not before). If anything, it is Dr. Aaron who appears hypocritical when he criticizes pro-“sex addiction” therapists for having a financial investment in the “sex addiction model”, when, quite obviously, he has a similar investment in promoting his opposing viewpoint

Several commentaries and critiques expose AASECT’s proclamation for what it truly is:

Re DSM-5 and ICD-11: Second, when the APA last updated its diagnostic manual in 2013 (DSM-5), it didn’t formally consider “internet porn addiction,” opting instead to debate “hypersexual disorder.” The latter umbrella term for problematic sexual behavior was recommended for inclusion by the DSM-5’s own Sexuality Work Group after years of review. However, in an eleventh-hour “star chamber” session (according to a Work Group member), other DSM-5 officials unilaterally rejected hypersexuality, citing reasons that have been described as illogical.

Moreover, just prior to the DSM-5’s publication in 2013, Thomas Insel, then Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, warned that it was time for the mental health field to stop relying on the DSM. Its “weakness is its lack of validity,” he explained, and “we cannot succeed if we use DSM categories as the “gold standard.” He added, “That is why NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” In other words, the NIMH planned to stop funding research based on DSM labels (and their absence).

Major medical organizations are moving ahead of the APA. The medical doctors and addiction researchers of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) hammered what should have been the final nail in the porn-addiction debate coffin in August, 2011 based on decades of addiction research. Top addiction experts at ASAM released their carefully crafted definition of addiction. Foremost, behavioral addictions affect the brain in the same fundamental ways as drugs do. In other words, addiction is essentially one disease (condition), not many. ASAM explicitly stated that “sexual behavior addiction” exists and must necessarily be caused by the same fundamental brain changes found in substance addictions.

In any event, the World Health Organization appears poised to set right the APA’s excessive caution. The next edition of its diagnostic manual, the ICD, is due out in 2018. The beta draft of the new ICD-11 includes a diagnosis for “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder,” as well as one for “Disorders due to addictive behaviors.” Why aren’t the 3 organizations mentioning this important development?

The proclamation’s second main assertion (B)

B) “Existing studies supporting an addiction model lack precise definitions and methodological rigor, and rely on correlational data. Pre-existing psychological issues that could account for changes in sexual behavior and/or pornography viewing have not been considered. Studies are needed that utilize experimental designs and account for a range of potential extraneous variables (Ley et al., 2014). Although some people may incorrectly assume that increased dopaminergic activity during sex or pornography viewing (which is to be expected) is evidence for addiction, Prause, Steele, Staley, Sabatinelli, and Hajcak (2015) found in their controlled study that participants reporting hypersexual problems did not show the same neural response patterns consistent with other known addictions. There are many diverse reasons why people may engage in pornography viewing, and frequent and diverse sexual activities, which must be considered when assessing behavior (Ley, 2012; Ley et al., 2014).”

The neurological studies on sex and porn addiction are very rigorous, and many of them are done by some of the top addiction neuroscientists in the world. Here they are: 3 dozen neuroscience-based studies.

The proclamation’s suggestion that “correlation” renders research useless, reveals remarkable ignorance (or spin), as it would be unethical to induce addiction of any type in human subjects. Besides, it is silly to suggest that porn addicts were all born with all the major addiction-caused brain changes that are showing up in rigorous brain research on porn/sex-addicted subjects. What are the odds? Zero. For example, the core addiction-caused brain change is sensitization, which can only occur with continuous and prolonged use.

The proclamation statement’s mischaracterizing the neurological research as investigations of “dopaminergic activity during sex or pornography viewing” reveal that the authors of this proclamation haven’t read any of the studies in question. None of the neurological studies assessed dopamine activity! Instead, the 3 dozen studies assessed the presence of one or more of the four major brain changes involved with both drug and behavioral addictions: 1) Sensitization, 2) Desensitization, 3) Dysfunctional prefrontal circuits (poorer exceutive functioning), and 4) Dysfunctional stress circuits. All 4 of these brain changes have been identified among the 3 dozen neuroscience-based studies on frequent porn users & sex addicts:

  1. Sensitization (cue-reactivity or cravings). Studies reporting sensitization or cue-reactivity in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
  2. Desensitization (decreased reward sensitivity & tolerance). Studies reporting desensitization or habituation in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
  3. Dysfunctional prefrontal circuits (poorer executive function + hyper-reactivity to cues). Studies reporting poorer executive functioning (hypofrontality) or altered prefrontal activity in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
  4. Malfunctional stress system (greater cravings & withdrawal symptoms). Studies indicating a dysfunctional stress system in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3.

What about the proclamation’s claim concerning Prause et al., 2015?

“Prause, Steele, Staley, Sabatinelli, and Hajcak (2015) found in their controlled study that participants reporting hypersexual problems did not show the same neural response patterns consistent with other known addictions.”

“Neural response patterns” means “cue-reactivity,” which reveals the core addiction brain change – sensitization. As you can see above, there are now 20 studies on porn users/sex addicts reporting findings consistent with cue-reactivity, attentional bias, or cravings. Even if the proclamation were correct that Prause et al., 2015’s findings actually contradicted the existence of cue-reactivity (it doesn’t), it would take more than one anomalous (and flawed) study to “debunk” decades of behavioral addiction research!

And what were the actual results of Prause et al., 2015? Compared to controls “individuals experiencing problems regulating their porn viewing” had lower brain responses to one-second exposure to photos of vanilla porn. The authors claim these results “debunk porn addiction.” Yet, in reality, the findings of Prause et al. 2015 align perfectly with Kühn & Gallinat (2014), which found that more porn use correlated with less brain activation in response to pictures of vanilla porn – an addiction-related brain change.

Prause et al. findings also align with Banca et al. 2015. Lower EEG readings mean that subjects are paying less attention to the pictures. Put simply, frequent porn users were desensitized to static images of vanilla porn, compared to a control group. They were bored (habituated or desensitized), which can be evidence of an addiction process at work. See this extensive YBOP critique. Six peer-reviewed papers agree that this study actually found desensitization/habituation in frequent porn users (consistent with addiction): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

The proclamation’s third main assertion (C)

C) “The sex/porn addiction model reflects significant sociocultural biases (Klein, 2002; Williams, 2016), including specific measures of clinical assessment Joannides, 2012). Socio-cultural biases include assumptions concerning normal sex drive, relationship styles, and erotic interests and practices. Thus, people with alternative sexual identities are likely to face further marginalization and discrimination by those who support a sex/porn addiction model.”

Only one of the above citations is peer-reviewed: Williams, 2016. It is in a minor social work journal that is not PubMed indexed. The only neurological study Williams cited was, you guessed it, Prause et al. 2015. Williams, 2016 is a biased opinion piece that depends on Prause et al. 2015 and David Ley’s books and articles for its empirical support. It ignores the 36 other neurological studies on porn users, 13 recent reviews, and 80 studies linking porn to sexual problems and less sexual & relationship satisfaction. Wiiliams, 2016 is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

The proclamation’s fourth main assertion (D)

D) “Research has shown that religiosity and moral disapproval have a strong influence on perceived sex/porn addiction. For example, Grubbs and colleagues (2010, 2015) found that religiosity and moral disapproval were strong predictors of perceived pornography addiction, even when actual pornography use was controlled. Other researchers have reported similar findings (Abell, Steenbergh, & Boivin, 2006; Kwee, Dominguez, & Ferrell, 2007; Leonhardt, Willoughby, & Young-Petersen, 2017). Regarding pornography use, Thomas (2013, 2016) applied archival analysis to trace the creation and deployment of the addiction framework among evangelical Christians. Other scholars have reported that the concept of sex addiction emerged in the 1980s as a socially conservative response to cultural anxieties, and has gained acceptance through its reliance on medicalization and popular culture visibility (Reay, Attwood, & Gooder, 2013;Voros, 2009).”

Actually sex/porn addiction is not related to religiosity in men. First, the preponderance of studies report lower rates of compulsive sexual behavior and porn use in religious individuals (study 1, study 2, study 3, study 4, study 5, study 6, study 7, study 8, study 9, study 10, study 11, study 12, study 13, study 14, study 15, study 16, study 17, study 18, study 19).

Second, two studies that assessed treatment-seeking male sex addicts found no relationship with religiosity. For example, this 2016 study on treatment-seeking porn addicts found that religiosity did not correlate with negative symptoms or scores on a sex addiction questionnaire. This 2016 study on treatment-seeking hypersexuals found no relationship between religious commitment and self-reported levels of hypersexual behavior and related consequences.

As for the claims concerning morality and “perceived addiction” (almost all the studies listed in the proclamation’s excerpt), a new study suggests they are unsupported: Do Cyber Pornography Use Inventory-9 Scores Reflect Actual Compulsivity in Internet Pornography Use? Exploring the Role of Abstinence Effort. This new study says that the instrument Grubbs uses in all his studies, CPUI-9, is flawed.

The CPUI-9 includes 3 extraneous questions assessing guilt and shame, such that religious porn users’ CPUI-9 scores tend to be skewed upward. The existence of higher CPUI-9 scores for religious porn users was then fed to the media as the claim that, “religious people falsely believe they are addicted to porn.” This was followed by several studies correlating moral disapproval with CPUI-9 scores. Since religious people as a group score higher on moral disapproval, and (thus) the total CPUI-9, it was pronounced (without actual support) that religious-based moral disapproval is the true cause of pornography addiction. That’s quite a leap, and unjustified as a matter of science.

In addition, the conclusions and claims spawned by the CPUI-9 are simply invalid. Grubbs created a questionnaire that cannot, and was never validated for, sorting “perceived” from actual addiction: the CPUI-9. With zero scientific justification he re-labeled his CPUI-9 as a “perceived pornography addiction” questionnaire. For much, much more see “New study invalidates the Grubbs CPUI-9 as an instrument to assess either “perceived pornography addiction” or actual pornography addiction (2017).”

Finally, religious shame doesn’t induce brain changes that mirror those found in drug addicts. Thus groups pushing the “sex/porn addiction is just religious shame” assertion still need to explain more than 3 dozen neurological studies reporting addiction-related brain changes in compulsive porn users/sex addicts. In light of 24 studies linking porn use/addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal, they also need to explain a nearly 1000% rise in youthful erectile dysfunction since the advent of porn tube sites.

The proclamation’s fifth main assertion (E)

Finally, this proclamation assertion combines 2 specious “straw man” arguments:

E) The sex/porn addiction model assumes that sexual behaviors as a coping mechanism are an indicator of addiction, but it does not consider the possibility that sex may be a positive coping mechanism.

The sex/porn addiction model makes no such assumption. It is concerned with people who cannot control their behavior despite serious negative consequences. This is the very opposite of “coping.”

Sticking To The Content: Response To “Red Herring: Hook, Line, and Stinker”, by Gabe Deem

I am certainly not alone in my grave concerns about the Nicole Prause & Jim Pfaus ED paper (P&P). Recently, Sexual Medicine Open Access published a Letter to the Editor by Richard A. Isenberg MD, which made many of the same observations as did my critique.

As is customary when a letter critical of a study is published, the study’s authors were given a chance to respond. Prause’s pretentious response entitled “Red Herring: Hook, Line, and Stinker” not only evades Isenberg’s points (and mine), it contains several new misrepresentations and several transparently false statements. In fact, Prause’s reply is little more than smoke, mirrors, groundless insults, and falsehoods. On a side note, check out this twitter convo where Prause attempts to substitute insults about Isenberg for substantive replies to his many valid objections:

@DrDavidLey definitely the most amusing letter I’ve had the chance to publish. Fun when the first writer cannot spell, math, or think!”

It’s unfortunate that she had “fun” instead of actually answering his concerns. She appears to be spinning a Big Fish Story littered with false statements and misrepresentations. I will address Prause’s claims in the order of her reply.


The Missing Subjects

Prause begins by boldly claiming that Isenberg was mistaken, and that she had already accounted for 280 participants:

“The author describes “discrepancies” in participant counts, but no discrepancies exist. Table 1 shows all 280 participants, including the subsample with International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores.”

This is the first of several false statements by Prause. It is irrefutable that discrepancies existed in her original paper, and these still have not been explained. For example, guess how Prause now claims to get from the 234 subjects Dr. Isenberg counted in the 4 underlying studies to 280, the total subjects she claimed? Simple. She now asserts that a 5th study exists: Moholy and Prause (circled below). This is an unpublished study not mentioned in the original Prause & Pfaus ED paper. No one can see it, so no one can check it or challenge it!

This unpublished paper, which may never be accepted for publication, is now brazenly and improperly tacked onto the existing paper, which has already been published (and supposedly peer-reviewed). How can you publish a study and say it’s peer-reviewed, when data it contains and bases its claims on have not been peer-reviewed? Riddle me that.

The original P&P ED paper explicitly states (in error) that all the subjects and data were culled from these four studies (study 1, study 2, study 3, study 4):

“Two hundred eighty men participated over four different studies conducted by the first author. These data have been published or are under review [33–36],”

Either the original ED paper is inaccurate, or the current response tacking on a 5th, unaccepted study is a slight-of-hand.

Why doesn’t this mysterious 5th paper add subjects to any other categories in the table? Look below its title in her table (above) and you will see two big fat zeros. Very fishy indeed.

Anyhow, as explained in my original critique, 280 was an empty number, mentioned for headline purposes only. The P&P paper was supposedly about ED in 280 (sic) men, yet it reported erectile functioning scores for a mere 127 men (IIEF). And even that figure (already much lower than the 280 in the headlines) was unsupported by the 4 underlying studies on which the ED paper purports to rest. That is, P&P may have claimed that 127 (or 133) men took the IIEF, but the underlying studies reported only 47 subjects. This glaring discrepancy still has not been explained.

Her table reveals a second sleight-of-hand. Prause now claims that 92 men, from 1 of the 4 studies (Moholy et al), took the IIEF. First problem: that particular study makes no mention of the IIEF. Second, much bigger, problem: that study lists only 61 male subjects (table 1 pg 4). Uh oh, guess 31 fish got away.

Summary of Prause’s new assertions:

  1. Prause conjures up a 5th unpublished study no one can check in an attempt to get her subject-count up to 280: Moholy and Prause (under review). This new development directly contradicts P&P ED paper. Suspiciously, the extra 52 men are nowhere else to be found in the original P&P ED paper.
  2. To get to 127 men for the IIEF, Prause announces that 92 missing men were somehow present in Moholy et al. Unfortunately, that study made no mention of the IIEF, and lists only 61 male subjects.

I guess I’ll need to add these two additional discrepancies and misrepresentations to the eight in my original critique. By the way, 1 and 2 above render her paragraph that starts with “Secondary analysis…” meaningless.


Each Study Used a Different Arousal Scale

Headlines for the P&P ED paper consistently claimed that porn use increased sexual performance. Shockingly, Jim Pfaus falsely claimed in an TV interview that P&P assessed men’s ability to achieve a erection in the lab. Pfaus also falsely stated: “We found a liner correlation with the amount of porn they viewed at home, and the latencies which for example they get an erection is faster.”

In reality, the study only asked men to rate their arousal after viewing porn. No erections or latencies were tested. The finding: Men who watched more porn rated their arousal slightly higher than men who watched less porn. That’s called sensitization, not “better performance”. P&P’s claims that porn use leads to greater arousal are dependent upon all four studies using the same arousal scale and the same stimulus. Neither occurred.

Prause tries to explain away the fact that none of her four underlying studies used the same “arousal scale” for porn viewing. Here’s what the original P&P ED paper actually said:

“Men were asked to indicate their level of “sexual arousal” ranging from 1 “not at all” to 9 “extremely.”

As Isenberg and I pointed out, only 1 of the 4 underlying studies used a 1 to 9 scale. One used a 0 to 7 scale, one used a 1 to 7 scale, and one study did not report sexual arousal ratings. Even more confusing, the sexual arousal graph in the P&P paper used a 1 to 7 scale. Two glaring mistakes in the original paper.

Instead of apologizing for the original paper’s false statements and graph errors, Prause now offers Isenberg a lesson on what researchers might theoretically do with different number scales:

“The author of the letter also made a false statistical statement: “Results from different Likert scales are not poolable”. Of course they are! In fact, there are at least three different methods to pool them.”

That’s great to know, but there’s absolutely no indication that Prause pooled the four different arousal scales. I suspect she didn’t as 1) she would have said so, 2) one of the studies had no scale, so couldn’t be pooled using any method, and 3) she refused to acknowledge her earlier errors, so why would she acknowledge this one?


Studies Used Different Sexual Stimuli

Not only did the four underlying studies have different arousal scales (or none), they used different stimuli. Two of the studies used a 3-minute film; one study used a 20-second film; and one study used only photos. No researcher can do that and expect valid results. It’s well established that films are more arousing than photos. What’s shocking is that the original P&P ED paper falsely claims that all 4 studies used sexual films:

“The VSS presented in the studies were all films.”

So how does Prause address this conspicuous methodological flaw and her study’s false statement? With another false statement, or two, in bold:

The author also made a false statement that stimuli varied between studies and this was not “controlled”. We assessed and controlled the stimuli as stated in our original article (“sexual arousal reported did not differ by film length, so data were collapsed across studies for this analysis”, p. E4).”

First false statement: Nowhere did Dr. Isenberg say that the stimuli “[were] not controlled.”

Second false statement: The stimuli did vary among studies: 3-minute film, 20-second film, photos.

“Controlled for” is meaningless here, and Prause refuses to say how she magically managed to do the impossible: control for some guys viewing photos, while other watched 3-minute porn flicks.


Some of the Subjects Were Gay

Prause begins her next paragraph with yet another false statement:

“Finally, again contrary to the author’s claims, there were not “four gay” men in any study.

Dr. Isenberg’s only reference to “gay” was a listing of “including 4 gay” in his table under Prause’s study “Biases for Affective Versus Sexual Content in Multidimensional Scaling Analysis: An Individual Difference Perspective (2013, Prause, Moholy, Staley). From page 2 of that study.

“A total of 157 (N=47 male, 1 transgender) psychology students over age 18 years participated in exchange for course credit. Most reported being heterosexual. Four males reported being homosexual and four reported being bisexual.”

Four gay men, just as Dr. Isenberg stated. It seems Isenberg can “math” good enough to know that 4 means 4.

Why did Dr. Isenberg list 4 gay men in the table? It’s well established (and common sense) that gay and straight men have very different brain responses to heterosexual porn. Including gay men, as Prause did, skews the “sexual arousal” results and her resulting correlations. It calls into question her findings.

In brain studies on addiction, or compulsive behaviors, valid results depend upon homogeneous subjects. Put simply, subjects must be the same sex, similar ages, similar IQs and, generally, all right-handed to produce valid results. Prause ignores standard protocols by having males, females and non-heterosexuals all watch heterosexual porn. You can’t do that, as many studies confirm significant differences between males and females in response to sexual images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

This is one of various reasons why Prause’s 2013 EEG study on porn users was sharply criticized. The study’s subjects differed (women, men, heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals), yet they were all shown the same standard male+female porn. This alone invalidates the study’s claims that it “debunks porn addiction.” Please be aware that Prause has already announced that she has employed this same flaw (mixed subjects) in a study, which she maintains debunks porn addiction once again. From her SPAN Lab website:

What scientist announces on their twitter account and personal website that their single, unpublished study “debunks” an entire field of research?


Hours Per Week Not Defined

This section takes some explaining, but it leads us to another manifestly false statement by Prause. In the following paragraph, Dr. Isenberg explains that P&P failed to fully describe hours per week of porn use. In other words, Prause failed to say if hours per week referred to the previous week, or month, or year, or who knows.

ISENBERG: “The hours-viewed parameter itself is poorly defined. We are not told if the self-report of hours referenced the preceding week, the average over the last year, or was entirely left to subject interpretation. Were there subjects who were previously heavy users who had recently cut down or eliminated their pornography viewing? Absent a well-defined and consistent referent, the porn use data is uninterpretable.”

Prause responds by telling us what we already know – that she said “hours per week“:

“The author claims we did not adequately describe the sex film view variable. We described that variable at least 13 places in the manuscript. (“weekly average” in abstract; “reported the average number of hours they consumed VSS per week”…..

Again, Dr. Isenberg wanted to know: Are you asking subjects about the “previous week”, or “the last year”, maybe “since you started watching porn”, or some other time-frame? Prause ends her repetitive two-paragraph rant with yet another false statement:

The question was exactly as described, “How much time per week did you spend using pornography during the past month?” with the response box including the descriptor “hours” for which they could indicate partial hour(s).”

Search the P&P ED paper and you will find no such question (mentioning the past month).

Prause follows up this false statement with two paragraphs arguing that hours per week is an appropriate measure. Dr. Isenberg wasn’t commenting on its “appropriateness.” He just pointed out that the data cannot be interpreted without knowing how the subjects understood the question. Since she had to make a false claim to respond to Isenberg’s point, perhaps Prause’s statement is the red herring she refers to in her pompous title.


Many More Variables Than Current Hours Per Week

One of the most common questions posed on recovery forums is, “Why did I develop PIED when my friends watch as much (or more) porn than I do?” Instead of only current hours per week, a combination of variables appears to be implicated in porn-induced ED. Dr. Isenberg highlights the importance of investigating many other variables before claiming, as the authors do, that porn-induced ED is a myth (and he doesn’t even mention novelty of watching internet porn, arguably the most important factor):

ISENBERG: “Furthermore, the authors do not report on relevant viewing parameters such as total pornography usage, age of onset, presence of escalation, and extent of sexual activity with partner which may have bearing on male sexual functioning [11,12].”

In the above sentence, Dr. Isenberg cites two studies as examples of research that examined two additional variables: citation 11 employed ‘years of porn use’, and citation 12 employed ‘age started porn use’. Prause spends the next paragraph attacking a straw man, namely, that Dr. Isenberg claimed both studies assessed every single variable he listed. Why didn’t she instead explain why she didn’t ask her subjects about important variables before drawing her unsubstantiated conclusion that porn isn’t the culprit in youthful ED?


Average Erectile Scores Actually Indicate ED

While Prause admits to only a single oversight, it’s fitting that she adds yet another misrepresentation to her apology (bold):

“We also recognize that we stated in one place that the IIEF was a “19-item” (p. E3) scale. The scale actually is a 15-item scale. We profusely apologize for this gross oversight, although the scores, results, and conclusions were accurate and indicative of normal erectile function

As pointed out in my critique, P&P reported an average score of 21.4 out of 30 for the 6-item IIEF (average age 23). This is far from “normal erectile function” in 23-year olds. In fact, this score indicates “mild erectile dysfunction”, leaning towards “moderate erectile dysfunction”.


Still No Data Correlating IIEF Scores With Porn Use

Isenberg was also concerned that P&P offer inadequate data for their claim that no correlation existed between IIEF scores and hours viewed per week:

ISENBERG: Even more disturbing is the total omission of statistical findings for the erectile function outcome measure. No statistical results whatsoever are provided. Instead the authors ask the reader to simply believe their unsubstantiated statement that there was no association between hours of pornography viewed and erectile function. Given the authors’ conflicting assertion that erectile function with a partner may actually be improved by viewing pornography the absence of statistical analysis is most egregious.

Red Herring leaves us hanging on this critical point. We’re meant to swallow the authors’ conclusions “hook, line and stinker.”


Questions Were Raised About P&P’s “Strong” Finding

The following excerpt, taken from the second paragraph, claims that Isenberg failed to raise questions about P&P’s “strong” finding. Read carefully as Prause alters key words to give the reader a false impression:

“No questions were raised about the strong finding that the more men viewed sex films at home the stronger sexual desire they reported for their partner. In fact, this result was described as ‘hardly novel’.”

The actual finding? Guys who watched more porn scored higher in their desire to masturbate and have sex with a partner. In the above claim, Prause omitted greater desire to masturbate (presumably to porn), and leads us to believe that the questionnaire stated sexual desire for “their” partner. It didn’t. From P&P ED study:

“Men reported their desire for sex with a partner and desire for solitary sex

Prause added “their” and removed “solitary sex”. Since the questionnaire’s phrasing was actually “sex with a partner”, these porn-loving subjects could have just as easily been fantasizing about sex with their favorite porn star. I suspect many were, as a large percentage of the subjects had no partners (50% in one underlying study).

In reality, higher “desire” to masturbate, or to have sex, might be evidence of sensitization, which is greater reward circuit activation and craving when exposed to porn cues. Sensitization can be a precursor to, or evidence of, addiction.

Two recent Cambridge University studies found that heavy porn users can experience higher desire (cravings), yet also experience erection problems with a partner. Participants’ brains lit up when exposed porn, yet 60% of them reported arousal/erectile problems with partners. From the Cambridge study:

“CSB subjects reported that as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials…..they experienced diminished libido or erectile function specifically in physical relationships with women (although not in relationship to the sexually explicit material)”

Put simply, there’s no basis for claiming that a porn user’s higher desire to masturbate and have sex predicts better performance in the bedroom. Remember, the average erection scores for P&P subjects indicated ED.


Prause Tweets & Posts About Her Reply

Here’s Prause initially tweeting about her reply to Isenberg’s critique:

“Red Herring: Hook, Line, and Stinker” Our fun, published response to the crazy claims made by anti-porn groups

The next day Prause posts this on her SPAN lab website:

Amazing. As you have read above, Isenberg’s claims are valid, while Prause makes false statement after false statement. Moreover, she attempts to add an unpublished study after the fact in a desperate ploy to meet her published claim of 280 subjects. She conjures up IIEF subjects who cannot exist by her own earlier admission. Then she calls uro-gynecologist Isenberg a “crazy anti-porn group.” Feel free to Google his name. You will see that he has published peer-reviewed studies, yet has never said a word that was anti-porn. Spin without addressing the content.

Why has Sexual Medicine Open Access allowed Prause to publish numerous false statements in both the original P&P paper and her reply to Isenberg? Why weren’t Isenberg’s questions taken seriously and answered professionally? Why is there no serious investigation into the cause of the sudden jump in ED rates in the last few years? Rates have skyrocketed to around 30% in young men.

Debunking Kris Taylor’s “A Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunction”

Introduction

I was surprised and somewhat baffled by grad student Kris Taylor’s recent VICE article on porn use and sexual dysfunctions. In his article Taylor not only misrepresented the content of a 2016 review of literature I co-authored with 7 US navy doctors, he chose to omit 26 studies linking porn use to sexual problems and lower sexual arousal. Before I address specific sections of Kris Taylor’s article here are the studies and articles he was given, yet chose to neglect in his article:

  1. 26 studies linking porn use or porn addiction to sexual dysfunctions & lower arousal. The first 5 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.
  2. Almost 60 studies linking porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction.
  3. Articles, interviews and videos citing over 120 experts (urology professors, urologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists, MDs) who acknowledge and have successfully treated porn-induced ED and porn-induced loss of sexual desire.
  4. 30 studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms.
  5. All the neurological studies published on porn users/sex addicts: 39 neuroscience studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neurospychological, hormonal) provide strong support for the addiction model.
  6. 15 reviews of the literature & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All lend support to the porn addiction model.
  7. Approximately 2,000 first-person stories of recovery from porn-induced sexual problems (Rebooting accounts 1, Rebooting accounts 2, Rebooting Accounts 3, Short PIED recovery stories).

The rest of this piece will consist of excerpts from Kris Taylor’s article followed by comments, and excerpts from the 2016 review of literature Gary Wilson co-authored with 7 US navy doctors.


The truth behind current and historical sexual dysfunction rates in young men.

KRIS TAYLOR: “Hooked on porn: Prepare for a tsunami of damaged people,” warned the Herald last year. They quote Brisbane based sexologist Liz Walker, saying “before the internet appeared, erectile dysfunction in males under 40 was reported as being about 2-5 per cent, now that figure has jumped to between 27 and 33 per cent.

The percentages given by Liz Walker were accurate and they are documented both in this lay article (Research confirms sharp rise in youthful sexual dysfunctions) and in this extensive review of the literature involving 7 US Navy doctors and myself: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016). The Navy doctors included 2 psychiatrists, 2 urologists, and an MD with a PhD in neuroscience. These seven doctors have spent much of their careers treating (primarily) young men.

KRIS TAYLOR: “But when you try to find the research she’s citing, thing get murkier. Her source is this paper, which in turn gives numbers sourced from two papers – neither of which reference pornography as causative. Not to mention that the second author of the paper is Gary Wilson, a well-known fervent anti-pornography campaigner.”

Taylor cites the US Navy paper and proceeds to blatantly misrepresent its content (perhaps hoping no one would click on the link). Taylor “suggests” that our paper cited only 2 isolated studies to support the claim that ED rates in men under 40 have skyrocketed since the advent of streaming tube sites (2006). In reality, we examined every PubMed listed study previously published that provided sexual dysfunction rates for men under 40.

We also examined all PubMed sourced meta-studies and meta-analyses examining ED rates in both men over and under 40. A meta-analysis is a study that reviews all previous studies on a particular subject, and lists the pertinent data. (Taylor may not yet know what a meta-analysis is as he linked to one of meta-analysis we cited.)

What did our paper cite in the 2nd paragraph to support the claim that historical ED rates for men under have been between 2-5%? (The following citation numbers and their original links are provided.)

  • [2] – (2000) Meta-analysis that reviewed 93 studies from across the globe.
  • [3] – (1992) Largest US survey.
  • [5] – (2001) ED rates from 29 developed countries (13,000 subjects).
  • Not cited: The Kinsey report concluded that the prevalence of ED was less than 1% in men younger than 30 years, less than 3% in those 30–45.

Taylor failed to provide a single study to refute our claim that ED rates for men under 40 have been consistently reported as between 2-5%. Instead, he attempted to mislead the reader with a single 2013 study, implying that high rates of erectile dysfunction in young men were always normal. However, the paper also supports our claims. He said:

KRIS TAYLOR: “By some estimates erectile ‘dysfunction’ may occur for about half of all men, and 1 in 4 men seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction will be under 40.”

However, the paper’s authors were clearly surprised to find that 25% of men who visited doctors for erectile dysfunction were under 40. The name of the study says it all: One Patient Out of Four with Newly Diagnosed Erectile Dysfunction Is a Young Man—Worrisome Picture from the Everyday Clinical Practice. (The study did not assess ED rates in the general population.)

Further, what did our paper cite in the 3rd paragraph to support the claim that recent studies report much higher rates of sexual dysfunction for men under 40?

  • [9] – (2013). The above study. The rates of severe ED nearly 10% higher than in men over 40.
  • [6] – (2015). Europeans, 18–40, ED rates ranged from 14%–28%. Low libido as high as 37%.
  • [8] – (2012). ED rates of 30% in a cross-section of Swiss men aged 18–24.
  • [10] – (2014). Males aged 16-21: ED (27%), low sexual desire (24%), problems with orgasm (11%).
  • [11] – (2016). 2-year longitudinal study in which they found that, over several checkpoints during the 2 years, the following percentages of 16-21 year old males: low sexual satisfaction (47.9%), low desire (46.2%), problems in erectile function (45.3%).
  • [12] – (2014). New diagnoses of ED in active duty servicemen reported that rates had more than doubled between 2004 and 2013.
  • [13] – (2014). Cross-sectional study of active duty male military personnel aged 21–40 found an overall ED rate of 33.2%.
  • [16] – (2010). Brazilian study of men 18-40 reported ED rates of 35%.

The takeaway: The claims that historical rates of youthful ED have ranged from 1-5 percent, and that studies since 2010 have reported a tremendous increase in ED rates is supported by the peer-reviewed literature. All the above evidence (and more) was presented in the first 3 paragraphs of the US Navy paper. This fact indicates that Kris Taylor purposely misled VICE and its readers.


24 studies link porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems & lower arousal (all omitted by Taylor)

KRIS TAYLOR: “While searching in vain for research that supported the position that pornography causes erectile dysfunction, I found a variety of the most common causes of erectile dysfunction. Pornography is not among them. These included depression, anxiety, nervousness, taking certain medications, smoking, alcohol and illicit drug use, as well as other health factors like diabetes and heart disease. Even riding a bike for too long can cause temporary erectile dysfunction if the bike seat compresses nerves in the perineum.”

First we will address Kris Taylor “searching in vain for research that supported the position that pornography causes erectile dysfunction.” This claim is rather hard to swallow as Taylor was earlier given this YBOP page by Liz Walker. It contains 24 studies linking porn use or porn addiction to sexual dysfunctions and lower arousal. The first 5 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions (one of the three being the US Navy paper, which included case reports). Sixteen of these studies made it into the 2016 US Navy paper, and they were introduced with this paragraph:

While such intervention studies would be the most illuminating, our review of the literature finds a number of studies that have correlated pornography use with arousal, attraction, and sexual performance problems [27, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43], including difficulty orgasming, diminished libido or erectile function [27, 30, 31, 35, 43, 44], negative effects on partnered sex [37], decreased enjoyment of sexual intimacy [37, 41, 45], less sexual and relationship satisfaction [38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47], a preference for using Internet pornography to achieve and maintain arousal over having sex with a partner [42], and greater brain activation in response to pornography in those reporting less desire for sex with partners [48].

The following very convincing study was published after the US Navy paper appeared: Male masturbation habits and sexual dysfunctions, 2016. Like our paper, it too demonstrated causation as 35 men who developed erectile dysfunction and/or anorgasmia attempted to quit porn and cut back on masturbation. The study reported that 19 men experienced significant improvement by the time the author wrote up the paper. The author is a French psychiatrist who is the current president of the European Federation of Sexology. He is hardly a “fervent anti-pornography campaigner,” yet he noted that many of the men he assessed were addicted to porn.

Conclusion: Addictive masturbation, often accompanied by a dependency on cyber-pornography, has been seen to play a role in the etiology of certain types of erectile dysfunction or coital anejaculation.

The takeaway: Kris Taylor was given 24 studies linking porn use to sexual problems and lower arousal, along with over 55 studies linking porn use to lower sexual and relationship satisfaction. Once again, Taylor deliberately mislead VICE and its readers.


A 600% – 1000% increase in youthful ED in the last 7-12 years cannot be explained away by the usual factors

Kris Taylor claims that the recent tremendous rise in youthful ED must be caused by the variables usually correlated with ED in men over 40.

KRIS TAYLOR: While searching in vain for research that supported the position that pornography causes erectile dysfunction, I found a variety of the most common causes of erectile dysfunction. Pornography is not among them. These included depression, anxiety, nervousness, taking certain medications, smoking, alcohol and illicit drug use, as well as other health factors like diabetes and heart disease. Even riding a bike for too long can cause temporary erectile dysfunction if the bike seat compresses nerves in the perineum.

As explained in our paper, smoking, diabetes and heart disease rarely cause ED in men under 40 (citation 16). It takes years of smoking or uncontrolled diabetes to manifest neuro-vascular damage severe enough to cause chronic ED. From our paper:

Traditionally, ED has been seen as an age-dependent problem [2],and studies investigating ED risk factors in men under 40 have often failed to identify the factors commonly associated with ED in older men, such as smoking, alcoholism, obesity, sedentary life, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and hyperlipidemia [16].

As for “taking certain medications, smoking, alcohol and illicit drug use,” none of rates of these correlative factors have increased over the last 15 years (smoking has actually decreased). From the US Navy paper:

However, none of the familiar correlative factors suggested for psychogenic ED seem adequate to account for a rapid many-fold increase in youthful sexual difficulties. For example, some researchers hypothesize that rising youthful sexual problems must be the result of unhealthy lifestyles, such as obesity, substance abuse and smoking (factors historically correlated with organic ED). Yet these lifestyle risks have not changed proportionately, or have decreased, in the last 20 years: Obesity rates in U.S. men aged 20–40 increased only 4% between 1999 and 2008 [19]; rates of illicit drug use among US citizens aged 12 or older have been relatively stable over the last 15 years [20]; and smoking rates for US adults declined from 25% in 1993 to 19% in 2011 [21].

As for “depression, anxiety, nervousness,” none of these cause erectile dysfunction, they are simply weakly correlative to ED. In fact, some studies report that depressed and anxious patients have higher sexual desire. Other studies suggest the obvious: depression doesn’t cause ED; having ED increases scores on depression tests. From the US Navy paper:

Other authors propose psychological factors. Yet, how likely is it that anxiety and depression account for the sharp rise in youthful sexual difficulties given the complex relationship between sexual desire and depression and anxiety? Some depressed and anxious patients report less desire for sex while others report increased sexual desire [22, 23, 24, 25]. Not only is the relationship between depression and ED likely bidirectional and co-occurring, it may also be the consequence of sexual dysfunction, particularly in young men [26].

As we said in our paper’s conclusion:

Traditional factors that once explained sexual difficulties in men appear insufficient to account for the sharp rise in sexual dysfunctions and low sexual desire in men under 40.

This 2018 study on urology patients under the age of 40 found that patients with ED did not differ from men without ED, thus debunking Kris Taylor’s assertions (Factors For Erectile Dysfunction Among Young Men–Findings of a Real-Life Cross-Sectional Study):

Overall, 229 (75%) and 78 (25%) patients had normal and impaired Erectile Function (EF); among patients with ED, 90 (29%) had an IIEF-EF score suggestive for severe ED. Patients with and without ED did not differ significantly in terms of median age, BMI, prevalence of hypertension, general health status, smoking history), alcohol use, and median IPSS score. Similarly, no differences were reported in terms of serum sex hormones and lipid profile between the two groups.

These findings showed that young men with ED do not differ in terms of baseline clinical characteristics from a comparable-age group with normal EF, but depicted lower sexual desire scores, clinically suggesting a more probable psychogenic cause of ED.

For some reason those with ED had low sexual desire (should’ve asked about porn!) To repeat, Kris Taylor, like other porn-induced ED deniers, argue that young men’s ED is caused by the exact same risk factors that are related to ED in men over 40.

Finally, Taylor’s claim that bike-riding is associated with ED has recently been debunked. An excerpt from the article:

“As cycling gains in popularity, as both a hobby and a professional sport, it is important for the public to know that it has no credible link to urologic disease or sexual dysfunction,” said Dr. Kevin McVary, a spokesman for the American Urological Association.


Addressing the two papers Kris Taylor cited (both were extensively discussed in the US Navy review)

Ignoring the 5 papers demonstrating cessation of internet porn use reversing sexual dysfunctions, and 19 other studies that link internet porn use to sexual dysfunctions and low arousal, Taylor cited 2 papers as the “best available research”:

But the best research we have so far simply doesn’t support the claims. For example, a 2015 cross-sectional online study of 3,948 Croatian, Norwegian, and Portuguese men published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine indicated that “contrary to raising public concerns, pornography does not seem to be a significant risk factor for younger men’s desire, erectile, or orgasmic difficulties.” Another 2015 study, this time of 208 non-treatment seeking American men indicated that viewing pornography was “unlikely to negatively impact sexual functioning, given that responses actually were stronger in those who viewed more [pornography]”.

Neither paper was an actual study, and both have been formally criticized in the peer-reviewed literature. Both papers were discussed at length in the US Navy review of the literature – which I will excerpt below. I have a lot to say about both papers, so I have created separate sections for each. I will start with the second paper mentioned by Taylor, because we addressed it first in our review of the literature.


PAPER 2: Prause & Pfaus, 2015.

KRIS TAYLOR EXCERPT: Another 2015 study, this time of 208 non-treatment seeking American men indicated that viewing pornography was “unlikely to negatively impact sexual functioning, given that responses actually were stronger in those who viewed more [pornography]”.

I provide the formal critique by Richard Isenberg, MD and a very extensive lay critique, followed by my comments and excerpts from the US Navy paper:

The claim: Contrary to Taylor’s claim (and Prause & Pfaus claim), the men who watched more porn did not have “stronger responses.” None of the 4 studies underlying underlying the paper’s claims assessed genital or sexual responses in the lab. What Prause & Pfaus claimed in their paper was that men who watched more porn rated their excitement slightly higher while watching porn. The key phrase is while watching porn – not while having sex with an actual person. Arousal ratings while viewing porn tell us nothing about one’s arousal or erections when not viewing porn. It tells us nothing about porn-induced ED, which is the inability to become sufficiently aroused without using porn. That said, details from Prause & Pfaus, 2015 reveal that they could not have accurately assessed their subjects’ arousal ratings (much more below).

For argument’s sake let’s suppose that men viewing more porn rated their arousal a bit higher than men who viewed less. Another, more legitimate, way to interpret this arousal difference between the two porn-use groups is that men who watched the most porn experienced slightly greater cravings to use porn. This is quite possibly evidence of sensitization, which is greater reward circuit (brain) activation and craving when exposed to (porn) cues. Sensitization (cue-reactivity and cravings) is a primary addiction-related brain change.

Several recent Cambridge University brain studies demonstrated sensitization in compulsive porn users. Participants’ brains were hyper-aroused in response to porn video clips, even though they didn’t “like” some of the sexual stimuli more than control participants. In a dramatic example of how sensitization can affect sexual performance, 60% of the Cambridge subjects reported arousal/erectile problems with partners but not with porn. From the Cambridge study:

“[Porn addicts] reported that as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials…..they experienced diminished libido or erectile function specifically in physical relationships with women (although not in relationship to the sexually explicit material).”

Put simply, a heavy porn user can report higher subjective arousal (cravings) yet also experience erection problems with a partner. Certainly, his arousal in response to porn is not evidence of his “sexual responsiveness” or erectile functioning with a partner. Studies reporting sensitization/cravings or cue-reactivity in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

The reality behind Prause & Pfaus 2015: This wasn’t a study on men with ED. It wasn’t a study at all. Instead, Prause claimed to have gathered data from four of her earlier studies, none of which addressed erectile dysfunction. It’s disturbing that this paper by Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus passed peer-review as none of the data in their paper matched the data in the underlying four studies on which the paper claimed to be based. The discrepancies are not minor gaps, but gaping holes that cannot be plugged. In addition, the paper made several claims that were patently false or not supported by the data.

We begin with false claims made by both Nicole Prause & Jim Pfaus. Many journalists’ articles about this study claimed that porn use led to better erections, yet that’s not what the paper found. In recorded interviews, both Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus falsely claimed that they had measured erections in the lab, and that the men who used porn had better erections. In the Jim Pfaus TV interview Pfaus states:

“We looked at the correlation of their ability to get an erection in the lab.”

“We found a liner correlation with the amount of porn they viewed at home, and the latencies which for example they get an erection is faster.”

In this radio interview Nicole Prause claimed that erections were measured in the lab. The exact quote from the show:

“The more people watch erotica at home they have stronger erectile responses in the lab, not reduced.”

Yet this paper did not assess erection quality in the lab or “speed of erections.” The paper only claimed to have asked guys to rate their “arousal” after briefly viewing porn (and it’s not clear from the underlying papers that this simple self-report was asked of all subjects). In any case, an excerpt from the paper itself admitted that:

“No physiological genital response data were included to support men’s self-reported experience.”

In a second unsupported claim, lead author Nicole Prause tweeted several times about the study, letting the world know that 280 subjects were involved, and that they had “no problems at home.” However, the four underlying studies contained only 234 male subjects, so “280” is way off.

A third unsupported claim: Author of the critical Letter to the Editor linked to above, Dr. Isenberg, wondered how it could be possible for Prause & Pfaus 2015 to have compared different subjects’ arousal levels when three different types of sexual stimuli were used in the 4 underlying studies. Two studies used a 3-minute film, one study used a 20-second film, and one study used still images. It’s well established that films are far more arousing than photos, so no legitimate research team would group these subjects together to make claims about their responses. What’s shocking is that in their paper Prause & Pfaus unaccountably claim that all 4 studies used sexual films:

“The VSS presented in the studies were all films.”

This statement is false, as clearly revealed in Prause’s own underlying studies. This the first reason why Prause & Pfaus cannot claim that their paper assessed “arousal.” You must use the same stimulus for each person to compare all the subjects.

A fourth unsupported claim: Dr. Isenberg also asked how Prause & Pfaus 2015 could compare different subjects’ arousal levels when only 1 of the 4 underlying studies used a 1 to 9 scale. One used a 0 to 7 scale, one used a 1 to 7 scale, and one study did not report sexual arousal ratings. Once again Prause & Pfaus inexplicably claim that:

“Men were asked to indicate their level of “sexual arousal” ranging from 1 “not at all” to 9 “extremely.”

This too is false as the underlying papers show. This is the second reason why Prause & Pfaus cannot claim that their paper assessed “arousal” ratings in men. A study must use the exact same rating scale for each person to compare the subjects’ results. In summary, all the Prause-generated headlines about porn use improving erections or arousal, or anything else, are unwarranted.

Prause & Pfaus 2015 also claimed they found no relationship between erectile functioning scores and the amount of porn viewed in the last month. As Dr. Isenberg pointed out:

“Even more disturbing is the total omission of statistical findings for the erectile function outcome measure. No statistical results whatsoever are provided. Instead the authors ask the reader to simply believe their unsubstantiated statement that there was no association between hours of pornography viewed and erectile function. Given the authors’ conflicting assertion that erectile function with a partner may actually be improved by viewing pornography the absence of statistical analysis is most egregious.”

In the Prause & Pfaus response to the Dr. Isenberg critique, they once again failed to provide any data to support their “unsubstantiated statement.” As this analysis documents, the Prause & Pfaus response not only evades Dr. Isenberg’s legitimate concerns, it contains several new misrepresentations and several transparently false statements. Finally, our review of the literature commented on Prause & Pfaus 2015:

“Our review also included two 2015 papers claiming that Internet pornography use is unrelated to rising sexual difficulties in young men. However, such claims appear to be premature on closer examination of these papers and related formal criticism. The first paper contains useful insights about the potential role of sexual conditioning in youthful ED [50]. However, this publication has come under criticism for various discrepancies, omissions and methodological flaws. For example, it provides no statistical results for the erectile function outcome measure in relation to Internet pornography use. Further, as a research physician pointed out in a formal critique of the paper, the papers’ authors, “have not provided the reader with sufficient information about the population studied or the statistical analyses to justify their conclusion” [51]. Additionally, the researchers investigated only hours of Internet pornography use in the last month. Yet studies on Internet pornography addiction have found that the variable of hours of Internet pornography use alone is widely unrelated to “problems in daily life”, scores on the SAST-R (Sexual Addiction Screening Test), and scores on the IATsex (an instrument that assesses addiction to online sexual activity) [52, 53, 54, 55, 56]. A better predictor is subjective sexual arousal ratings while watching Internet pornography (cue reactivity), an established correlate of addictive behavior in all addictions [52, 53, 54]. There is also increasing evidence that the amount of time spent on Internet video-gaming does not predict addictive behavior. “Addiction can only be assessed properly if motives, consequences and contextual characteristics of the behavior are also part of the assessment” [57]. Three other research teams, using various criteria for “hypersexuality” (other than hours of use), have strongly correlated it with sexual difficulties [15, 30, 31]. Taken together, this research suggests that rather than simply “hours of use”, multiple variables are highly relevant in assessment of pornography addiction/hypersexuality, and likely also highly relevant in assessing pornography-related sexual dysfunctions.”

The US Navy paper highlighted the weakness in correlating only “current hours of use” to predict porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. The amount of porn currently viewed is just one of many variables involved in the development of porn-induced ED. These may include:

  1. Ratio of masturbation to porn versus masturbation without porn
  2. Ratio of sexual activity with a person versus masturbation to porn
  3. Gaps in partnered sex (where one relies only on porn)
  4. Virgin or not
  5. Total hours of use
  6. Years of use
  7. Age started using porn
  8. Escalation to new genres
  9. Development of porn-induced fetishes (from escalating to new genres of porn)
  10. Level of novelty per session (i.e. compilation videos, multiple tabs)
  11. Addiction-related brain changes or not
  12. Presence of hypersexuality/porn addiction

The better way to research this phenomenon, is to remove the variable of internet porn use and observe the outcome, which was done in the Navy paper and in two other studies. Such research reveals causation instead of fuzzy correlations open to varying interpretation. My site has documented a few thousand men who removed porn and recovered from chronic sexual dysfunctions.


PAPER 1: Landripet & Stulhofer, 2015.

KRIS TAYLOR EXCERPT: For example, a 2015 cross-sectional online study of 3,948 Croatian, Norwegian, and Portuguese men published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine indicated that “contrary to raising public concerns, pornography does not seem to be a significant risk factor for younger men’s desire, erectile, or orgasmic difficulties.”

Landripet & Stulhofer, 2015 was designated as a “brief communication” by the Journal, and the two authors selected certain data to share, while omitting other pertinent data (more later). As with Prause & Pfaus the Journal published a critique of Landripet & Sulhofer: Comment on: Is Pornography Use Associated with Sexual Difficulties and Dysfunctions among Younger Heterosexual Men? by Gert Martin Hald, PhD

As for the claim that Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015 found no relationships between porn use and sexual problems. This is not true, as documented in both this YBOP critique and the US Navy review of the literature. Furthermore, Landripet & Stulhofer’s paper omitted three significant correlations they presented to a European conference (more below). Let’s start with the first of three paragraphs from our paper that addressed Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015:

A second paper reported little correlation between frequency of Internet pornography use in the last year and ED rates in sexually active men from Norway, Portugal and Croatia [6]. These authors, unlike those of the previous paper, acknowledge the high prevalence of ED in men 40 and under, and indeed found ED and low sexual desire rates as high as 31% and 37%, respectively. In contrast, pre-streaming Internet pornography research done in 2004 by one of the paper’s authors reported ED rates of only 5.8% in men 35–39 [58]. Yet, based on a statistical comparison, the authors conclude that Internet pornography use does not seem to be a significant risk factor for youthful ED. That seems overly definitive, given that the Portuguese men they surveyed reported the lowest rates of sexual dysfunction compared with Norwegians and Croatians, and only 40% of Portuguese reported using Internet pornography “from several times a week to daily”, as compared with the Norwegians, 57%, and Croatians, 59%. This paper has been formally criticized for failing to employ comprehensive models able to encompass both direct and indirect relationships between variables known or hypothesized to be at work [59]. Incidentally, in a related paper on problematic low sexual desire involving many of the same survey participants from Portugal, Croatia and Norway, the men were asked which of numerous factors they believed contributed to their problematic lack of sexual interest. Among other factors, approximately 11%–22% chose “I use too much pornography” and 16%–26% chose “I masturbate too often” [60]

As I and the Navy doctors described, this paper found a pretty important correlation: Only 40% of the Portuguese men used porn “frequently,” while the 60% of the Norwegians used porn “frequently.” The Portuguese men had far less sexual dysfunction than the Norwegians. With respect to the Croats, Landripet & Štulhofer, 2015 acknowledge a statistically significant association between more frequent porn use and ED, but claim the effect size was small. However, this claim may be misleading according to an MD who is a skilled statistician and has authored many studies:

Analyzed a different way (Chi Squared), … moderate use (vs. infrequent use) increased the odds (the likelihood) of having ED by about 50% in this Croatian population. That sounds meaningful to me, although it is curious that the finding was only identified among Croats.

In addition, Landripet & Stulhofer 2015 omitted three significant correlations, which one of the authors presented to a European conference. He reported a significant correlation between erectile dysfunction and “preference for certain pornographic genres”:

Reporting a preference for specific pornographic genres were significantly associated with erectile (but not ejaculatory or desire-related) male sexual dysfunction.”

It’s telling that Landripet & Stulhofer chose to omit this significant correlation between erectile dysfunction and preferences for specific genres of porn from their paper. It’s quite common for porn users to escalate into genres that do not match their original sexual tastes, and to experience ED when these conditioned porn preferences do not match real sexual encounters. As we pointed out above, it’s very important to assess the multiple variables associated with porn use – not just hours in the last month or frequency in the last year.

The second significant finding omitted by Landripet & Stulhofer 2015 involved female participants:

Increased pornography use was slightly but significantly associated with decreased interest for partnered sex and more prevalent sexual dysfunction among women.”

A significant correlation between greater porn use and decreased libido and more sexual dysfunction seems pretty important. Why didn’t Landripet & Stulhofer 2015 report that they found significant correlations between porn use and sexual dysfunction in women, as well as a few in men? And why hasn’t this finding been reported in any of Stulhofer’s many studies arising from these same data sets? His teams seem very quick to publish data they claim debunks porn-induced ED, yet very slow to inform women about the negative sexual ramifications of porn use.

Finally, Danish porn researcher Gert Martin Hald’s formal critical comments echoed the need to assess more variables (mediators, moderators) than just frequency per week in the last 12 months:

“The study does not address possible moderators or mediators of the relationships studied nor is it able to determine causality. Increasingly, in research on pornography, attention is given to factors that may influence the magnitude or direction of the relationships studied (i.e., moderators) as well as the pathways through which such influence may come about (i.e., mediators). Future studies on pornography consumption and sexual difficulties may also benefit from an inclusion of such focuses.

Bottom line: All complex medical conditions involve multiple factors, which must be teased apart before far reaching pronouncements are appropriate. Landripet & Stulhofer’s statement that, “Pornography does not seem to be a significant risk factor for younger men’s desire, erectile, or orgasmic difficulties” goes too far, since it ignores all the other possible variables related to porn use that might be causing sexual performance problems in users – including escalation to specific genres, which they found, but omitted in the “Brief Communication.” Paragraphs 2 & 3 in our discussion of Landripet & Stulhofer, 2015:

Again, intervention studies would be the most instructive. However, with respect to correlation studies, it is likely that a complex set of variables needs to be investigated in order to elucidate the risk factors at work in unprecedented youthful sexual difficulties. First, it may be that low sexual desire, difficulty orgasming with a partner and erectile problems are part of the same spectrum of Internet pornography-related effects, and that all of these difficulties should be combined when investigating potentially illuminating correlations with Internet pornography use.

Second, although it is unclear exactly which combination of factors may best account for such difficulties, promising variables to investigate in combination with frequency of Internet pornography use might include (1) years of pornography-assisted versus pornography-free masturbation; (2) ratio of ejaculations with a partner to ejaculations with Internet pornography; (3) the presence of Internet pornography addiction/hypersexuality; (4) the number of years of streaming Internet pornography use; (5) at what age regular use of Internet pornography began and whether it began prior to puberty; (6) trend of increasing Internet pornography use; (7) escalation to more extreme genres of Internet pornography, and so forth.

Before confidently claiming that we have nothing to worry about from internet porn, researchers still need to account for the very recent, sharp rise in youthful ED and low sexual desire, and the many studies linking porn use to sexual problems.


Kris Taylor resorts to ad hominem and misrepresentation. I respond.

KRIS TAYLOR: Her source is this paper, which in turn gives numbers sourced from two papers – neither of which reference pornography as causative. Not to mention that the second author of the paper is Gary Wilson, a well-known fervent anti-pornography campaigner.

I was going to ignore Taylor’s ad hominem attack, but the above two sentences expose his tactics and bias. The first sentence misrepresents the content of our review of the literature, while the second attempts to dismiss it by mislabeling me “a fervent anti-pornography campaigner.”

As described earlier my co-authors included 7 US Navy doctors, among them 2 psychiatrists, 2 urologists, and an MD with a PhD in neuroscience from John Hopkins. My co-authors have spent much of their careers treating (primarily) young men. The paper provided 3 clinical case reports of servicemen, who had developed porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. Has Taylor ever seen patients for sexual dysfunctions? Has he ever performed a medical examination? It’s clear that Taylor’s goal was to encourage his reader to ignore the paper, the medical doctors who authored it, and just take his word for the paper’s content and merit.

As for Taylor’s branding me “a fervent anti-porn campaigner,” I have explained in multiple interviews my history and how I ended up creating www.yourbrainonporn in 2011. (For more see this 2016 interview of me by Noah B. Church.) As stated on the site’s “About” page, I am an atheist (as were my parents and grandparents), and my politics are far-left liberal. I had no opinion on porn.

Details: Through a fluke in search engine categorization, around 2007 (shortly after the advent of streaming tube porn), men complaining of porn-induced erectile dysfunction and low libido for real partners began posting on my wife’s rather obscure forum created for discussions around sexual relationships. Over the next few years many otherwise healthy men on that forum healed their sexual dysfunctions by giving up porn. Eventually we blogged about this phenomenon, because so many men found reading their peers’ experiences helpful. Soon my wife’s forum was overflowing with relatively young men seeking to heal the unexpected effects of their internet porn use. During this period, we cannot count how many times we asked academic sexologists to look into this phenomenon. They refused.

Sadly, many of the men suffering from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions had been suicidal when they arrived, fearing that they were broken for life. In the face of continued stonewalling by the experts who should have been investigating the sufferers’ circumstances, we felt a need make a cyberspace available that presented the relevant science and the stories of the men who recovered from a range of porn-induced sexual dysfunctions (chiefly delayed ejaculation, loss of attraction for real partners, and fleeting or unreliable erections). Www.yourbrainonporn.com was born. If it campaigns for anything, it would be sexual health.

Would Taylor’s professors approve of his tactics? If they would, he has spent too much on his tuition.

Is Utah #1 in Porn Use?

UPDATE: The points made below have now been affirmed in peer-reviewed research. In Social Desirability Bias in Pornography-Related Self-Reports: The Role of Religion (2017), Dr. Joshua Grubbs tested his hypothesis that religious individuals are more likely to lie about their porn use (in anonymous surveys studies or to researchers). The “religious people are lying” hypothesis rested on a few state-wide studies, which suggested that conservative or religious states might use more porn. The problem with such claims is that nearly every study that employed anonymous surveys had found lower rates of porn use in religious individuals.

Grubbs found no evidence for religious individuals lying about their porn use. In fact, religious people may be more honest than secular individuals about porn use. This suggests that the state-wide comparisons may be less reliable than anonymous surveys in which each subject’s level of religiosity is identified. Religion appears to be protective against porn use.

From the conclusion:

“However, contrary to popular sentiment-and our own hypotheses-we found no evidence for and much evidence against the suggestion that religious individuals have a more pronounced social desirability bias against the reporting of pornography consumption than the irreligious. Interaction terms assessing that possibility were either nonsignificant or  significant in the reverse direction.”


ARTICLE

Utah is not #1 in porn use. Not even close. That often-repeated meme arose from Benjamin Edelman’s 2009 economics paper “Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?” He relied entirely on subscription data from a single top-ten provider of pay-to-view content when he ranked states on porn consumption – ignoring hundreds of other such websites. Why did he choose that one to analyze?

We do know that Edelman’s analysis was conducted circa 2007, after free, streaming “tube sites” were operational, and porn viewers were increasingly turning to them. So, Edelman’s single data point out of thousands (of free and subscription sites) cannot be presumed to be representative of all US porn users.

Turns out it’s not. In fact, other studies and available data rank Utah porn use between 40th and 50th among the states. See:

  1. This peer-reviewed paper: “A review of pornography use research: Methodology and results from four sources.Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace (2015)
  2. Or this easier to read 2014 article: Rethinking Mormons and Porn: Utah 40th in US in New Porn Data
  3. Per capita page views, taken from Pornhub in 2014 (graph below).

The oft-repeated, but unsupported “Utah as number 1” myth often bolsters another spurious meme, namely, that ‘religious individuals use more porn than nonreligious individuals.’ In fact, the opposite is true. Religiosity predicts far lower rates of porn use.

The preponderance of studies report far lower rates of porn use in religious individuals compared with non-religious individuals. Consider these studies:

  1. Adult Social Bonds and Use of Internet Pornography (2004)
  2. Generation XXX: Pornography Acceptance and Use Among Emerging Adults (2008)
  3. Internet pornography use in the context of external and internal religiosity (2010)
  4. “I believe it is wrong but I still do it”: A comparison of religious young men who do versus do not use pornography. (2010)
  5. Viewing Sexually-Explicit Materials Alone or Together: Associations with Relationship Quality (2011)
  6. Pornography Use: Who Uses It and How It Is Associated with Couple Outcomes (2012)
  7. U.S. males and pornography, 1973-2010: consumption, predictors, correlates (2013)
  8. Adolescent religiousness as a protective factor against pornography use. (2013)
  9. Religiosity, Parent and Peer Attachment, and Sexual Media Use in Emerging Adults (2013)
  10. United States women and pornography through four decades: exposure, attitudes, behaviors, individual differences (2013)
  11. The Relationship Between Religiosity and Internet Pornography Use (2015)
  12. How does religious attendance shape trajectories of pornography use across adolescence? (2016)
  13. Spousal Religiosity, Religious Bonding, and Pornography Consumption (2016)
  14. How Much More XXX is Generation X Consuming? Evidence of Changing Attitudes and Behaviors Related to Pornography Since 1973. (2016)
  15. Religious and Community Hurdles to Pornography Consumption: A National Study of Emerging Adults (2017)
  16. The Influence of Religiosity and Risk Taking on Cybersex Engagement among Postgraduate Students: A Study in Malaysian Universities (2017)
  17. Explicit Sexual Movie Viewing in the United States According to Selected Marriage and Lifestyle, Work and Financial, Religion and Political Factors (2017)
  18. Pornography Use and Loneliness: A Bi-Directional Recursive Model and Pilot Investigation (2017)
  19. Seeing is (Not) Believing: How ViewingPornography Shapes the Religious Livesof Young Americans (2017)
  20. Sexual Attitudes of Classes of College Students Who Use Pornography (2017)
  21. Predicting pornography use over time: Does self-reported “addiction” matter? (2018)

To take another example, a 2011 paper (“The Cyber Pornography Use Inventory: Comparing a Religious and Secular Sample”) reported the percentage of religious and secular college men who used porn at least once a week:

  • Secular: 54%
  • Religious: 19%

A 2010 study on college-aged religious men “I believe it is wrong but I still do it”: A comparison of religious young men who do versus do not use pornography reported that:

  • 65% of religious young men reported viewing no pornography in the past 12 months
  • 8.6% reported viewing two or three days per month
  • 8.6% reported viewing daily or every other day

In contrast, cross-sectional studies of college-age men report relatively high rates of porn viewing (US – 2008: 87%, China – 2012: 86%, Netherlands – 2013 (age 16) – 73%).

Finally, consider two recent studies investigating religiosity in treatment-seeking sex and porn addicts:

The “Utah Is #1” talking point lingers in mainstream journalism and sexology spin long after the science has proven otherwise. Why?

Finally, recent articles about the Joshua Grubbs studies (“perceived addiction studies”) have tried to paint a very misleading picture of what these studies actually reported and what these findings mean. In essence, bloggers, and sometimes Grubbs himself, have claimed that religiosity is strongly related to porn addiction. It’s not. In response to these spurious articles, YBOP published this extensive critique of the claims made in the perceived addiction studies and in the related misleading articles.


Page Views Per Capita on Pornhub (2014): Utah is 40th


 

Porn studies involving female subjects: Effects on arousal, sexual satisfaction, and relationships

While a handful of studies report little effect of women’s porn use on women’s sexual and relationship satisfaction, the vast maturity do report negative effects. This page contains studies linking female porn use to lower sexual or relationship satisfaction.

When evaluating the research, it’s important to know that a relatively small percentage of all coupled females regularly consumes internet porn. Large, nationally representative data are scarce, but the General Social Survey reported that only 2.6% of all US women had visited a “pornographic website” in the last month. The question was only asked in 2002 and 2004 (see Pornography and Marriage, 2014). While rates of porn use by some age groups of adult women have increased since 2004, be careful when comparing rates from other studies. Very few studies are nationally representative (all age groups), and often ask if the subject has seen pornography in the last 12 months. The takeaway is that studies reporting positive or neutral effects on relationship or sexual satisfaction for female porn users are generally taking their data from a small percentage of regular porn users who are not representative of women generally.

Also, It may be that coupled use is less detrimental to users, and coupled use of porn is more common in women (as compared with men).

In any case, in contrast with the few studies reporting no decreased sexual/relationship dissatisfaction in female porn users, below are the many studies linking porn use in women to poorer relationship and sexual satisfaction outcomes in women.

Studies on relationships and sexual satisfaction


Associative pathways between pornography consumption and reduced sexual satisfaction (2017) – While it links porn use to lower sexual satisfaction, it also reported that frequency of porn use was related to a preference (or need?) for porn over people to achieve sexual arousal. An excerpt:

Guided by sexual script theory, social comparison theory, and informed by prior research on pornography, socialization, and sexual satisfaction, the present survey study of heterosexual adults tested a conceptual model linking more frequent pornography consumption to reduced sexual satisfaction via the perception that pornography is a primary source of sexual information, a preference for pornographic over partnered sexual excitement, and the devaluation of sexual communication. The model was supported by the data for both men and women.

Pornography consumption frequency was associated with perceiving pornography as a primary source of sexual information, which was associated with a preference for pornographic over partnered sexual excitement and the devaluation of sexual communication. Preferring pornographic to partnered sexual excitement and devaluing sexual communication were both associated with less sexual satisfaction.

Finally, we found that frequency of pornography consumption was also directly related to a relative preference for pornographic rather than partnered sexual excitement. Participants in the present study primarily consumed pornography for masturbation. Thus, this finding could be indicative of a masturbatory conditioning effect (Cline, 1994; Malamuth, 1981; Wright, 2011). The more frequently pornography is used as an arousal tool for masturbation, the more an individual may become conditioned to pornographic as opposed to other sources of sexual arousal.


Till Porn Do Us Part? Longitudinal Effects of Pornography Use on Divorce (2017) – This longitudinal study used nationally representative General Social Survey panel data collected from thousands of American adults. Respondents were interviewed three times about their pornography use and marital status — every two years from 2006-2010, 2008-2012, or 2010-2014. Excerpts:

Our study is the first to examine how viewing pornography could be associated with marital stability using data that are nationally representative and longitudinal. Using a doubly robust approach that allows us to isolate the longitudinal association between viewing pornography and likelihood of divorce, we find that the likelihood of divorce roughly doubles for those who begin pornography use between waves. While this association looks slightly stronger for women in terms of predicted probabilities, men and women did not differ significantly from one another. Conversely, we found that ending porn use was associated with a lower likelihood of divorce, but only for women

Beginning pornography use between survey waves nearly doubled one’s likelihood of being divorced by the next survey period, from 6 percent to 11 percent, and nearly tripled it for women, from 6 percent to 16 percent. Our results suggest that viewing pornography, under certain social conditions, may have negative effects on marital stability. Conversely, discontinuing pornography use between survey waves was associated with a lower probability of divorce, but only for women.

Additional analyses also showed that the association between beginning pornography use and the probability of divorce was particularly strong among younger Americans, those who were less religious, and those who reported greater initial marital happiness


Are Pornography Users More Likely to Experience A Romantic Breakup? Evidence from Longitudinal Data (2017)Excerpt:

This study examined whether Americans who use pornography, either at all or more frequently, are more prone to report experiencing a romantic breakup over time. Longitudinal data were taken from the 2006 and 2012 waves of the nationally representative Portraits of American Life Study. Binary logistic regression analyses demonstrated that Americans who viewed pornography at all in 2006 were nearly twice as likely as those who never viewed pornography to report experiencing a romantic breakup by 2012, even after controlling for relevant factors such as 2006 relationship status and other sociodemographic correlates. This association was considerably stronger for men than for women and for unmarried Americans than for married Americans. Analyses also showed a linear relationship between how frequently Americans viewed pornography in 2006 and their odds of experiencing a breakup by 2012.

While the likelihood of women experiencing a breakup only rose about 34 percent with earlier porn viewing (from 15.4 percent to 23.5 percent), the likelihood of male porn users experiencing a breakup was over 3.5 times that of non-porn users (22.5 percent compared to 6.3 percent).


The Development of the Problematic Pornography Consumption Scale (PPCS) (2017) – This paper’s goal was the creation of a problematic porn use questionnaire. In the process of validating the instruments, the researchers found that higher scores on the porn use questionnaire were related to lower sexual satisfaction. Gender differences in relationship satisfaction were not mentioned. An excerpt:

Therefore, a total of 772 participants (females = 390, 50.5%; males = 382, 45.5%) were retained for further analyses who were between ages 18 and 54

Satisfaction with sexual life was weakly and negatively correlated with PPCS scores


Relationship quality predicts online sexual activities among Chinese heterosexual men and women in committed relationships (2016) – An excerpt:

Three hundred and forty-four participants with steady partners (i.e., dating or married) in China volunteered to take part in the study, including 178 men and 166 women from 29 provinces/regions in China. In this study, we examined the online sexual activities (OSAs) of Chinese men and women in committed relationships, with a focus on the characteristics of OSAs and the factors prompting men and women with steady partners to engage in OSAs. Almost 89% of the participants reported OSA experiences in the past 12 months even when they had a real-life partner.

As predicted, individuals with lower relationship quality in real life, including low relationship satisfaction, insecure attachment, and negative communication patterns, engaged in OSAs more frequently. Additionally, dyadic satisfaction significantly predicted OSAs among both men and women. Overall, our results suggest that variables influencing offline infidelity may also influence online infidelity.


Sexually explicit media use and relationship satisfaction a moderating role of emotional intimacy? (2016) – The authors attempt to obfuscate their findings in the abstract by stating that once sexual and relationship variables were “controlled for”, they found no link between between porn use and relationship satisfaction. Reality: The study found significant correlations between porn use and poorer relationship & sexual satisfaction in both males and females. Excerpt from discussion section:

For both men and women, significant, yet modest negative zero-order correlations between SEM use and relationship satisfaction were found, indicating that increased SEM use was associated with lower relationship satisfaction across gender.


Effect of soft core pornography on female sexuality (2016) – Excerpt:

This is a cross-sectional study in which 200 sexually active married women were administered a self-filling questionnaire covering different aspects of female sexuality. All participants were free from any disease known to affect sexual function. In total 52% of the participants and 59.5% of their husbands were positive watchers.

An overall 51.6% of participants who were aware that their husbands were positive watchers reported experiencing negative emotions (depression, jealous), whereas 77% reported changes in their husbands’ attitude. Non-watchers watchers were more satisfied with their sexual life compared with their counterparts. Although watching soft-core pornography had a statistically significant effect on sexual desire, vaginal lubrication, ability to reach orgasm, and masturbation, it had no statistically significant effect on coital frequency. Watching soft-core pornography affects female sexual life by increasing sexual boredom in both men and women, causing relational difficulties.


Internet Pornography Consumption and Relationship Commitment of Filipino Married Individuals (2016) – Excerpt:

A self-administered survey was distributed to 400 selected Filipino married individuals who were married individuals that are watching pornography on the Internet who are living in Quezon City.

Internet pornography has many adverse effects, especially to the relationship commitment. The use of pornography directly correlates to a decrease in sexual intimacy. Hence, this might lead to weakening of the relationship of their partner. To find out the relevance of the claim, the researchers aimed to explore the relationship of Internet pornography consumption to the relationship commitment of married individuals in the Philippines. It is revealed that Internet pornography consumption has an adverse effect on the relationship commitment of married Filipino couples. Furthermore, watching porn online weakened the relationship commitment that leads to an unstable relationship. This investigation found out that internet pornography consumption has a nominal negative effect on the relationship commitment of Filipino married individuals.


Cyberpornography: Time Use, Perceived Addiction, Sexual Functioning, and Sexual Satisfaction (2016) – Excerpt:

First, even when controlling for perceived addiction to cyberpornography and overall sexual functioning, cyberpornography use remained directly associated with sexual dissatisfaction. Even though this negative direct association was of small magnitude, time spent viewing cyberpornography seems to be a robust predictor of lower sexual satisfaction.

Our results highlight that psychosexual outcomes are similar for men and women. Thus, we observed negative psychosexual functioning in both women and men.


The effects of sexually explicit material use on romantic relationship dynamics (2016) – Excerpts:

Participants included 75 males (25%) and 221 females (75%) aged 18–87 years

More specifically, couples, where no one used, reported more relationship satisfaction than those couples that had individual users. This is consistent with the previous research (Cooper et al., 1999; Manning, 2006), demonstrating that the solitary use of sexually explicit material results in negative consequences.

With gender effects held constant, individual users reported significantly less intimacy and commitment in their relationships than non-users and shared users.

Overall, how frequently someone views sexually explicit material can have an impact on users’ consequences. Our study found that high frequency users are more likely to have lower relationship satisfaction and intimacy in their romantic relationships.


Factors Predicting Cybersex Use and Difficulties in Forming Intimate Relationships among Male and Female Users of Cybersex (2015)Excerpt:

This study used the Cybersex addiction test, Craving for pornography questionnaire, and a Questionnaire on intimacy among 267 participants (192 males and 75 females) mean age for males 28 and for females 25, who were recruited from special sites that are dedicated to pornography and cybersex on the Internet. Results of regression analysis indicated that pornography, gender, and cybersex significantly predicted difficulties in intimacy and it accounted for 66.1% of the variance of rating on the intimacy questionnaire.

Second, regression analysis also indicated that craving for pornography, gender, and difficulties in forming intimate relationships significantly predicted frequency of cybersex use and it accounted for 83.7% of the variance in ratings of cybersex use.

Third, men had higher scores of frequency of using cybersex than women and higher scores of craving for pornography than women and no higher scores on the questionnaire measuring difficulties in forming intimate relationship than women.


Relationship of love and marital satisfaction with pornography among married university students in Birjand, Iran (2015) – Excerpts:

This descriptive-correlation study was conducted on 310 married students studying at private and public universities in Birjand, in 2012-2013 academic year using random quota sampling method.

Conclusion: It appears that pornography has a negative impact on love and marital satisfaction….. There was no significant gender-difference in overall mean scores of marital satisfaction.


Pornography and Marriage (2014) – All bad news, and it’s getting worse. Excerpts:

We used data on 20,000 ever-married adults in the General Social Survey to examine the relationship between watching pornographic films and various measures of marital well-being. We found that adults who had watched an X-rated movie in the past year were more likely to be divorced, more likely to have had an extramarital affair, and less likely to report being happy with their marriage or happy overall. We also found that, for men, pornography use reduced the positive relationship between frequency of sex and happiness. Finally, we found that the negative relationship between pornography use and marital well-being has, if anything, grown stronger over time, during a period in which pornography has become both more explicit and more easily available.

Our results were similar when we control for gender, age, race, education, and number of children, and they shrank by about one third when we included controls for frequency of religious attendance.

For women, all of the coefficients have the same sign but were generally smaller in magnitude than those of men. Women who reported using pornography had 10% higher odds of being divorced, 95 % higher odds of having had an extramarital affair, 8% lower odds of reporting having a very happy marriage, and about 2% lower odds of being very happy with their life overall


Associations between relational sexual behaviour, pornography use, and pornography acceptance among US college students (2014) – Excerpt:

Using a sample of 792 emerging adults, the present study explored how the combined examination of pornography use, acceptance, and sexual behaviour within a relationship might offer insight into emerging adults’ development. Results suggested clear gender differences in both pornography use and acceptance patterns. High male pornography use tended to be associated with high engagement in sex within a relationship and was associated with elevated risk-taking behaviours. High female pornography use was not associated with engagement in sexual behaviours within a relationship and was general associated with negative mental health outcomes.


Internet Pornography Exposure and Women’s Attitude Towards Extramarital Sex: An Exploratory Study (2013) – Excerpt:

This exploratory study assessed the association between adult U.S. women’s exposure to Internet pornography and attitude towards extramarital sex using data provided by the General Social Survey (GSS). A positive association between Internet pornography viewing and more positive extramarital sex attitudes was found.


Young Adult Women’s Reports of Their Male Romantic Partner’s Pornography Use as a Correlate of Their Self-Esteem, Relationship Quality, and Sexual Satisfaction (2012) – Excerpt:

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between men’s pornography use, both frequency and problematic use, on their heterosexual female partner’s psychological and relational well-being among 308 young adult college women. Results revealed women’s reports of their male partner’s frequency of pornography use were negatively associated with their relationship quality. More perceptions of problematic use of pornography was negatively correlated with self-esteem, relationship quality, and sexual satisfaction.


A Love That Doesn’t Last: Pornography Consumption and Weakened Commitment to One’s Romantic Partner (2012) – The study had subjects try to abstain from porn use for 3 weeks. Upon comparing the two groups, those who continued using pornography reported lower levels of commitment than those who tried to abstain. Excerpts:

Participants were 367 undergraduates (300 female) from a Southeastern university who participated in the study for partial course credit in a family development course. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 26 with a median age of 19 and reported being in a heterosexual, romantic relationship.

Study 1 found that higher pornography consumption was related to lower commitment

Study 3 participants were randomly assigned to either refrain from viewing pornography or to a self-control task. Those who continued using pornography reported lower levels of commitment than control participants.

Study 5 found that pornography consumption was positively related to infidelity and this association was mediated by commitment. Overall, a consistent pattern of results was found using a variety of approaches including cross-sectional (Study 1), observational (Study 2), experimental (Study 3), and behavioral (Studies 4 and 5) data.


Associations between young adults’ use of sexually explicit materials and their sexual preferences, behaviors, and satisfaction (2011) – Excerpts:

In this study, 92% of young men and 50% of young women reported having ever used a variety of types of SEM.

Higher frequencies of sexual explicit material (SEM) use were associated with less sexual and relationship satisfaction. The frequency of SEM use and number of SEM types viewed were both associated with higher sexual preferences for the types of sexual practices typically presented in SEM. These findings suggest that SEM use can play a significant role in a variety of aspects of young adults’ sexual development processes. Specifically, higher viewing frequency was associated with less sexual and relationship satisfaction when controlling for gender, religiosity, dating status and the number of SEM types viewed.

It appears as though SEM use is associated with specific sexual preferences in addition to being associated with earlier and greater sexual experiences, as well as lower sexual and relationship satisfaction. This combination reveals that, despite having a well-defined set of preferences and experiences, individuals frequently using SEM are nonetheless less satisfied with these experiences.

For women, SEM viewing frequency was not correlated with sexual satisfaction and was only marginally negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction.

Finally, regression analyses revealed that both SEM viewing frequency and the number of SEM types viewed uniquely predicted all three sexual preference variables. These robust relationships (particularly with the ‘‘kinky sex’’ subscale) indicate that heavy consumers of SEM hold similar sexual preferences to those frequently portrayed in SEM (e.g., Jensen & Dines, 1998; Krassas et al., 2003; Menard & Kleinplatz, 2008).


Viewing Sexually-Explicit Materials Alone or Together: Associations with Relationship Quality (2011) – Excerpts:

This study investigated associations between viewing sexually-explicit material (SEM) and relationship functioning in a random sample of 1291 unmarried individuals in romantic relationships. 

Those who viewed SEM only with their partners reported more dedication and higher sexual satisfaction than those who viewed SEM alone. Individuals who never viewed SEM reported higher relationship quality on all indices than those who viewed SEM alone. The only difference between those who never viewed SEM and those who viewed it only with their partners was that those who never viewed it had lower rates of infidelity.


Exploring actor and partner correlates of sexual satisfaction among married couples (2010) – Excerpt:

Using the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction, we consider how infidelity, pornography consumption, marital satisfaction, sexual frequency, premarital sex, and cohabitation are associated with married couples’ sexual satisfaction. Data from 433 couples are analyzed with structural equation models to determine the contributions. Finally, some evidence suggests that pornography consumption is costly for own and spouse’s sexual satisfaction, especially when pornography is used by only one spouse.


Adolescents’ Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Sexual Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study (2009) – Excerpt:

Between May 2006 and May 2007, we conducted a three-wave panel survey among 1,052 Dutch adolescents aged 13–20. Structural equation modeling revealed that exposure to SEIM consistently reduced adolescents’ sexual satisfaction. Lower sexual satisfaction (in Wave 2) also increased the use of SEIM (in Wave 3). The effect of exposure to SEIM on sexual satisfaction did not differ among male and female adolescents.


Use of pornography in a random sample of Norwegian heterosexual couples (2009) – Porn use was correlated with more sexual dysfunctions in the man and negative self perception in the female. The couples who did not use porn had no sexual dysfunctions. A few excerpts from the study:

In couples where only one partner used pornography, we found more problems related to arousal (male) and negative (female) self-perception.

In those couples where one partner used pornography there was a permissive erotic climate. At the same time, these couples seemed to have more dysfunctions.

The couples who did not use pornography... may be considered more traditional in relation to the theory of sexual scripts. At the same time, they did not seem to have any dysfunctions.

Couples who both reported pornography use grouped to the positive pole on the ‘‘Erotic climate’’ function and somewhat to the negative pole on the ‘‘Dysfunctions’’ function.


Sex in America Online: An Exploration of Sex, Marital Status, and Sexual Identity in Internet Sex Seeking and Its Impacts (2008) – Excerpt:

This was an exploratory study of sex and relationship seeking on the Internet, based on a survey of 15,246 respondents in the United States Seventy-five percent of men and 41% of women had intentionally viewed or downloaded porn. Men and gays/lesbians were more likely to access porn or engage in other sex-seeking behaviors online compared with straights or women. A symmetrical relationship was revealed between men and women as a result of viewing pornography, with women reporting more negative consequences, including lowered body image, partner critical of their body, increased pressure to perform acts seen in pornographic films, and less actual sex, while men reported being more critical of their partners’ body and less interested in actual sex.


Adult Social Bonds and Use of Internet Pornography (2004) – (did not differentiate between men and women) Excerpt:

Complete data on 531 Internet users are taken from the General Social Surveys for 2000. Social bonds measures include religious, marital, and political ties. Measures of participation in sexual and drug-related deviant lifestyles, and demographic controls are included. The results of a logistic regression analysis found that among the strongest predictors of use of cyberporn were weak ties to religion and lack of a happy marriage.


Pornography’s Impact on Sexual Satisfaction (1988) – Excerpt:

Male and female students and nonstudents were exposed to videotapes featuring common, nonviolent pornography or innocuous content. Exposure was in hourly sessions in six consecutive weeks. In the seventh week, subjects participated in an ostensibly unrelated study on societal institutions and personal gratifications. [Porn use] strongly impacted self-assessment of sexual experience. After consumption of pornography, subjects reported less satisfaction with their intimate partners—specifically, with these partners’ affection, physical appearance, sexual curiosity, and sexual performance proper. In addition, subjects assigned increased importance to sex without emotional involvement. These effects were uniform across gender and populations.


Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography on Family Values (1988) – Excerpts:

Male and female students and nonstudents were exposed to videotapes featuring common, nonviolent pornography or innocuous content. Exposure was in hourly sessions in six consecutive weeks. In the seventh week, subjects participated in an ostensibly unrelated study on societal institutions and personal gratifications. Marriage, cohabitational relationships, and related issues were judged on an especially created Value-of-Marriage questionnaire. The findings showed a consistent impact of pornography consumption. Exposure prompted, among other things, greater acceptance of pre- and extramarital sex and greater tolerance of nonexclusive sexual access to intimate partners. It enhanced the belief that male and female promiscuity are natural and that the repression of sexual inclinations poses a health risk. Exposure lowered the evaluation of marriage, making this institution appear less significant and less viable in the future. Exposure also reduced the desire to have children and promoted the acceptance of male dominance and female servitude. With few exceptions, these effects were uniform for male and female respondents as well as for students and nonstudents.


Landripet, Ivan; Štulhofer, Aleksandar; Jurin, Tanja

IASR Fortieth Annual Meeting Book of AbstractsDubrovnik

Pornography Use; Pornography Addiction; Sexual Difficulties and Dysfunctions; Hypoactive Sexual Desire; Erectile Dysfunction

Dubrovnik, Hrvatska, 25.-28. lipnja 2014.

A couple of recent large-scale epidemiological studies pointed to a surprisingly high prevalence of erectile dysfunction among young men (Mialon et al., 2012 ; Martins, 2010). It has been suggested that this “epidemic” is explained by excessive online pornography use. Similar concerns have been raised in response to anecdotal evidence of partnered sexual desire deficit. To empirically assess these claims, which reverberate in recent calls for systematic regulation of pornography, we explored: if pornography use is associated with male and female sexual dysfunctions (SD) ; if an increased frequency of pornography use is associated with SD ; and if the association between pornography use and sexual functioning is moderated by pornography genre (mainstream vs. specific/paraphilic contents).

Participants were recruited through Facebook and banners posted on several news and dating websites. In total, 4, 597 were included in the analyses (18-60 yrs ; mean age=31.1 ; 56.5% women). 56.3% reported college education and 38.4% were married/cohabitating.  Frequency of pornography use in the past 12 months, the time spent on pornography use in a typical day within that period, and their interaction indicated the intensity of pornography use.

Finding related to females:

However, increased pornography use was slightly but significantly associated with decreased interest for partnered sex (and more prevalent sexual dysfunction) among women.


The Survey of Sexual Health and Pornography among Divorce-Asking Women in West Azerbaijan-Iran: A Cross-Sectional Study (2017) – Excerpts:

One of the factors affecting the incidence of divorce and relationship problems between couples is the sexual and marital behaviors. There are several different reasons to suspect that pornography might affect divorce in either a positive or a negative way. Therefore this study evaluated the sexual health of divorce-asking in Urmia, Iran.

Conclusions: The results of the study indicated that who had low sexual satisfaction score, had higher rate of watching pornography clips. Based on current study, paying attention to family education and counseling programs especially in the sexual field will be more fruitful.


Personal Pornography Viewing and Sexual Satisfaction: A Quadratic Analysis (2017) – Excerpts:

This article presents results from a survey of approximately 1,500 U.S. adults. Quadratic analyses indicated a curvilinear relationship between personal pornography viewing and sexual satisfaction in the form of a predominately negative, concave downward curve. The nature of the curvilinearity did not differ as a function of participants’ gender, relationship status, or religiosity.

For all groups, negative simple slopes were present when viewing reached once a month or more. These results are correlational only. However, if an effects perspective were adopted, they would suggest that consuming pornography less than once a month has little or no impact on satisfaction, that reductions in satisfaction tend to initiate once viewing reaches once a month, and that additional increases in the frequency of viewing lead to disproportionately larger decrements in satisfaction.


Neurological studies involving female porn users

Cybersex addiction in heterosexual female users of internet pornography can be explained by gratification hypothesis (2014) – An excerpt:

In the context of Internet addiction, cybersex is considered to be an Internet application in which users are at risk for developing addictive usage behavior. Regarding males, experimental research has shown that indicators of sexual arousal and craving in response to Internet pornographic cues are related to severity of cybersex addiction in Internet pornography users (IPU). Since comparable investigations on females do not exist, the aim of this study is to investigate predictors of cybersex addiction in heterosexual women.

We examined 51 female IPU and 51 female non-Internet pornography users (NIPU). Using questionnaires, we assessed the severity of cybersex addiction in general, as well as propensity for sexual excitation, general problematic sexual behavior, and severity of psychological symptoms. Additionally, an experimental paradigm, including a subjective arousal rating of 100 pornographic pictures, as well as indicators of craving, was conducted.

Results indicated that IPU rated pornographic pictures as more arousing and reported greater craving due to pornographic picture presentation compared with NIPU. Moreover, craving, sexual arousal rating of pictures, sensitivity to sexual excitation, problematic sexual behavior, and severity of psychological symptoms predicted tendencies toward cybersex addiction in IPU. Being in a relationship, number of sexual contacts, satisfaction with sexual contacts, and use of interactive cybersex were not associated with cybersex addiction. These results are in line with those reported for heterosexual males in previous studies.

Findings regarding the reinforcing nature of sexual arousal, the mechanisms of learning, and the role of cue reactivity and craving in the development of cybersex addiction in IPU need to be discussed.


Exploring the Relationship between Sexual Compulsivity and Attentional Bias to Sex-Related Words in a Cohort of Sexually Active Individuals (2016) – Fifty-five participants who identified themselves as ‘sexually active’ and ‘heterosexual’ (28 male, 27 female; mean age 28.4, SD 10.4, range 20–69) took part in the study.

This study replicates the findings of this 2014 Cambridge University study that compared the attentional bias of porn addicts to healthy controls. The new study differs: rather than comparing porn addicts to controls, the new study correlated scores on a sex addiction questionnaire to the results of a task assessing attentional bias (explanation of attentional bias). The study described two key results:

  1. Higher sexual compulsivity scores correlated with greater interference (increased distraction) during the attentional bias task. This aligns with substance abuse studies.
  2. Among those scoring high on sexual addiction, fewer years of sexual experience were related to greater attentional bias.

The authors concluded that this result could indicate that more years of “compulsive sexual activity” lead to greater habituation or a general numbing of the pleasure response (desensitization). An excerpt from the conclusion section:

“One possible explanation for these results is that as a sexually compulsive individual engages in more compulsive behaviour, an associated arousal template develops and that over time, more extreme behaviour is required for the same level of arousal to be realised. It is further argued that as an individual engages in more compulsive behaviour, neuropathways become desensitized to more ‘normalised’ sexual stimuli or images and individuals turn to more ‘extreme’ stimuli to realise the arousal desired.”

No differences seen between male and female participants:

No effects of age or gender (males: M = 20.75, SD 46.61; females: M = 19.30, SD 52.46) on interference scores were shown and are not considered in subsequent analyses.


Problematic sexual behavior in young adults: Associations across clinical, behavioral, and neurocognitive variables (2016) – Subjects included males & females. Individuals with Problematic Sexual Behaviors (PSB) exhibited several neuro-cognitive deficits. These findings indicate poorer executive functioning (hypofrontality) which is a key brain feature occurring in drug addicts. A few excerpts:

From this characterization, it is be possible to trace the problems evident in PSB and additional clinical features, such as emotional dysregulation, to particular cognitive deficits…. If the cognitive problems identified in this analysis are actually the core feature of PSB, this may have notable clinical implications.


Sexual Desire, not Hypersexuality, is Related to Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images (2013) – Subjects included males & females. EEG study was touted in the media as evidence against the existence of porn/sex addiction. Not so. This SPAN Lab study, like the one below, actually lends support to the existence of both porn addiction and porn use down-regulating sexual desire. In line with the Cambridge University brain scan studies, this EEG study also reported greater cue-reactivity to porn correlating with less desire for partnered sex. To put another way – individuals with greater brain activation to porn would rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a real person. Shockingly, study spokesman Nicole Prause claimed that porn users merely had “high libido”, yet the results of the study say something quite different .Five peer-reviewed papers expose the truth: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also see the extensive YBOP critique.


Modulation of Late Positive Potentials by Sexual Images in Problem Users and Controls Inconsistent with “Porn Addiction” (2015) – Subjects included males & females. Another SPAN Lab EEG (brain-wave) study comparing the 2013 subjects from the above study to an actual control group (yet it suffered from the same methodological flaws named above). The results: compared to controls “individuals experiencing problems regulating their porn viewing” had lower brain responses to one-second exposure to photos of vanilla porn. The lead author, Nicole Prause, claims these results “debunk porn addiction”.

In reality, the findings of Prause et al. 2015 align perfectly with Kühn & Gallinat (2014), which found that more porn use correlated with less brain activation in response to pictures of vanilla porn. Prause’s findings also align with Banca et al. 2015. Lower EEG readings mean that subjects are paying less attention to the pictures. Put simply, frequent porn users were desensitized to static images of vanilla porn. They were bored (habituated or desensitized). These findings are consistent with tolerance, a sign of addiction. Tolerance is defined as a person’s diminished response to a drug or stimulus that is the result of repeated use. See this extensive YBOP critique. Five peer-reviewed papers agree that this study actually found desensitization/habituation in frequent porn users: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Nicole Prause’s Harassment, Cyber-stalking, Defamation, and “Astroturf” Campaign

This page was created to counter the ongoing harassment and false claims made by former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause as part of an ongoing “astroturf” campaign to persuade people that anyone who disagrees with her conclusions deserves to be reviled. Watch this short, excellent TEDx talk, “Astroturf and manipulation of media messages” | Sharyl Attkisson – YouTube if you aren’t familiar with the astroturf phenomenon. The speaker explains which terms give away astroturf campaigns such as, “debunking myths (that aren’t myths),” claims of “pseudoscience,” disregard/disparagement of opposing scientific findings, and all personal attacks that do not address substance. Count how many of them appear below! (Prause has also falsely, publicly, repeatedly claimed to have a court restraining order against Wilson: See details.)

Since this page was first created Prause has targeted others, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, former UCLA colleagues, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, and the head of the academic journal CUREUS. These incidents are in the “OTHERS” sections. Several additional incidents have occurred that we are not at liberty to divulge. This page is arranged roughly in chronological order.

Important point: While Prause continues to falsely claim she is “the victim,” it is Prause who initiated all contact and harassment towards the individuals and organizations listed on this page. No one on this list has harassed Nicole Prause. Her fabricated claims about being a victim of “stalking” or misogyny from “anti-porn activists” lack one iota of documentation. Put simply, Prause has created a mythology with zero verifiable evidence, while being closely allied with the porn industry. All the evidence she provides is self-generated: a single info-graphic, a few emails from her to others describing harassment, and several spurious cease and desist letters containing false allegations.

Update: In an attempt to hide her egregious behavior Prause has deleted many of the tweets linked to on this page and has filed 2 bogus DMCA takedowns to have the screenshots of her tweets removed.

Table of Contents:

  1. March & April, 2013: The beginning of Nicole Prause’s harassment, false claims and threats (after she & David Ley target Wilson in a PT blog post)
  2. July, 2013: Prause publishes her first EEG study (Steele et al., 2013). Wilson critiques it. Prause employs multiple usernames to post lies around the Web
  3. Others – August, 2013: John A. Johnson PhD debunks Prause’s claims about Steele et al., 2013. Prause retaliates
  4. November 2013: Prause places a libelous PDF on her SPAN Lab website. Content mirrors “anonymous” comments around the Web
  5. December 2013: Prause’s initial tweet is about Wilson & the CBC. Prause sockpuppet “RealScience” posts same false claims on same day
  6. Fall 2014: Documentation of Prause lying to film producers about Gary Wilson and Donald L. Hilton Jr., MD
  7. May 2014: Dozens of Prause sock puppets post information on porn recovery forums that only Prause would know or care about
  8. Others – Summer 2014: Prause urges patients to report sex addiction therapists to state boards
  9. January, 2015: “The Prause Chapter” described 9 months earlier by a YourBrainRebalanced.com troll is finally published
  10. Others – 2015 & 2016: Prause falsely accuses sex addiction therapists of reparative therapy
  11. Others – March, 2015 (ongoing): Prause and her sock puppets (including “PornHelps”) go after Gabe Deem
  12. Others – October 2015: Prause’s original Twitter account is permanently suspended for harassment
  13. Others – November, 2015: Cureus Journal founder John Adler MD blogs about Prause & David Ley harassment
  14. Others – March, 2016: Prause (falsely) tells TIME Magazine that Gabe Deem impersonated a doctor to write a formal critique of her study (letter to the editor) in an academic journal (and the letter was traced to Gabe’s computer)
  15. Others – June, 2016: Prause and her sock puppet PornHelps claim that respected neuroscientists are members of “anti-porn groups” and “their science is bad”
  16. Others – July, 2016: Prause & David Ley attack NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes
  17. Others – July, 2016: Prause falsely accuses @PornHelp.org of harassment, libel, and promoting hate
  18. Others – July, 2016: Prause & sock puppet “PornHelps” attack Alexander Rhodes, falsely claiming he faked porn-induced sexual problems
  19. Others – July, 2016: Nicole Prause & “PornHelps” falsely accuse TIME editor Belinda Luscombe of lying and misquoting
  20. Others – April, 2016: A Nicole Prause sock puppet edits the Belinda Luscombe Wikipedia page
  21. Others – September 2016: Prause attacks and libels former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid PhD. 2 years earlier “TellTheTruth” posted the exact same claims & documents on a porn recovery site frequented by Prause’s many sock puppets
  22. September, 2016: Prause libels Gary Wilson and others with AmazonAWS documents & infographic (which Prause tweeted dozens of times)
  23. Others – Prause falsely accuses Donald Hilton, MD
  24. Others – September 25, 2016: Prause attacks therapist Paula Hall
  25. Others – October, 2016: Prause commits perjury attempting to silence Alexander Rhodes
  26. 2015 & 2016: Prause violates COPE’s code of conduct to harass Gary Wilson and a Scottish charity
  27. October, 2016 – Prause publishes her spurious October, 2015 “cease and desist” letter. Wilson responds by publishing his letter to Prause’s lawyer.
  28. October, 2016 – Prause had co-presenter Susan Stiritz “warn campus police” that Gary Wilson might fly 2000 miles to listen to Prause say porn addiction isn’t real
  29. Ongoing – Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters
  30. Others – October, 2016: Prause falsely states that SASH and IITAP “board members and practitioners are openly sexist and assaultive to scientists
  31. Others – November, 2016: Prause asks VICE magazine to fire infectious disease specialist Keren Landman, MD for supporting Prop 60 (condoms in porn)
  32. Others – November, 2016: Prause falsely claims to have sent cease & desist letters to panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast
  33. Others – December, 2016: In a Quora answer Prause tells a porn addict to visit a prostitute (a violation of APA ethics and California law)
  34. Others – December, 2016: Prause reports Fight the New Drug to the State of Utah (tweets over 30 times about FTND)
  35. Others – January, 2017: Nicole Prause tweets that Noah B. Church is a scientifically inaccurate non-expert and religious profiteer
  36. Others – January, 2017: Prause smears professor Frederick M. Toates with a laughable claim
  37. Others – January, 2017: Prause defames publisher MDPI calling Behavioral Sciences a “fake journal” (harasses several journal contributors)
  38. Others – January, 2017 (and earlier): Prause employs multiple user accounts (including “NotGaryWilson”) to edit Wikipedia
  39. Others – April, 2017: Prause insults Professor Gail Dines, PhD, perhaps for joining the “Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography?”
  40. Others – May, 2017: Prause attacks SASH (Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health)
  41. Others – May, 2017: In response to paper presented at a urology conference Prause calls US Navy urologists “activists, not scientists.”
  42. Others – September, 2017: Prause claims all who believe porn can be harmful and addictive are “science-illiterate & misogynistic”
  43. Others – January 24, 2018: Prause files groundless complaint with Washington State against therapist Staci Sprout
  44. Others – January 29, 2018: Prause threatens therapists who would diagnose sexual behavior addicts using the upcoming “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” diagnosis in the ICD-11
  45. Others – February, 2018: Prause lies about a brain scan study (Seok & Sohn, 2018) by well-respected neuroscientists
  46. March, 2018 – Libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University
  47. March 5, 2018 – Prause permanently banned from Quora for harassing Gary Wilson
  48. March 12, 2018 – Prause’s Liberos Twitter account suspended for posting Gary Wilson’s private information in violation of Twitter Rules
  49. March and April, 2018 – Prause files bogus DMCA takedown requests in an attempt to hide her harassment and defamation
  50. Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials
  51. Others – April 11, 2018: Prause falsely claims medical journal Cureus engages in fraud and is predatory
  52. May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple usernames to edit the MDPI Wikipedia page (banned for defamation & sock-puppetry)
  53. Others – May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit the NoFap Wikipedia page
  54. Others – May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit “Sex Addiction” & “Porn Addiction” Wikipedia pages
  55. May 20, 2018 – Ley & Prause falsely claim that Gary Wilson & Don Hilton gave evidence in a case by Chris Sevier
  56. May 30, 2018 – Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice
  57. From 2015 through 2018 – Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted
  58. Prause’s history of intentionally mischaracterizing porn related research (including her own)

In The Beginning – March & April 2013: The beginning of Nicole Prause’s libel, threats and harassment (after she & David Ley target Wilson in a PT blog post)

  • Key point: Prause initiated all direct contacts with Gary Wilson. Prause continues to publicly harass and libel Wilson while simultaneously (falsely) claiming he is under a court’s “no contact” order. This is like punching an innocent person in the face while simultaneously screaming “Stop hitting me!”

March 5, 2013

Author of “The Myth of Sex Addiction,” David Ley, and Nicole Prause team up to write a Psychology Today blog post with the strategic title: “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” (Your Brain On Porn is a website founded by Wilson.) It was about Nicole Prause’s unpublished, yet to be peer-reviewed EEG study (“Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images”).

It’s important to note that only Ley received access to Prause’s unpublished study (it was published 5 months later). The blog post linked to Wilson’s ‘Your Brain on Porn’ website and suggested that YBOP was in favor of banning porn (untrue).

  • Second key point: Five months before Prause’s EEG study (Steele et al., 2013) was published, both Prause and Ley were targeting Gary Wilson and his website.

March 7, 2013

Wilson published a Psychology Today blog post responding to the content in the David Ley post. Ley’s blog post and Wilson’s response were eventually removed by Psychology Today editors, as the underlying study wasn’t yet available. You can find the original Ley and Wilson blog posts archived here. It’s important to note that Wilson’s blog post clearly states it was only responding to Ley’s description of the Prause study. Later Nicole Prause would falsely accuse Wilson of misrepresenting her study (that only she and Ley had seen, and were making public claims about – which were later shown to be unfounded).

March 7, 2013

Wilson posts under David Ley’s article requesting the study:

“Hey David – I’m wondering how you got your hands on a study that has yet to published, or mentioned anywhere else. Are you willing to send me a copy?”

David Ley did not respond.

April 10, 2013

In response to the above comment, Prause contacted the Psychology Today editors, commented under my PT article, and emailed Wilson the following. In the email, Prause attacks Wilson personally, and mistakenly states that he did not ask for the study. He had, in fact, asked David Ley for it. The email:

Psychology Today (no-reply@psychologytoday.com)
4/10/13
To: _______@hotmail.com

From: Nicole Prause <nprause@________>
Dear Mr. Wilson,

It is illegal for you to misrepresent our science having never even requested a copy of the manuscript. It will be treated as such. Our article actually is very balanced. Unlike you, I have peer-reviewed publications on both sides of this issue. You have attempted to discredit it by describing things that were not done. I am pursuing this with Psychology Today now, but I would advise  you to remove the post yourself before I am forced to pursue further action.

You also do not have permission to quote any portion of this email. It is private communication.

Sell your books on your own merit. Don’t try to make money off the backs of scientists doing their jobs. I can tell this study clearly panics you because  the design and data are strong, but it is egregious to have not even asked  for a copy of the manuscript and just make up content. Shame on you.

Nicole Prause, PhD
Research faculty
UCLA

In addition, Psychology Today editors forwarded a second email from Prause:

Date: April 10, 2013 5:13:30 PM EDT
Topic: Comment on the Blogs

From: Nicole Prause, PhD <nprause@_____________

To whom it may concern:

I was surprised to see an article written about a study of mine by Gary Wilson on Psychology Today.

I have no problem with him representing his own views and interpretations of studies, but he does not and could not have had access to mine. It is under review and he never requested a copy from any of the authors. I notified him that it should be removed. He has not yet done so. Of course, once it is public record, he will have access to it and be able to represent it (hopefully) more accurately.

Of course, knowingly misrepresenting a person to denigrate them is illegal. I hope Psychology Today will take this matter seriously. I will contact other board members as well, in case your cue is full and may take longer to respond.

Thank you for your help in resolving this matter.

sincerely,
Nicole Prause, PhD

At the same time, Prause posted this comment under Gary Wilson’s Psychology Today post:

Study not requested nor reviewed

Submitted by Nicole Prause, PhD on April 10, 2013 – 1:54pm.

Unfortunately, these authors never requested access to our manuscript, so they actually did not review it. They have made a number of egregious errors misrepresenting the science in this article. I am investigating who to contact to remove this article given the lack of due diligence by the authors.

We are now using this as our course example of the misrepresentation of science in the media now, though, so thank you for that opportunity.

The groundless legal threats, false claims, and playing the victim begin in her very first contact with Wilson. Nothing Prause says is true:

  1. Wilson did not describe Prause’s study or misrepresent it in any way. He only responded to Ley’s description of the study. Read Ley’s and Wilson’s blog posts and judge for yourself.
  2. To this day Prause has yet to refute a single word in Wilson’s March, 2013 Psychology Today post, or the analysis Wilson wrote in July after her EEG study finally was published. Nor has Prause refuted a single word in five peer-reviewed critiques of her 2013 EEG: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
  3. Wilson makes no money off of this endeavor.
  4. Wilson asked for a copy of the study (Prause refused to supply it).
  5. Prause initiated all contact with Wilson.

Wilson’s email response to Nicole Prause:

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM, gary wilson <> wrote:

Hi Nicole,

I commented under your comment. Have a look.

We make no money on this. My website has no advertising and we accept no donations. We have no services to sell. I have no book to sell. My wife’s book, which appears on PT, is not about porn.

If you want to be truly fair, please send us the full study and give us permission to blog about it – as you did with Dr. Ley.

I’ll be anticipating your study,

Gary Wilson

April 12, 2013

Two days later Prause contacted Wilson again threatening further legal action. She somehow tracked down one of Wilson’s comments on the porn-recovery site Your Brain Rebalanced. It was posted on a long thread about David Ley’s original blog post. Wilson’s comment was meant to explain why both Ley’s and Wilson’s Psychology Today posts had been removed by Psychology Today. This signaled Prause’s pattern of cyberstalking, as a not even a Google search could locate that post. How did Prause know about this thread on a porn recovery forum?

The Prause email:

Nicole Prause (nprause@_______)
4/12/13

Dear Mr. Wilson,

In your post: http://yourbrainrebalanced.com/index.php?topic=7522.50
You falsely claim: “I responded to her rather nasty emails with a request to see her study, and she refused.”

This is libel. Please remove this post or I will follow up with legal action.

Nicole Prause

Wilson responds:

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM, gary wilson <> wrote:

Dear Nicole Prause,

Maybe you didn’t know that my wife is a graduate of Yale law school.  I said nothing libelous. In fact, my statements are quite accurate.

1) You have refused to hand over your unpublished study.

2) You were nasty and threatening, as you are now.

3) In addition, you falsely stated that I make money from guys struggling to recover from porn addiction.

4) You also mischaracterized my PT post, as it was a clear response to David Ley’s description of your unpublished study. You chose not correct Ley’s description or make the full study available to me, even when I asked about it in the comment section one month ago.

You have yet to answer my original questions (posed in the comments section):

1) Why did you release your study to only David Ley? As the author of the “Myth of Sex Addiction,” and someone who claims porn addiction cannot exist, why was only he the only Chosen One?

2) Why haven’t you corrected David Ley’s interpretation of your study? It has been up for over a month, and you’ve commented twice on it in the last month.

3) You commented under Ley’s post one month ago. I immediately posted a comment under you comment, with several specific questions directed to you about your study. That was your chance to both respond and offer the study. You did neither. Why?

I’m fine with making our exchange public. Won’t it be interesting when you file a lawsuit against a couple of PT bloggers who dare to take on your research?

Best,
Gary Wilson

Prause emails again with more crazy claims & legal threats [Note: Neither Wilson nor his wife ever initiated contact with Prause. She is the one who repeatedly contacted them and threatened them with groundless legal action.]

From: nprause@_________ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:01:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [PT] Inquiry via Psychology Today

Dear Gary,

This is to notify both you and your wife that your (both you and your wife’s) contact is unwanted. Per stalking statutes in your home state (http://courts.oregon.gov/Lane/Restraining.page), any additional harassing contact will be interpreted as actionable harassment.

You do not have my permission to share this private communication in any forum.

Nicole Prause

Wilson sends his final email to Prause, to set the record straight: that she is the one initiating all contact and the only person making threats (and false claims):

From: ______@hotmail.com

To: nprause Subject: RE: [PT] Inquiry via Psychology Today

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:44:12 -0700

Dear Nicole Prause,

Harassment? I have not initiated one email exchange with you, including this one.
The first, initiated by you on 4/10/13, where you had the last email. And the one below, where you are trying to create a false impression that someone is harassing you, when in fact you are threatening me for the second time.

You are also the one who contacted Psychology Today’s editor to interfere with my blog post. My wife has had no contact with you whatsover.

We do not need your permission.

Gary Wilson

The end of the beginning with Nicole Prause.


Late July, 2013: Prause publishes her EEG study (Steele et al., 2013). Wilson critiques it. Prause employs multiple usernames to post lies around the Web

In late July 2013 Prause’s EEG study (Steele et al., 2013) was finally published. It arrived with much press coverage, including this Prause Interview by a Psychology Today blogger: New Brain Study Questions Existence of “Sexual Addiction.” A few days later Gary Wilson published his detailed analysis of Steele et al., 2013 and Prause’s claims put forth in the above interview and elsewhere. Wilson posted it on his Psychology Today blog as Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab’s New Porn Study. Incidentally, Psychology Today, apparently in response to Prause’s threats, ultimately unpublished not only Wilson’s critique of this study, but also the critiques of two professional experts in the field who wrote about the study’s weaknesses.

Ultimately, Prause’s findings and claims in the media were re-analyzed and critiqued repeatedly by various other experts and by five peer-reviewed papers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. All five papers agree with Gary Wilson’s analysis that Steele et al. actually supports the porn addiction model, and that Prause misrepresented her findings to the press. Prause’s two claims versus the study’s actual findings:

1) Prause claimed that subjects “brains did not respond like other addicts”.

Reality: The study had no control group for comparison. More importantly, the study reported higher EEG readings (relative to neutral pictures) when subjects were briefly exposed to pornographic photos. Studies consistently show that an elevated P300 occurs when addicts are exposed to cues (such as images) related to their addiction (see more).

2) Prause suggested that her subjects simply had “high sexual desire”.

Reality: In line with the Cambridge University brain scan studies, Steele et al. reported greater cue-reactivity (higher EEG readings) to porn correlating with less desire for partnered sex. To put another way – individuals with greater brain activation to porn would rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a real person. Prause claimed that porn users merely had “high libido”, yet the results of the study say the exact opposite: their desire for partnered sex was dropping in relation to their porn use (see more).

With her unsupported claims exposed by Gary Wilson, John A. Johnson PhD and Don Hilton MD, Prause then resorted to behind the scenes maneuvering at Psychology Today, cyberstalking, and various forms of intimidation. To this day Prause and others continue to cite her work as “debunking the field,” without mentioning or offering any response to any of the formal criticism apart from ad hominem attacks on some of the authors.

Within a few days of publishing Wilson’s critique, various usernames began posting comments wherever Gary Wilson’s name appeared. The comments were all very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that 1) Wilson had never taught anatomy & physiology or attended college, 2) Wilson stole a woman’s pictures and placed them on a porn site, 3) Wilson has a police report filed on him. In the beginning many comments posts were written by GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud, and a few other sock puppets. An example from under Wilson’s TEDx talk:

Of course the above is ludicrous, but the false claims about stolen “pictures on a porn site” and “a police report has been filed” incriminate Prause as the cyberstalker posting these and future comments. (A call to the Los Angeles police and the UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their systems.) Below is an example taken from Wilson’s YouTube inbox (7/26/13):

Key point: Both the cyberstalker and Nicole Prause have stated that Wilson “stole photos of a woman” and “had a police report on file for stealing these photos.”

1) “Photos stolen” “on a porn site”

Here’s the reality: Gary Wilson wrote this Psychology Today blog post about this Nicole Prause Psychology Today Interview (which contains a picture of Prause). Psychology Today required at least one picture (all of Wilson’s Psychology Today articles contained several pictures). Since this blog post was about Nicole Prause’s interview and her EEG study, it seemed appropriate to use a picture of Prause from a UCLA website. The picture that accompanied Wilson’s Psychology Today blog post was also used with this same article on YBOP.

The photo of Prause came from what Wilson reasonably assumed was a UCLA website – SPAN Lab – and it was apparently the photo Prause had chosen to represent herself. Everything about SPAN Lab’s website gave the impression it was owned and run by UCLA. At the bottom each SPAN Lab page was the following (Prause has recently forbidden the “Internet WayBack Machine” from showing SPAN Lab’s archive pages, so as to conceal this fact):

Copyright © 2007-2013 SPAN Lab, All Rights Reserved University of California, Department of Psychiatry, Los Angeles, CA 90024

A screenshot of the SPAN Lab front page from August, 2013:

It was unclear how Prause could be claiming copyright to a photo that was on a website that claimed its copyright was owned by UCLA. UCLA is a California state school answering to taxpayers. Presumably, its images are public. Many months later when Wilson wrote UCLA concerning Prause’s libelous PDF (below), UCLA stated that SPAN Lab was Prause’s site, and not on UCLA servers(!). Why did Prause misrepresent her website as being owned by UCLA? That was the first time Wilson learned this. Undisputed fact: Prause never contacted Wilson to request that her picture be removed from the blog post. Wilson knew nothing until Prause filed a DMCA request (below) and Wilson found the picture missing from the article critiquing Prause’s interview and study.

So, that’s the “stolen photo’s” claim: A single picture, selected by Prause herself, from (what appeared to be) a UCLA lab website was used in an article about a study published and promoted by UCLA & Nicole Prause. The “porn site” was YBOP, a claim that is laughable, as it is a porn recovery support website without x-rated content.

Addendum: Prause is now claiming in an AmazonAWS PDF that Wilson migrated the picture of Prause (and the associated article) to other servers. This is completely false. The picture of Prause accompanied a single critique that appeared on two separate websites, PornStudySkeptics and YourBrainOnPorn.com. These two identical articles have remained on those two websites since July, 2013: Article 1, Article 2. In her PDF Prause also claims that Wilson’s ISP told him that they would “close his website if he did it a fourth time.” This is fabricated nonsense.

2) “police report filed”

It’s been about 4 years and Wilson has never been contacted by the police (a call to the Los Angeles police department and the UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their systems). Although Prause has repeated this undocumented claim dozens of times, she has also failed to divulge what law Wilson supposedly violated.

Evidence directly connecting Prause to these many groundless comments about “stolen pictures” and “a police report.”

  1. Prause filed a DMCA take down of her SPAN Lab picture on July 21, 2013 – http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1091617 and the server removed it before Wilson saw the related email notices. Wilson removed the photo from its other location when asked via a second DMCA filing, even though UCLA, not Prause, appeared (as far as he could tell) to be the copyright owner.
  2. Prause has tweeted that she filed a police report on Wilson (see details below under “Prause & Ley attack NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes“). A call to the LAPD and UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their system.
  3. Nicole Prause published a PDF on her SPAN Lab website (more on this in the next section) with all the usual claims and lies echoing all the preceding comments. It also lied that:

“Wilson has been found guilty of stealing other people’s images”

Again, this was apparently a reference to the same picture that accompanied the Psychology Today post, and the Psychology Today post was about Prause’s interview on Psychology Today. It was the same picture she had chosen for the top of her SPAN Lab website (which falsely proclaimed it was a UCLA site).

To summarize July 2013:

  1. Dozens of comments containing false statements arrived a few days after Wilson published Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab’s New Porn Study.
  2. Most of these comments claimed that Wilson “stole” and placed Prause’s picture on a pornographic website.
  3. Prause never contacted Wilson about the picture.
  4. Prause filed a DMCA take down of her picture, which forced the company hosting YBOP to remove the picture without first contacting Gary Wilson.
  5. Similar groundless comments continue to be posted to this day (more below).

Others – August, 2013: John A. Johnson PhD debunks Prause’s claims about Steele et al., 2013; Prause retaliates

At the same time that Prause was engaging in cyberstalking and threatening groundless legal action against Wilson, she went after senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson. Prause was enraged by Johnson’s saying that spokesperson Prause made claims that did match her actual results (as Wilson had also said). Commenting under the Psychology Today interview of Nicole Prause, Professor John A. Johnson commented twice:

A gap in logical inference

Submitted by John A. Johnson Ph.D. on July 19, 2013 – 2:35pm

Mustanski asks, “What was the purpose of the study?” And Prause replies, “Our study tested whether people who report such problems [problems with regulating their viewing of online erotica] look like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images.”

But the study did not compare brain recordings from persons having problems regulating their viewing of online erotica to brain recordings from drug addicts and brain recordings from a non-addict control group, which would have been the obvious way to see if brain responses from the troubled group look more like the brain responses of addicts or non-addicts.

Instead, Prause claims that their within-subject design was a better method, where research subjects serve as their own control group. With this design, they found that the EEG response of their subjects (as a group) to erotic pictures was stronger than their EEG responses to other kinds of pictures. This is shown in the inline waveform graph (although for some reason the graph differs considerably from the actual graph in the published article).

So this group who reports having trouble regulating their viewing of online erotica has a stronger EEG response to erotic pictures than other kinds of pictures. Do addicts show a similarly strong EEG response when presented with their drug of choice? We don’t know. Do normal, non-addicts show a response as strong as the troubled group to erotica? Again, we do not know. We don’t know whether this EEG pattern is more similar to the brain patterns of addicts or non-addicts.

The Prause research team claims to be able to demonstrate whether the elevated EEG response of their subjects to erotica is an addictive brain response or just a high-libido brain response by correlating a set of questionnaire scores with individual differences in EEG response. But explaining differences in EEG response is a different question from exploring whether the overall group’s response looks addictive or not. The Prause group reported that the only statistically significant correlation with the EEG response was a negative correlation (r=-.33) with desire for sex with a partner. In other words, there was a slight tendency for subjects with strong EEG responses to erotica to have lower desire for sex with a partner. How does that say anything about whether the brain responses of people who have trouble regulating their viewing of erotica are similar to addicts or non-addicts with a high libido?

Two months later John Johnson published this psychology Today blog post which he linked to in a comment under the same Prause interview.

Perhaps Prause’s preconceptions led to a conclusion opposite of the results

Submitted by John A. Johnson Ph.D. on September 22, 2013 – 9:00pm

My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects’ brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts’ brains respond to their drug, given that she reports
higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice.

How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results? I think it could be due to her preconceptions–what she expected to find. I wrote about this elsewhere.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201308/preconceptions-may-c…

Johnson post: Preconceptions May Color Conclusions about Sex Addiction. Key take-away: In his post Johnson describes Prause’s behind the scenes behavior, such as legal threats (as she had done with Wilson) and battering Psychology Today editors with threats, forcing them to remove two blog posts critical of Prause’s unsupported assertions (1 – Gary Wilson’s critique of “Steele et al., 2013″, 2 – critique by Robert Weiss, LCSW & Stefanie Carnes PhD). He also describes receiving disturbing and threatening emails from Prause:

When I first conceived this blog post and began to compose it about a month ago, my original intention was to describe in exquisite detail the specific ways in which I saw the proponents of opposite sides of the debate exaggerating or overextending their arguments beyond the actual data in the study. I subsequently changed my mind when I observed a firestorm of emotionally-charged rhetoric erupting among the debate participants. Not arguments about what the data logically implied, but ad hominem threats, including threats of legal action. I saw a PT blog post disappear, apparently because one of the parties demanded that it be taken down. I even received a couple of angry emails myself because one of the parties had heard that I had raised questions about the proper interpretation of the research in question in a scientific forum.

So, I have decided to quietly tip-toe out of the room. I have also decided to go ahead and post here what I had already composed a month ago, simply to present an example of my empirical claim that science is not a purely objective enterprise, and that actual scientists can become very personally and emotionally involved in their work. The controversy in question is also an excellent example of a common trend among U.S. researchers to overestimate soft-science results.

This angered Prause who argued (using fake names) with Johnson in the comments section of his Psychology Today blog post about Prause’s 2013 EEG study (note that Johnson doesn’t really have an opinion on sex addiction).


November 2013: Prause places a libelous PDF on her SPAN Lab website. Content mirrors “anonymous” comments around the Web

In November 2013, Nicole Prause placed a PDF on her SPAN Lab website attacking Gary Wilson (screenshot below). It contained several instances of libel. The PDF’s contents are very similar to hundreds of other comments that were posted by various usernames. Posts were written by GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud and other sock puppets. Such comments continue to this day on various recovery forums and other venues, posted with other usernames.

If there was ever any doubt as to who was actually behind these comments, the PDF puts an end to it. Gary Wilson contacted UCLA to report the PDF’s defamatory statements, as he still believed SPAN Lab was a UCLA website (at the time, SPAN Lab’s copyright was owned by UCLA and its address was within a UCLA building). UCLA acknowledged the existence of the PDF, and its subsequent removal in a letter. Its URL was – http://www.span-lab.com/WilsonIsAFraud.pdf.

How did Gary Wilson discover the above PDF? His Internet browser was redirected to the PDF when he visited the SPAN lab website (representing itself as a UCLA website). Knowing Wilson’s IP address, Prause made a habit of redirecting Wilson’s Internet browser to other URLs, such as porn sites or pictures of mutilated penises. This started before the PDF appeared, and continued after the PDF was removed. More evidence that Prause is likely the one responsible for cyberstalking events (only a small portion of which are detailed on this page). For example, two PDFs containing material nearly identical to Prause’s libelous PDF were uploaded onto DocStoc a few days after Wilson published his critique of Prause’s 2013 EEG study:

Contrary to claims the “documents” show nothing, except that Prause is the person who published both PDFs. Wilson complained to UCLA about Prause’s libelous PDF. The UCLA reply:


December 2013: Prause’s initial tweet is about Wilson & the CBC: “RealScience” posts same false claims on same day

On December 18. 2013 Nicole Prause’s maiden tweet for her new Twitter account was about Gary Wilson and a CBC interview. We can’t link to the tweet as Prause’s original Twitter account was permanently suspended for harassing Todd Love, PsyD, JD, whose review of the literature dared to criticize her work (more below). Prause’s original Twitter URL was https://twitter.com/NicolePrause/. If interested you can read Wilson’s response to the CBC here.

On December 18th & 19th “RealScience” posted several similar, equally misleading comments as the one below on sites that mentioned Gary Wilson (see several more posts on December 18th & 19th by “RealScience” or “Real Scientist”). Who else but Prause could be responsible for these posts, which entirely misrepresent the exchange with the CBC and its response to Wilson?

In this comment on YourBrainRebalanced Prause (as RealSceince) asks Wilson: “How small IS your penis Gary?”.

A screenshot of the above, along Gary Wilson’s answer where he inadvertantly wrote “Miss Prause” in reponse to a juvenile question about his penis, is the supposed “proof” Prause uses that Gary Wilson is a mysogynist. Here Prause tweets a hard-to-read version of her “RealSceince” comment:

Here’s an enlarged version of the image she included in the above tweet. Link to Wilson’s full answer.

Prause frequently trolls porn recovery forums citing junk science or harrasing members who are attempting heal addictions or porn-induced ED.


May 2014: Multiple sock puppets post information on YourBrainRebalanced.com that only Prause would know (many more examples)

The day the Max Planck study on porn users was published (suggesting that porn use may have measurable effects on the brain), four aliases including “touif” and TrickyPaladin posted approximately 100 comments on YourBrainRebalanced.com. What’s left of their comments is here, as the troll deleted her comments within a few hours. Most of the touif and TrickyPaladin comments were either attacks on Wilson or meticulously detailed ‘defenses’ of Prause’s 2013 EEG study. Below are few examples caught by a YBR member’s cell phone where TrickyPaladin and touif make detailed assertions about Steele et al., 2013 that only a handful of people could produce (and only Prause would care about):

—-

I’ll ask, who (other than Prause herself) would know details of a complex EEG study well enough to attempt defense of it, or want to post 100 times on a porn recovery forum to defend it? (If you bothered to read the above comments, know that any and all such claims have been dismantled by this extensive critique, and five peer-reviewed papers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)

While Tricky (and other sock puppets) deleted most of her comments, she left a few describing a “yet to be published chapter by Prause” supposedly chronicling Gary Wilson’s evil deeds:

Who but Prause would know details of an unpublished chapter by Prause? The above comment is from May, 2014. The “upcoming” Prause chapter was in fact published 8 months later in this book – “New Views on Pornography: Sexuality, Politics, and the Law. Of course, Prause did not identify Wilson in the chapter, as her claims of “horrible things” are fabricated nonsense.

As mentioned, sock puppets posting Prause-like comments continue to this day on porn recovery sites such as reddit/pornfree and reddit/nofap. Right from the beginning Prause had an odd habit of frequently creating usernames from 2-4 capitalized words (i.e. GaryWilsonStalker). The following reddit usernames were all created the day the comments appeared on r/pornfree and r/nofap. While the usernames and comments are often deleted by the sock puppet, a few examples with content remain:

Just a few examples of deleted reddit usernames who posted Prause-like comments:

A few examples of Prause sockpuppets on Quora where Gary Wilson occasionally answered questions about porn addiction. All names only commented under Wilson’s answers. Note that Quora requires members to use their actual names. Mods ban trolls who use fake names (as they did with Prause’s fake names):

And these are just the ones we happen to see when visiting r/pornfree and r/nofap to gather recovery accounts. In addition, many more such usernames and comments appeared on YourBrainRebalanced.com, but were deleted by the moderators.


OTHERS – Summer 2014: Prause urges patients to report sex addiction therapists to state boards

Prause makes it no secret that she vehemently opposes the concepts of sex and porn addiction. In the summer of 2014 Prause placed the following notice on her SPAN Lab website. You can read for yourself that Prause is encouraging all individuals being treated for sex addiction to report their therapists to the state board (it contains a handy hyperlink):

This is unprofessional, and also unethical as both the DSM and the ICD permit reimbursable diagnoses for the disorder. In case anyone missed this, Prause followed it up with this tweet:

A month later Prause reminds us all again to report our local sex addiction therapist. It’s free and easy!

Prause doesn’t stop with tweets directed at a profession. She ups her game, falsely accusing psychotherapists of fraudulent therapy. Isn’t this rather reckless for a psychologist, especially given that (1) diagnoses of compulsive sexual behavior can be made using the World Health Organization’s ICD-10 and (2) Section F52.8 of the DSM itself recognizes the diagnostic validity of excessive sex drive as a valid, reimbursable disorder? In short, Prause is mistaken and behaving unethically.


Fall 2014: Documentation of Prause lying to film producers about Gary Wilson and Donald L. Hilton Jr., MD

Documentary producers forwarded the following email to Gary Wilson:

Re: Documentary on porn

Hi **********

I am open to chatting with you, but I should probably clarify two items.

First, I do believe, and have published, some negative effects of sex films. It is fair to say that I do not believe it is addicting. If it is useful to you to have a scientist who can talk about both the benefits and possible problems with sex films, I am probably best-suited to that type of role.

Second, I am not willing to be placed in opposition to Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, or Don Hilton. None of these individuals are scientists, and all have attacked me personally, making it unsafe for me to be put in a direct confrontation with them. For example, they claimed that I was secretly funded by pornography, falsified my data, and wrote me and my university chancellor many times trying to harass me at home and work. If you were considering these individuals, I would be happy to get you in touch with some actual scientists who support that sex films can lead to addiction. These individuals, in my opinion, would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for a film.

I realize this information may be in direct opposition to your desire to have free artistic reign, so I understand if I might not be useful to your film given this information. Regardless, best of luck with your project!

Nikky

Nicole Prause, Ph.D.

Associate Research Scientist

University of California, Los Angeles

www.span-lab.com

Prause is once again lying. As addressed below, Wilson never said that Prause had “falsified her data” or that she was “funded by pornography.” While Gary Wilson wrote UCLA chronicling Prause’s harassment and cyberbullying (see below), he never attempted to contact Prause directly at home or at work. (In reality, it is Prause who initiated all direct contact with Gary Wilson as documented in the first section.) Donald Hilton Jr. MD confirmed that he has never attempted to contact Nicole Prause or UCLA, nor did he say what Prause claims in the above email.

Key point: There is reason to believe that this behind-the-scenes defamation of Wilson and others is standard procedure for Prause. See further example relating to TIME magazine and Gabe Deem below. Note how Prause tries to control who is being interviewed by stating that she is not willing “to be placed in opposition to Gary Wilson or Don Hilton.”


January, 2015: “The Prause Chapter” described 9 months earlier by a YourBrainRebalanced.com troll is finally published

[To recap, a YourBrainRebalanced troll (TrickyPaladin) posted 50 comments or more on the same day the JAMA fMRI study on porn users was published (affirming that porn users’ brains show measurable changes correlating with time/years of use). Most of TrickyPaladin’s comments were either attacks on Wilson or meticulously detailed (attempted) defenses of Prause’s 2013 EEG study. While Tricky deleted most of her comments, she left a few saying a chapter in an upcoming book would detail horrible things done by Wilson.]

The book and chapter now arrive: “New Views on Pornography: Sexuality, Politics, and the Law.The chapter in question (“The Science and Politics of Sex Addiction Research.”) is authored by Nicole Prause and Timothy Fong. It consists mostly of a discussion of the appropriate “model” for understanding compulsive pornography use. Only two paragraphs are devoted to Prause’s undocumented and unsupported claims of being harassed. The most outlandish claim is that “individuals mapped routes to the laboratory address.” In other words, Prause is claiming that Google maps told her when people were searching for her lab’s address. Of course Prause did not name Wilson or anyone else in her chapter.

  • Key point: Knowing the details of an unpublished chapter 9 months before it is published incriminates Prause as TrickyPaladin. As do the meticulously detailed comments defending Prause’s flawed 2013 EEG study.

The chapter also implicates Prause as GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud and the many other aliases posting diatribes right after Wilson’s critique was published. The claims in those posts and the PDF are identical to these two found in Prause’s chapter:

  1. Prause had “photographs stolen
  2. Some individuals repeatedly emailed her after we had requested contact to stop… resulting in a police report”

Both claims are aimed at Wilson, and both are false.

[As explained above, here’s the reality behind each claim:

1) “Photos stolen”

A single picture, selected by Prause herself, from (what appeared to be) a UCLA lab website was used in an article about a study published and promoted by UCLA & Nicole Prause. The “porn site” was YBOP, a preposterous claim, as it is a porn recovery support website without x-rated content.

2) “Individuals repeatedly emailing me….police report filed”

Police Report: Wilson has never been contacted by the police. A call to the Los Angeles police department and UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their system.

Email Claim: It was Prause who initiated all contact with Wilson after he wrote a Psychology Today blog post. Prause’s harassing emails contained threats and false statements, and it was Prause who continued to harass Wilson. See above.]

In the chapter Prause also stated:

“Noticeably absent from these attacks are published critiques from any scientist.”

Contrary to Prause’s claim 12 peer-reviewed critiques of her studies have been published:

In the chapter Prause made this pronouncement:

“The research was never stopped by these attempts.”

As for Prause’s research at UCLA never stopping, it’s important to note that UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s employment contract (although she continued to claim publicly that she was still a UCLA researcher employed at the medical school). Prause hasn’t been employed by UCLA or any other university since late 2014 or early 2015.


OTHERS – 2015 & 2016: Prause falsely accuses sex addiction therapists of reparative therapy

David Ley and Nicole Prause team up again. This time falsely accusing sex addiction therapists of practicing reparative therapy or conversion therapy. It started with Ley publishing “Homosexuality is Not an Addiction” which not so subtly, falsely accused members of IITAP and SASH of trying to turn their gay clients straight. (In response to complaints, Ley was later forced to alter the post and Psychology Today eventually deleted the comments.)

Prause tweeted the Ley post:

Prause was the first to comment, falsely accusing IITAP of harboring reparative therapists, and claiming to have emailed IITAP the names of the accused. While Prause’s comments were later deleted, she commented a few weeks later groundlessly accusing (gay!!) therapist Michael J. Salas of practicing reparative therapy as follows:

Having received no response to her groundless accusations, Prause “outed” Salas as a reparative therapist. She took a sentence out of context, hoping no one would actually visit his website. On his website, however, readers discover that Salas specializes in therapy for the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender community. He is a member the “Texas Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues in Counseling”, Salas also states:

“For clients who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, I provide LGBT Affirming Therapy. There is no such thing as changing someone’s sexual orientation”

It doesn’t end there. On November 22, 2015 Psychology Today blogger Joe Kort published “Why I Am No Longer a Sex-Addiction Therapist,” which created a brouhaha on all fronts. Nicole Prause immediately commented about her email exchanges with IITAP (Prause mistakenly called the organization CSAT, which is IITAP’s certification):

We did report and they refused to investigate

Submitted by Nicole prause on November 23, 2015 – 6:21pm

On submitting specific names and concerns, CSAT did not respond. After pressed with three queries and by other professionals they responded that te allegations were false. They provided no investigative process. For this writer to inquire would change nothing and make him yet another target of that community. I would discourage anyone from tangling with a group with no intention of addressing its problems.

I am happy to share the emails with you privately. They were disgusting to me as a licensed psychologist too.

Actually, any investigation shows her claims were completely false. Click on the link to Prause’s comment and you see no replies. That’s because Joe Kort deleted all comments challenging Prause, leaving her fabrications unchallenged. We have reproduced those (now) deleted comments below. The first 2 comments have CSAT Michelle Saffier asking Prause for data, and Prause responding:

The 3 Prause “complaints” were nothing more than cyberstalking. Michelle Saffier received no data or emails from Prause. The next comment challenging Prause was posted by anonymous:

Again, Joe Kort deleted the comments challenging Prause, while allowing Prause’s defamatory claims to remain. Kort’s actions drew a Twitter response, and an unsatisfactory response (Joe Kort later deleted his Twitter replies to Michelle and others). Joe Kort’s deletion of comments drew yet another comment under his blog post (since deleted).

Joe Kort closed all comments and deleted the above comment. Prause’s comment remains unchallenged to this day. Prause continues her unsupported and libelous claims concerning CSAT therapists. For example, this March, 2016 Tweet with compatriot David Ley.

Another CSAT therapist using “sex addiction” as a justification for reparative therapy. #IITAP stop supporting now.

It is, predictably, entirely untrue.


OTHERS – March, 2015 (ongoing): Prause and her sock puppets (including “PornHelps”) go after Gabe Deem

Gabe Deem recovered from severe porn-induced ED by quitting internet porn use. He now runs Reboot Nation and occasionally appears on TV and radio to discuss his and other men’s experiences with porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. In May, 2015 Gabe published a detailed critique of the Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus paper, “Viewing Sexual Stimuli Associated with Greater Sexual Responsiveness, Not Erectile Dysfunction.” Everything in Gabe’s page is accurate, documented, and unassailable. Gabe’s critique aligns with a Letter to the Editor of the journal where the paper appeared, by Richard A. Isenberg MD, though it provides more details about the Prause paper’s glaring discrepancies and unsupported statements.

A long debate ensued when user “FapSlap” posted the Prause & Pfaus paper on reddit/nofap. Prause-apologist “FapSlap” (who appears to be a researcher) eventually claimed to contact Nicole Prause looking for ammunition to defend the Prause paper. Here’s FapSlap’s comment confirming not only his/her email exchanges with Prause, but a future response to her critics:

Really don’t care if you believe me or not. You can email her yourself. http://i.imgur.com/3xjtBph.png

Of course you will probably say ‘fake is fake.’ But believe me it’s not. Out of respect I am not posting the conversation. You will have proof soon enough for the journal, trust me :) And I will be quite happy to see your ‘bullet in the barrel’ critique be thrown out the window.

FapSlap was indeed prescient, as “the real” Nicole Prause soon commented with the username “DataScienceLA” (notice her claims, in bold):

Actually, he did just write me and he is correct. We collected the full IIEF in many studies in which we do not ultimately publish the data. Sometimes we choose not to, sometimes reviewers tell us to remove them because they are not relevant.

We are publishing a follow-up letter in the journal to show all the counts remain correct. All the analyses remain correct. The conclusions stand.

I will not be responding to any follow-up posts. I posted here only out of compassion, because you are lying to this poor person. Wait for the letter. It is to appear in April and will dispel all the myths RebootNation is propagating to the poor people they are using to fund their speaking travel and fees and false “counselor” titles.

The promised response did not address any of Isenberg’s concerns (as pointed out subsequently by Deem) and merely added new unsupported claims and untrue statements. Prause also falsely states that Gabe (RebootNation) is lying and that he makes money from RebootNation and speaking fees. While none of this is true, these same exact claims soon appear again via “PornHelps” and several r/pornfree sock puppet user names.

On March 31, 2016, the TIME cover story featuring Gabe, and other men who had recovered from porn-induced sexual problems, was published. On April 1 the following post by TruthWithOut appeared on reddit/pornfree: Gabe Deem admits profiting of NoFAP Reboot Nation. The original post, the “TruthWithOut” username, and a few of her comments, were later deleted (though most of her comments remained). The original post, claiming TIME had “outed” the nefarious Deem:

The reddit/pornfree moderator “Iguanaforhire” recognizes the sock puppet has previously posted the same false content:

It doesn’t. Person made a new account just to bother us. Again.

You can read TruthWithOut’s remaining comments and see the same false claims repeated over and over: 1) Gabe is lying about everything, 2) he never had ED, 3) he makes money from both RebootNation and speaking fees, and, 4) he’s unemployed. All untrue. One example:

And I’m waiting on that evidence Gabe. ANY shred of evidence that you are not just lying. No one has seen anything validating any part of your story. Not your supposed girlfriend, no doctor, no one. You could easily provide it, but you haven’t.

You are just taking trips and money from guys you stir into a panic with your made up tales.

The facts? The TIME Magazine article incorrectly stated that Gabe Deem made money through speaking fees. While this is not true (and was later publicly corrected by TIME), TruthWithOut used this journalistic error to launch an attack, claiming a series of lies. A few days later Deem tweeted the correction from the print version of TIME Magazine. (TIME formally acknowledged that it had erred in saying that Deem makes money from his activities connected with RebootNation.) End of story. Nonetheless, several other Prause sock puppets posted similar allegations (that “Deem lied about everything“) on Reddit/pornfree and elsewhere. A few examples:

It seems SoManyMalts is upset. We have yet another Prause sock puppet (AskingForProof) posting this:

On yet another r/pornfree thread started by Prause sock puppet DontDoDallas (Deem resides in Dallas):

Speaking of lies, the above Newsweek article never mentioned Gary Wilson or YBOP.

As outlined later, evidence suggests that Prause shares the @pornhelps twitter account with others and created the PornHelps Disqus username.(@pornhelps later deleted their twitter account when outed as Prause) Below is a PornHelps Disqus comment published around the same time as the r/pornfree lie “Gabe Deem admits profiting”:

Look everybody! It’s Gabe Deem back again reposting anti-sex rants again and puppeting his own upvoted post! You might remember him from the Reason post where he was shredded for posting this anti-science message with links back to his own website. He has no college degree, no job, and is paid (see Time article) for speaking about his erectile problems he claims (with no doctors’ evidence) were “due” to porn.

I know I know, you are going to repost a long list of links hoping no one actually follows them and knows the truth, but this is it. And I’m not engaging further. Hopefully the folks form the previous time you did this will find your posts again Gabe Deem.

PornHelps references the TIME article, making the same false claims as the many Reddit sock puppets. This is no coincidence. Below you will see that Prause as Prause (i.e., using her own name) called TIME journalist Luscombe and NoFap.com founder Alexander Rhodes ‘liars’ and ‘fakers’.


OTHERS – September, October 2015: Prause’s original Twitter account permanently suspended for harassment

Nicole Prause’s Twitter account – https://twitter.com/NicolePrause – was permanently suspended shortly after she violated Twitter’s rules by (twice) posting the personal information of one of the authors of this paper “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015). The paper critiqued Prause’s two EEG studies on porn users: Critique 1, Critique 2.

Immediately after Prause’s Twitter account was suspended, this defamatory post appeared on reddit/pornfree, attacking Gary Wilson, Gabe Deem, the author of the above paper, and others. Three newly created usernames commented most. Two usernames were later deleted, but EvidenceForYouremained. Several comments suggest Nicole Prause is the author of these comments – most notably by stating that lawyers are now involved, or that Wilson is about to be sued:

Link – Gary Wilson, they have your IP and all the records courtesy of a subpoena. We’re not chasing these new lies too, just going to stop the one’s you have already been telling. Prepare to file for bankruptcy again.

Link – When they cannot fight the science, they fight the person. They fail, so they spread false rumors that are currently the subject of a lawsuit. This proves it.

Link – For example, in reviewing a (non-existent) critique, they claim the scientist is no longer employed: http://yourbrainonporn.com/our-response-rory-reids-critique-nicole-prause-study This, by the way, is a recent update (seeing these posts and panicking Gary? Too late, we already sent her attorney the screen shots.) watered down from the earlier “fired”.

A week or two later (October 15, 2015) Gary Wilson received a ‘cease and desist’ letter from a lawyer representing Nicole Prause. It stated that Gary Wilson had made four false and misleading statements about Prause. Of course, all four were untrue (such as Wilson saying that “Prause starred in porn films”….unbelievable!). Wilson responded with a letter stating all were false, and asked for proof of these claims (reproduced later on this page). There was no response by the lawyer or by Prause. Just another example of Prause’s continued pattern of harassment while simultaneously playing the victim.


OTHERS – November, 2015: John Adler MD blogs about Nicole Prause & David Ley harassment

John Adler MD, who is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Cureus, wrote a blog post about his harassment at the hands of Nicole Prause and David Ley and their cronies: Intellectual Fascism. In it Adler describes behaviors we have come to expect from Prause & Ley:

Two individuals, whose specialty overlapped the erroneous article [Prause and Ley], attacked the article for its political misstatement, and by extension, Cureus’ journalistic integrity for missing this error during our pre-publication review process.

I immediately invited these critics to set the record straight via our liberal comment and scoring processes, but in a series of personal (and necessarily confidential) emails, the critics refused, insisting on remaining anonymous. Over the next several days they recruited a chorus of similarly-minded colleagues who insisted that the article in question represented serious scientific misconduct and demanded it be retracted… period!

… In parallel, I stumbled upon the existence of a listserv community of likeminded researchers including the two critics, whose major modus operandi is to fiercely act en-mass, hyena-like, oftentimes via social media, when certain partisan political issues arise, such as the article Cureus had unwittingly published.

If ever I witnessed intellectual fascism, this was it; the only thing missing was a goose-stepping mustached man….

By the way, we know he is talking about Ley and Prause because 1) both Ley and Prause engaged in a Twitter storm against Adler prior to his post appearing (we have tweets by Adler, but Prause’s tweets are unavailable because her account was eventually permanently suspended due to her misconduct). 2) David Ley posted all about this on a sexology listserve.

As part of the storm Adler wrote about, former porn star and current radio show host Melissa Hill, tweeted that Dr. Adlers son “managed to get @NicolePrause PhD’s account suspended!”:

The above is entirely false as Prause’s Twitter account was permanently suspended for posting the personal information of one of the authors of this paper “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015). Trip Adler had nothing to do with it, as Prause caused it herself. The logical conclusion is that Prause fed Melissa Hill this false story. It seems they are friends. Prause has appeared on Melissa Hill’s radio show several times, and Prause re-tweeted a photo of her and Hill together on the red carpet of the Adult Video awards. A few days later, the Free Speech Coalition (the lobbying organization for the porn industry) offered Prause assistance, suggesting she contact Diane, the CEO of the Free Speech Coalition (FSC).

Question: Why is the porn industry offering high-level assistance to Nicole Prause? Whatever the reason, Melissa Hill and the FSC join up to harass Adler’s son (Trip Adler) – all because Prause told Hill and the FSC her fabricated accusation that Trip Adler got her thrown off twitter:

A few weeks later Prause’s new Twitter account promised an upcoming news story about her permanent suspension.

The promised story has yet to appear, and Prause has given no formal (or truthful) explanation for her permanent Twitter suspension. Three years later, Prause is still dishonestly blaming Adler’s son for the permanent suspension of her first Twitter account:

Prause has never provided a single iota of evidence for her tall tale that the CEO of Twitter personally deleted her first twitter account. The truth about Prause’s permanent suspension is right here.


OTHERS – March, 2016: Prause (falsely) tells TIME Magazine that Gabe Deem impersonated a doctor to write a formal critique of her study (letter to the editor) in an academic journal (and the letter was traced to Gabe’s computer).

On March 31, 2016, the TIME cover story (“Porn and the Threat to Virility”), by Belinda Luscombe, featuring Gabe Deem, Nicole Prause and many others, was published. It was a year in the making and TIME had the author and other TIME employees (fact checkers) follow-up on claims made by each person interviewed. In the process, TIME fact-checkers presented Gabe Deem with a final set of questions for him to confirm or to deny.

One fact to confirm or to deny was an allegation put forth by Nicole Prause. Prause had told TIME that Gabe Deem had impersonated a medical doctor to write the letter to the editor of an academic journal (described above) critiquing a paper the journal had published by Prause & Pfaus. Below are snapshots from TIME‘s email to Gabe. They include the email intro and the allegation from Prause, but omit other, unrelated questions:

The Intro to the email:

The last of many questions in the email:

——-

Richard A. Isenberg, a medical doctor and author of multiple academic papers, specializing in Uro-Gynecology, is the one who wrote the critique (A letter to the editor), which was published in “Sexual Medicine Open Access,” the same journal that published Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus’s paper, “Viewing Sexual Stimuli Associated with Greater Sexual Responsiveness, Not Erectile Dysfunction.” Since Gabe also wrote a critique of the same paper, Prause appears to be accusing Gabe of writing Isenberg’s critique as well! More astonishing still, Prause claimed that UCLA had traced the Isenberg critique to Gabe Deem’s computer. Of course, no evidence was supplied to back up any of these unbelievable assertions.

How likely is it that UCLA would hack the computers of men recovering from porn-induced ED? The thing that makes Prause’s claim about UCLA particularly unstable is that Isenberg’s Letter to the Editor was published 6 months after UCLA did not renew Prause’s employment contract – and yet she claims UCLA was engaging in cyber-espionage on her behalf! All this reveals just how far Prause is willing to go. And unlike much of her unscrupulous behavior this attempt at defamation is documented by a third party (TIME magazine’s staff).


OTHERS – June, 2016: Prause and her sock puppet PornHelps claim respected neuroscientists are members of “anti-porn groups” and “their science is bad”

Nicole Prause, a Kinsey grad, in a tweet about this study posted for commentary (since published in Neuropsychopharmacology), falsely claimed that its 9 researchers (including top researchers in the addiction neuroscience field) were members of “anti-porn groups,” and that their new study was “bad science.” Prause’s tweet (pictured here) appeared on the same page as the study (Can pornography be addictive? An fMRI study of men seeking treatment for problematic pornography use), but was later deleted.

As usual her claims are preposterous. First, it’s an excellent study, now formally published despite all the incomprehensible resistance. Second, its authors received first prize for this very research at the European Society for Sexual Medicine conference in 2016. Third, the authors have no affiliation with Prause’s imaginary “anti-porn groups” (which Prause never names).

For example, the lead author is Dr. Mateusz Gola, who is visiting scholar at UC San Diego, and has 39 publications to his name. Another author is Marc Potenza MD, PhD, of Yale University, who is considered by many to be one of the world’s preeminent addiction researchers (way out of Prause’s league). A PubMed search returns over 430 studies by Dr. Potenza.

As Matuesz Gola explained to “PornHelps” in the comments section, BioRxiv (where Prause found it) exists for pre-publication papers, and functions to elicit feedback from researchers in order to improve papers. It should be noted that “PornHelps’s” comments and Prause’s tweet appeared at the same time. Coincidence?

It’s clear that Prause is disturbed by any neurological study lending scientific support to the porn addiction model (all do). But there’s more to this story. Matuesz Gola also published a formal critique of Prause et al., 2015, which explained that Prause’s findings align with two established addiction models (3 reviews of the literature agree with Gola) – contradicting Prause’s claim (that she had disproved (or, as she likes to say publicly, “falsified”) the addiction model with her single paper).

Marc Potenza was coauthor of the 2014 Cambridge University study that analyzed Prause’s flawed 2013 EEG study. In interviews Prause incorrectly claimed her findings didn’t align with the addiction model. In the Cambridge fMRI study, Potenza and 10 other neuroscientists explained why Prause was mistaken. Perhaps her attack on Gola & Potenza study was attempted pay-back for daring to point out the flaws in her conclusions.

Addendum: Is Prause tweeting for Porn Helps? Porn Helps later tweets that she has “15 years studying as neuroscientist”:

Perhaps. Prause, a Kinsey grad, calls herself a neuroscientist, and appears to have started college about 15 years ago. More on @pornhelps below. (Update – @pornhelps later deleted its twitter account and website when it became apparent to others that Prause often tweeted with this account and helped with the website)


OTHERS – July, 2016: Prause & David Ley attack NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes.

Upset that Alexander Rhodes’s story was published in the NY Times, Ley and Prause attack Rhodes on Twitter.

How ethical is it for psychologists to personally attack individuals trying to remove porn from their lives and recover? Ley has a history of attacking Rhodes and NoFap, and harassing young men trying to quit porn. Prause, a psychologist, tweets again, making fun of Rhodes appearance:

Rhodes eventually responded, and Prause accused Alexander of faking his porn-induced sexual dysfunction:

The only so-called science that Prause relies upon is her own roundly criticized paper (not a real study), which did not find what she has claimed.

Prause did not name Wilson, so she may be off the hook, legally speaking. All claims are false as Wilson has 1) never been contacted by the police, 2) never threatened her lab, 3) is not under any “no-contact order” except threats from Prause herself after Prause harassed him. This tweet once again incriminates Prause as the individual responsible for the many defamatory comments described in the first section. Prause ended it all as she usually does: citing no evidence and tweeting Rhodes “I sent you documentation. Do not contact me again.” That’s Nicole Prause’s MO: Initiate a personal attack, follow it up with lies, then end it all by playing the victim. By the way, Prause sent no such documentation. Yet another lie. Others were watching the Twitter storm, which led to an article detailing it, and more Prause tweets attacking yet another person (below). Meanwhile, consider the fact that it is a violation of APA (American Psychological Association) principles for psychologists to attack those trying to recover.

Over the next few months Prause takes every opportunity to belittle and attack Alexander, NoFap.com, and men recovering from porn addiction:

———–

———–

———–

———

——–

Prause went so far as to falsely accuse another “quora” user of being Alexander Rhodes and thus holding a “trademark”.

As explained here, Prause was eventually banned from Quora for harassment of Gary Wilson. In this out of the blues May, 2018 tweet attacking Nofap, Prause cited an opinion piece in the journal “Sexualities” falsely stating that the article had “shown by science to denigrate women”.

—–


OTHERS – July, 2016: Prause falsely accuses @PornHelp.org of harassment, libel, and promoting hate

The day after the above Alexander Rhodes/Nicole Prause dustup, @PornHelpdotorg published a blog post detailing the events: “Reflections on a Twitter Skirmish,” and tweeted it to Rhodes, Prause, and David Ley. This set off another Twitter conversation, which you can read in entirety here (prause has delted all herPrause’s first response once again claims documentation:

 

Once again Prause performs her usual dance: Start with false unsupported claims. When asked to support the claims, she cannot. Finally, Prause resorts to legal threats, instead of the requested documentation or examples. As always end with “do not contact me”.


OTHERS – July, 2016: Prause & PornHelps attack Alexander Rhodes, falsely claiming he faked porn-induced sexual problems

Evidence points to Prause sharing the @pornhelps twitter account and using the PornHelps disqus username. As described above, Prause published (then deleted) a bizarre tweet about this Matuesz Gola study. PornHelps simultaneously commented under the Gola study using the jargon of a researcher. In addition, the following @pornhelps tweets arise from Los Angeles, where Prause lives. (Update – @pornhelps later deleted their twitter account and website as it became apparent that Prause often tweeted with this account)

We start with a tweet  by the author of the TIME cover story, “Porn and the Threat to Virility“, Belinda Luscombe:

This was followed by @pornhelps calling both Alexander and Belinda liars. @NicoleRPrause eventually chimed in to call TIME journalist Luscombe a liar (more in the next section). The back and forth contains too many tweets to post here, but most can be found in these threads: Thread 1, Thread 2, Thread 3. Below is a sampling of @pornhelps’s unstable-sounding tweets falsely claiming that Alexander faked his story of porn-induced sexual problems:

  • @luscombeland @nytimes “Brave”? Faking a problem to promote his business? You failed to verify any part of his story
  • @GoodGuypervert @luscombeland exaggerating makes them money, esp in his case. These guys are mostly unemployed, no college…got $$$ somehow
  • @AlexanderRhodes & @luscombeland are creating fake panic to sell their wares. Disgusting.
  • @AlexanderRhodes @luscombeland @GoodGuypervert  uh-oh, he’s gone full ad-hominem BC he got caught faking to make money off young scared men.
  • @AlexanderRhodes @luscombeland @GoodGuypervert then I await your proof that any of your claims actually happened to you, fake profiteer.

Alexander answered several times, with no resolution. Eventually Belinda tweeted the following:

Pornhelps responds, seeing if a lie will stick: “I heard you got blackballed for false reporting”.  Eventually Prause’s “NicoleRPrause” Twitter account chimes in calling Luscombe a liar (below). Hmm…how did @NicoleRPrause know about this Twitter thread? Another bit of evidence suggesting Nicole Prause masqueraded as @pornhelps.

In this same Twitter thread Pornhelps tweeted about a just published David Ley interview of Nicole Prause.

In the Ley interview Prause claims to have unpublished data falsifying any connection between “porn addiction” and penile injures (Prause also said she will never publish the data). It’s important to know that both Prause and Pornhelps had been saying that Alexander lied about his masturbation-induced penile injury and porn-induced sexual problems.

Is it any coincidence that 3 days after multiple @pornhelps tweets called Alexander a liar, Ley and Prause publish a Psychology Today blog post directed at one of Alexander’s complaints (that he injured his penis from excessive masturbation)? Interestingly, their own data apparently showed that a fifth of those surveyed had experienced similar injuries. But again, Prause refuses to publish the data, while claiming her data somehow (inexplicably) prove that Alexander must be a liar. In any case Prause’s blog claims remain unsupported as she did not assess “porn addiction” or compulsive porn use in her subjects (read the comments section of Ley’s post).

UPDATE: December 12, 2016. Prause falsely claims that @Nofap drove gay teen to suicidal feelings (also calls Alexander Rhodes an “anti-porn profiteer”). Prause’s tweet linked to a radio show about Jehovah Witnesses and sex abuse, which contained a segment about a 14-year old gay teen whose mom found his stash of porn magazines. Since being gay is against JW doctrine, the church insisted the gay teen no longer masturbate to images of men. The gay teen was driven to thoughts of suicide because he was a homosexual stuck in the JW facing the very real prospect of being tossed out of the church and shunned by his family and friends. The radio segment did not mention NoFap. Here’s Prause’s tweet (notice that only David Ley liked it):

Prause’s twisted and libelous tweet attempting to smear NoFap in connection with an entirely unrelated event demonstrates just how far she is willing to stretch the truth in pursuit of her agenda. The NoFapTeam responded with 3 tweets:

Not so coincidentally, a rambling hit piece about NoFap, featuring Nicole Prause, was published a few days later by Medical Daily. Of course Prause tweeted it, saying “claims busted by scientists.” By “scientists” Prause means herself. This goes to show that Prause has many contacts in the media, and uses them to her advantage. Prause also called NoFap “woo woo and cult-like.” Medical Daily author Lizette Borreli went so far as to label NoFap an “anti-sex group.” Anyone who has visited Nofap knows that nothing could be further from the truth. Many experiment with NoFap to regain their sexual function. NoFap decided to set the record straight with a few tweets of its own (1, 2, 3, 4), including this one:

It sure seems that Prause tweets more about NoFap and Alexander Rhodes than she does about her own research. Prause claims to be licensed psychologist. What ethical psychologist would go out of the way to call a young man recovering from compulsive porn use a liar, especially without evidence? Ethics violation? Violation of APA principles?


OTHERS – July, 2016: Nicole Prause & PornHelps falsely accuse TIME editor Belinda Luscombe of lying and misquoting

Luscombe has been with TIME Magazine since 1995, becoming a senior editor in 1999. (See her Wikipedia page and her TIME page.) Luscombe spent a year investigating porn-induced sexual problems in young men, which resulted in the March, 31, 2016 TIME cover story “Porn and the Threat to Virility.” Both Prause and Ley have attacked the TIME article, even though both were featured in it and quoted (minimally).

Unfortunately for the public, usually Prause and Ley are the only “experts” featured in most mainstream porn-addiction articles, while the true addiction neuroscientists and their work are not even acknowledged to exist. Not this time. Two world renowned neuroscientists, who have published fMRI studies on porn users, were interviewed for the TIME article. So was a urologist, as well as several young men who have recovered from porn-induced erectile dysfunction. Put simply, the TIME article was more carefully researched than any other article on this subject, and its content reflected both reality and the (then) current state of the science. Since then, even more support for the possible link between internet porn use and sexual dysfunctions has come out in the peer-reviewed literature.

In response to Belinda’s earlier tweet (pictured above) about working the story for a year, we have @pornhelps, tweeting the following:

Pornhelps is psychic: she knows “for fact” how long Belinda worked on the story. Ten minutes later Prause tweets claiming Belinda misquoted her and “lied about her sources”:

As always, Prause provides no examples and no documentation. Not being tagged, how did Prause know about Belinda’s tweet or @pornhelp’s reply? Maybe Prause is psychic too?

Reality Check: It is Prause and @Pornhelps who are lying. As many can verify, Luscombe contacted Gary Wilson, Gabe Deem, Alexander Rhodes, Noah Church, David Ley, and others, during the year before the TIME cover story was published. In addition, Luscombe and several TIME Magazine fact-checkers contacted each individual several times to corroborate each interviewee’s claims.

We know that Wilson’s former employers were contacted, as were the girlfriends of the men with porn-induced sexual problems. Interviewees were also asked to deny or confirm claims given to TIME by David Ley and Nicole Prause. This was done in writing, often 2-3 times for each claim.

For example, Nicole Prause falsely claimed to TIME magazine that Gabe Deem masqueraded as a medical doctor to write this peer-reviewed critique of Prause & Pfaus 2015 (in fact written by a medical doctor/researcher). Even more astonishingly, Prause told TIME that UCLA had traced the “Richard A. Isenberg MD” critique (Letter to the Editor) to the young man’s computer. This outlandish attempt to defame Deem is all documented above.

In an attempt to end the conversation Belinda tweets the following on July 25:

“PornHelps” tweets two more unstable responses (Update – @pornhelps later deleted their twitter account as it became apparent that Prause often tweeted with this account):

No one responds to feed the troll. More examples of Prause’s acknowledged twitter account continuing to attack TIME and Belinda:

——

—-

—–


OTHERS – April, 2016: A Nicole Prause sock puppet edits the Belinda Luscombe Wikpedia page

On March, 31, 2016 TIME published Belina Luscombe’s cover story “Porn and the Threat to Virility.” The very next day, a Wikipedia user appeared, indentified only by an IP address, and added the following to the Belinda Luscombe Wikipedia page:

Despite claiming that she is “not a science writer,” she continues to try to cover scientific topics. This often results in required retractions by the scientists then forced to clean up her poor writing.

The above comment was reversed the next day by another Wikipedia editor. Without checking this user’s other comments, it’s evident that this was likely done by Nicole Prause. Moreover, an investigation of this user’s only other 3 Wikipedia edits erases all doubt that this is Prause’s handiwork:

Only Nicole Prause would have made theses edits, especially the last 3:

  1. Largest neuro study mysteriously left off previous edits.” This is referring to Prause et al., 2015, which is the study that only Prause boasts (inaccurately) is the largest neurological study on porn addicts. No one else calls her EEG study the “largest study” because: 1) Many of Prause’s subjects were not really porn addicts; 2) two other neurological studies assessed greater numbers of subjects.
  2. Removing pseudoscience by Gary Wilson.” Who else would (falsely) accuse Gary Wilson in a Wikipedia edit? In the section below we reveal other Prause Wikipedia sock puppets who attack Gary Wilson, including a sock puppet with the user name “NotGaryWilson.”
  3. inaccuracies in writing”: This is Prause lashing out in impulsive frustration at the TIME article, as she did months later as both @PornHelps and @NicoleRPrause.

This vicious failed attack on veteran TIME editor Belinda Luscombe for doing her job well (and giving short shrift to Prause’s “alternative facts”) is classic Prause vindictiveness.


OTHERS – September 2016: Prause attacks and libels former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid PhD. 2 years earlier “TellTheTruth” posted the exact same claims & documents on a porn recovery site frequented by Prause’s sock puppets.

On September 15th, 2016 Nicole Prause posted a fake press release on the website PROLOG. Prause’s “press release” attacked and libeled several individuals including Gary Wilson, Donald Hilton MD, Utah state senator Todd Weiler, and Dr. Todd Love. This is what remains of the press release, as ProLog removed the content 2 days later because it violated their policies. Not to be denied, Prause placed the press release’s content on her AmazonAWS account. Here we examine her comments about UCLA researcher and former colleague Rory Reid PhD. Excerpt from Prause’s rant:

“Psychologist” and “LCSW” are both regulated titles licensed with the state of California that Rory Reid was using to advertise his services to patients but did not actually possess. Rory Reid also has falsely described that he attended and is on faculty at Harvard University and is an “assistant professor” at UCLA. Reid was never faculty at Harvard University and is an adjunct, not tenure track faculty, at UCLA. Reid is listed as a full-time employee of the State of California’s Office of Problem Gambling at UCLA, so it is unclear how Reid would be able to study sex films and contact politicians about sex films without violating his state contract.

A little background on Rory Reid and former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause is useful here. Rory Reid has been a research psychologist at the David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA since before Nicole Prause’s brief stint at UCLA began in 2013. Reid’s research areas are hypersexuality and gambling addiction.

Reid, like Prause, has often argued against the existence of “sex addiction.” Reid stated in a 2013 article that his office was right next door to Prause’s at UCLA. In 2013 Nicole Prause listed Rory Reid as a member of her “SPAN Lab.” As stated, Prause’s UCLA contract was not renewed while Reid remains a researcher at UCLA. Whatever he did to displease her, Prause is now attacking a former colleague publicly and brutally.

But there’s more to the story. Months earlier, in December 5th, 2014 several comments mirroring Prause’s “press release” (urging readers to report Rory Reid to California authorities) were posted on the porn recovery site YourBrainRebalanced by a brand new member. As we saw above, Prause made a habit of commenting on YBR using various aliases. The first of these comments, by TellTheTruth, contained 2 links. One link went to a PDF on Scribd with supposed evidence supporting TellTheTruth’s claims (Prause regularly use aliases with 2-4 capitalized words as usernames).

Two more comments by TellTheTruth that mirror Nicole Prause’s “press release” (now) published nearly 2 years later.

——

The TellTheTruth comments and PDF from December, 2014 along with the Prause’s press release incriminate Nicole Prause as cyberstalking Rory Reid at about the time she was leaving UCLA. Key point: The documents that Prause placed on her AmazonAWS account about Reid are the same documents that TellTheTruth placed on YourBrainRebalanced 2 years earlier. Note the same “2013 copyright State of California” for Prause’s current screenshot and TellTheTruth’s 2-year old screenshot:

Prause’s current document: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/NoLicenseInCaliforni… (note the URL in this screenshot & the 2013 copyright)

TellTheTruth’s document she posted 2 years earlier on the porn recovery forum YourBrainRebalanced. Notice the 2013 copyright and how TellThe Truth pasted Reid’s picture into her PDF:

 

Here’s why we know TellTheTruth was Nicole Prause: The current license search has a 2016 copyright notice! Prause was harassing and cyberbullying her UCLA colleague Rory Reid in December, 2014 (about the time she was leaving UCLA), and she’s still using the same screen shots to do it.

Here’s another another example of duplicate documents by Prause-2016 and TellTheTruth-2014. Prause’s current AmazonAWS document – https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/BevHillsClinicalPrac…

Incidentally, it looks like Nicole Prause “stole” Rory Reid’s picture and placed on a website without his permission. Should he file a police report? And here’s TellTheTruth’s document from December, 2014. You can see from the URL stamp and heading that this was a PDF on SCRIBD:

Same documents, same claims, same spinning of the truth by both Prause and TellTheTruth. Here’s the Key point: Rory Reid is still a researcher at UCLA while Prause’s contract at UCLA was not renewed.

One has to ask why UCLA would willingly part with an up-and-coming researcher able to (1) debunk entire fields of science with a single study (in this case, the field of porn addiction research), and (2) persuade the media she has done so. Things are not always what they seem.


September, 2016: Prause libels Gary Wilson and others with Amazon AWS documents (which Prause tweeted dozens of times)

Back to the September 15th, 2016 fake press release Nicole Prause posted on the website PROLOG. Prause’s “press release” also attacked and libeled several individuals including Gary Wilson, Donald Hilton MD, Utah state senator Todd Weiler, and Dr. Todd Love. Again, this is what remains of the press release, as ProLog removed the content 2 days later because it violated their policies. Not to be denied, Prause placed the press release’s content on her AmazonAWS account (Amazon refuses to arbitrate content disputes). Since September 15, Prause has tweeted dozens of times about her document. Here we examine Prause’s comments about Gary Wilson.

Prause: Dr. Prause had to file a police report and close and hide her UCLA laboratory under threat from this blogger and now requires physical protection at all her public talks from him. He has since been spotted in Los Angeles near the scientist’s home and LAPD threat management has been alerted.

Closed her Lab? Armed guards? Spotted near her home? All this because YBOP critiqued her 2013 EEG study? All these claims are untrue, and the claim that “Wilson has been spotted seen near the scientist’s home” is also fiction. Wilson hasn’t been to LA in years. A call to the Los Angeles police and the UCLA campus police revealed no police report about Wilson in either system. That is the only fact here.

Prause: He wrote the UCLA chancellor over a dozen times claiming Prause had faked her data, faked her title, and more, all of which UCLA refuted.

False. Wilson wrote (or copied) the chancellor 3 times in late 2013 and early 2014 to complain about Prause’s ongoing harassment. The first letter informed UCLA about Prause’s multiple instances of harassment, frivolous legal threats and libel targeting Wilson and two others. This letter also documented Prause’s intimidation of Psychology Today editors (who acquiesced and removed Wilson’s critique and a critique by two other Psychology Today bloggers (both experts)). In one paragraph Wilson described how Prause misrepresented the finding of Steele et al., 2013 to the press. Five peer-reviewed papers have since supported Wilson’s assertion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) Nowhere did Wilson say that Prause had “faked her data” or “faked her title.” Both Wilson and UCLA possess the original letters. Their content proves that Prause is libeling Wilson.

Wilson sent a second letter to UCLA (December 2, 2013) to complain about Prause placing a document libeling Wilson on the SPAN lab website (as described above). It was assumed that UCLA controlled the content as each SPAN Lab page contained the following:

Copyright © 2007-2013 SPAN Lab, All Rights Reserved University of California, Department of Psychiatry, Los Angeles, CA 90024

Reproduced below are the first several paragraphs of Wilson’s letter to UCLA Chancellor Block:

Two weeks later a letter was sent to Vice Dean Jonathan R. Hiatt to inform him that Prause’s libelous PDF remained. Shortly thereafter the PDF was removed, although no official response was received until March, 2014. The Vice Dean informed Wilson that the SPAN Lab website was Prause’s own site, and not a UCLA website at all(!). Reproduced below is a portion of UCLA’s response to Gary Wilson’s letter:

So Wilson did not “write the UCLA chancellor over a dozen times.” This can be confirmed by UCLA. We must state again that Prause not only personally attacked Wilson, but attacked UCLA colleague Rory Reid PhD (see above section). UCLA did not renew Prause’s contract.

Prause: He also broke into her private online account to stalk her after receiving a no-contact order. He stole her personal photos from that account, posted them to his porn website, then migrated them to try to evade DMCA take downs until his ISP threatened to shutter his website.

All false. The “stolen photos” claim was addressed above. To recap, Wilson wrote this Psychology Today blog post about this Nicole Prause Psychology Today Interview (which contains a picture of Prause). Psychology Today required at least one picture (all of Wilson’s PT articles contained several pictures). Since this blog post was about Nicole Prause’s interview and her study, it contained a picture of Prause. The picture that accompanied Wilson’s Psychology Today blog post was also used with this same article on YBOP. The photo of Prause was chosen by her, and appeared on a site she falsely claimed was run by UCLA, with this notice on each page: “Copyright © 2007-2013 SPAN Lab, All Rights Reserved University of California, Department of Psychiatry, Los Angeles, CA 90024.”

Addendum: Prause is now claiming in an AmazonAWS PDF that Wilson migrated the picture of Prause (and the associated article) to other servers. This is false. The picture of Prause accompanied a single critique that appeared on two separate websites, PornStudySkeptics and YourBrainOnPorn.com. These two identical articles have remained on those two websites since July, 2013: Article 1, Article 2. In her PDF Prause also claims that Wilson’s ISP told him that they “would close his website if he did it a fourth time”. This did not occur.

Prause: Her name appears over 1,350 times on one website alone of an obsessed blogger.

This claim may actually be true. The website Prause is referring to is this one: YourBrainOnPorn.com. Approximately 700 of the 1,350 mentions are on this page alone. Why would YourBrainOnPorn.com contain an alleged additional 650 instances of “Prause”? YBOP contains about 9,000 pages, and it’s a clearinghouse for nearly everything associated with Internet porn use and its effects on the user. Nicole Prause has published multiple studies about porn use and hypersexuality, and by her own admission, is a professional debunker of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems.

A Google search for “Nicole Prause” + pornography returns about 9,000 pages. She’s quoted in hundreds of journalistic articles about porn use and porn addiction. She has published several papers related to pornography use. She’s on TV, radio, podcasts, and YouTube channels claiming to have debunked porn addiction with a single (heavily criticized) study. So Prause’s name inevitably shows up a lot on a site functioning as a clearinghouse for research and news associated with Internet porn’s effects.

Not only are Prause’s studies on YBOP, so are hundreds of other studies, many of which cite Prause in their reference sections. YBOP also has publsihed very long critiques of six Prause papers. YBOP contains at least 12 peer-reviewed critiques of Prause’s studies. YBOP contains at least a dozen lay critiques of Prause’s work. YBOP contains many journalistic articles that quote Nicole Prause, and YBOP often responds to Prause’s claims in these articles. YBOP also debunks many of the talking points put forth by Prause and her close ally David Ley. Finally, YBOP members comment here asking about Prause’s studies or her claims in the media. However, YBOP also critiques other questionable research on porn and related subjects. These critiques are not personal, but rather substantive.

Prause plays the misogyny card

Over the last few years, Dr. Prause appears to have taken great pains to position herself as a “woman being subjected to misogynistic oppression when she tells truth to power.” She frequently tweets this infographic that she apparently also shares at her public lectures, suggesting she is being victimized “as a woman scientist,” and painting herself as a trailblazer forging ahead to prove porn’s harmlessness despite prejudiced attacks. She has even been known to tweet combinations of misogyny claims and claims that (legitimate, peer-reviewed) science with which she disagrees is “fake.” Any suggestion that Wilson, Deem or Rhodes are motivated by misogyny is fabricated, as their objections have nothing to do with Dr. Prause as a person or as a woman, and only to do with her untrue statements and inadequately supported claims about her research.

As for the Infographic, Prause’s only evidence of misogyny is that Wilson supposedly once wrote “Miss Prause” and once incorrectly spelled her first name as “nicki.” That’s it. Neither of these examples are on YourBrainOnPorn.com, and Prause provides no documentation as to where either supposedly appear. Misspellings/autocorrects occur in the digital age.

The info-graphic also claims that Alexander Rhodes is sexist because he defended Wilson against Prause’s libelous claims that “Wilson was recently seen outside Prause’s residence.” When did the refutation of lies become misogyny?

If YBOP is truly sexist why are the majority of the authors we critique men? This page lists the studies and papers YBOP has critiqued.

  • The total number of authors listed on all the papers: 56
    • Male authors: 42
    • Female authors: 14

Once again, facts debunk propaganda.

Finally, no one named on this page – whom Prause has accused of sexism and misogyny  – endorses, or encourages, either. Speak with them and you will discover that the very opposite is true. All support the respectful treatment of women. Their issue with Prause is with her tactics and her unsupported claims about her research, not with her as a woman or a woman scientist.


Others – Prause falsely accuses Donald Hilton Jr., MD

Curious about Prause’s claim that Don Hilton, MD, “called her a child molester,” we contacted Dr. Hilton. Here is his response:

With regard to Prause’s claim, the facts are presented here. I did not call her a child molester.

About 6 or 7 years ago I spoke in 3 Idaho cities in one day for a group called Citizens for Decency. I spoke on evidence supporting an addictive model related to problematic porn use, which was mainly molecular biology at that point. This model has since been substantiated by structural and functional MRI studies.

At the end of my talk a young woman came up and basically said that she did not think there was any evidence supporting the addiction model. I only learned later that it was Nicole Prause, who was then employed in Idaho. Next, she said she had trained at the Kinsey Institute, implying that she was an expert on sexuality.

I asked her if she supported the research and methodology of the namesake of her institution, Alfred Kinsey. I explained to her that Kinsey had collaborated with pedophiles, and trained and instructed them to time with stopwatches how long it took children they molested to reach orgasm. I asked her if she supported Kinsey and his methodology. At that point she became hostile.

Her claim that I said she was a child molester is untrue; I didn’t know her, her name, or anything about her other than that she admired Kinsey. My point was that the person she considered her philosophical mentor had knowingly collaborated with child molesters. This is perfectly true. Attached is attached a copy of Table 34 from the Kinsey book on male sexuality published in 1948 [reproduced below]. The youngest child is 5 months old, and is described as having 3 orgasms. Note that most sessions are timed.

Incidentally, Paul Gebhard (coauthor of Kinsey’s female sexuality book published a few years after the male book), was interviewed by J.Gordon Muir years later. This is an excerpt from the interview:

Muir: “So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?”

Gebhard: “Ah, they do if we tell them we’re interested in it!”

Kinsey, Pomeroy (an early president of AASECT), Gebhard, and others worked with 2 child molesters, Rex King and a Nazi named Fritz Ballusek. Ballusek’s trial is well documented, but King was never caught. An example of the collaboration is from a letter on Nov 24, 1944 from Kinsey to King:

“I rejoice at everything you send, for I am then assured that that much more of your material is saved for scientific publication.”

Kinsey also warned his pedophiles to be careful not to be caught. For documentation, see Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, whose author confirmed to me that she has the original tapes of the phone interview in her archives.

Although I did not call Nicole Prause a child molester, I did ask her then, and I ask her now, if she condones or refutes the collaboration of Kinsey, his coauthors, and the Kinsey Institute with child molesters. I am still waiting for her answer.

Once again Nicole Prause has been caught in a lie.

Dr. Prause is obsessed with Dr. Hilton because he dared to critique the claims she made about her 2013 EEG study (Steele et al., 2013). Prause touted in the media that her study provided evidence against the existence of porn/sex addiction. Not so. Steele et al. 2013 actually lent support to the existence of both porn addiction and porn use down-regulating sexual desire. How so? The study reported higher EEG readings (relative to neutral pictures) when subjects were briefly exposed to pornographic photos. Studies consistently show that an elevated P300 occurs when addicts are exposed to cues (such as images) related to their addiction.

In line with the Cambridge University brain scan studies, this EEG study also reported greater cue-reactivity to porn correlating with less desire for partnered sex. To put it another way – individuals with greater brain activation to porn would rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a real person. Shockingly, study spokesperson Prause claimed that porn users merely had “high libido,” yet the results of the study say the exact opposite (subjects’ desire for partnered sex was dropping in relation to their porn use). Five peer-reviewed papers explain the truth: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Key point: Prause was given full opportunity by the journal to formally respond to Hilton’s critique. She declined. Instead, Prause attacked Hilton on social media and defamed him in emails.

Below are a few examples of Prause posting her lies on social media. Prause created a slide (naming Hilton, Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Nofap, Alexander Rhodes) “proving” everyone she doesn’t like is “misogynist,” and continues to tweet it repeatedly to this day (maybe 40-50 times… so far):

———–

Notice how Prause tagged her friends at AVN (Adult Video Network, a porn producers interest group) in her tweet:

———-

Prause and David Ley on Facebook:

———–

In 2017 Prause tweeted the following about Dr. Hilton’s 2013 critique, while falsely stating that her Lancet commentary addressed criticisms put forth in the 5 peer-reviewed papers:

 

In reality Prause’s 200-word opinion piece failed to address Hilton’s paper or even mention Prause’s own 2013 paper (Steele et al., 2013). In fact, Prause’s commentary also failed to address the content of the original commentary by Marc Potenza: Is excessive sexual behaviour an addictive disorder? (Potenza et al., 2017).

Dr. Prause even resorted to posting on IMDB to attack Dr. Hilton:

While Prause claims the film contained “misrepresentations and falsehoods about the science”, she couldn’t name any. Not one. She never does. Look at all of Prause’s tweets, Quora posts, Facebook comments, or even her two op-ed’s. She never provides any specific examples of misrepresentations. No excerpts from a study. No quote from the offender. Prause’s prime tactics are ad hominem and other defamation.

—————————

Prause created over 25 usernames to post on reddit/pornfree and reddit/nofap. Here’s one of her many sockpuppets attacking Dr. Hilton:

As always, Prause lied. The journal in question is not predatory – and it’s the same journal that published her own 2013 EEG study – Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology.


Others – September 25, 2016: Prause attacks therapist Paula Hall

Prause calls Hall a “pseudoscientist” and misrepresents Hall’s views on a study:

Known “pseudoscientist”? That’s not even a real word. A month after Prause’s tweet Paula Hall was listed as a coauthor on this Cambridge University brain scan study of porn addicts (published in the journal Human Brain Mapping): Compulsive sexual behavior: Prefrontal and limbic volume and interactions, 2016.


Others – October, 2016: Prause commits perjury attempting to silence Alexander Rhodes of NoFap

As described above Prause has a history of personally attacking Alexander Rhodes (it is always Prause who initiates the harssment with her tweets). For example, (again) here’s Prause (on a thread she initiated) claiming that Alexander Rhodes lied about experiencing porn-induced sexual problems:

@AlexanderRhodes and @NoFap follow Gary Wilson on Twitter. On October 1st Wilson responded to James Guay LMFT (who had tagged him with this libelous and harassing tweet). James Guay appears to be a friend of Prause. Guay also re-tweeted Prause’s libelous AmazonAWS document. Wilson and Guay exchanged tweets, with Wilson asking for any documentation to support Prause’s claims.

So you did not read all that we have documented here: Provide documentation for your defamatory claim.

James Guay provided no documentation, yet continued to harass Wilson with several more tweets. It must be noted that Wilson has never engaged Prause or her Twitter allies directly about her string of false accusations. It was James Guay who directly engaged Wilson on Twitter. Alexander Rhodes joined in posting a humorous tweet to Guay concerning Prause’s ridiculous claim that Wilson “has been seen outside Prause’s residence.” It contained a picture of a guy lurking in the bushes:

How did you get to another state so quickly to stalk? You also behind all of the mysterious clown sightings?

Key point: The above tweet no longer contains this picture of a man hiding in the bushes, which was used under the copyright “fair use” exclusion because it is evident the image’s purpose was for meme/parody:

As Alexander Rhodes describes in subsequent tweets, Nicole Prause falsely claimed ownership of the “man in the bush” picture and filed a bogus DMCA takedown request via Twitter. In doing so Prause committed perjury. Rhodes tweets the evidence:

Tweet #1 documenting of Prause’s perjury:

 

One must keep in mind that Prause is always the initiator of harassment, and her claims about Wilson constitute both libel and harassment.

Tweet #2 by Alexander explaining that calling out slander is not harassment:

 

Finally Alexander complains about having to reveal his personal information to Prause:

Libel, perjury, and harssment – all documented.  Prause reponded with this tweet and her ” misogyny infographic”, which she has tweetd about 30 times:

UPDATE – January, 2018: In response, Alexander Rhodes eventually sent in a counter notice, explaining to Twitter Inc. that as Dr. Nicole Prause is not the copyright holder or an  authorized representative of the copyright holder, inconsistent with what she falsely asserted in the DMCA take-down notice sent to Twitter, the copyright infringement notice was baseless. In response, Twitter gave Dr. Prause a window of opportunity to respond to Rhodes’s counter-notice, in which she did not. While Twitter Inc. said that they would reinstate the  censored tweet, the image has yet to reappear as of January 2018, despite the copyright  decision being reversed. This demonstrates that while Alexander Rhodes and NoFap LLC  successfully provided a legal argument against Prause’s censorship, she still was successfully able to permanently remove an image posted on Twitter through perjury without any tangible repercussions for breaking the law.


2015 & 2016: Prause violates COPE’s code of conduct to harass Gary Wilson and a Scottish charity

On August 5, 2016 the academic journal Behavioral Sciences published the following paper: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016). Seven US Navy doctors and Gary Wilson are the authors of this scholarly review of the literature. All authors are required to list their affiliations. Key point #1: Gary Wilson’s affiliation was accurately listed as “The Reward Foundation” (a registered Scottish charity).

An earlier and significantly different version of this paper was first submitted in March, 2015 to the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine for possible inclusion in its “Addiction” issue. Normal procedure is for the journal to have two academics review a paper to provide commentary and criticism. Key point #2: This paper was the only place Wilson’s affiliation with the Reward Foundation could be found outside of Foundation personnel. In other words, only the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine editor and the two reviewers knew about this affiliation.

In April, 2015 an email by someone using a fake name (“Janey Wilson”) was sent to The Reward Foundation and to the organization housing several charities, including The Reward Foundation:

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Janey Wilson <++++++++++++++@gmail.com> wrote:

I now have documentation that Gary Wilson himself is claiming to be a member of the Reward Foundation. While he is not listed on the new website page, this represents a rather worse transgression…. [Reward Foundation personnel] may not even be aware he is making these claims, I am not sure, but he has now made them publicly.

Key Point #3: Only one of two reviewers of the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine submission could have sent this email (Prause later self-identified as one of the two reviewers). The information was not public, but only made available to the journal.

Around the time that “Janey” (1) wrote The Reward Foundation to tell it about my “false” claim of affiliation, and (2) reported the charity itself to the Scottish Charity Regulator, “Janey” also wrote the Edinburgh organization where the charity is domiciled with false claims about me and The Reward Foundation. The Edinburgh entity is called “The Melting Pot.” It’s an umbrella organization that hosts various small enterprises. They contained the now familiar personal attacks on Wilson (described above), and even threats of legal action. No one took the bizarre rantings and unsupported claims seriously and “Janey” would not supply proof of her identity. “Janey” apparently simultaneously posted about this on the redddit/pornfree porn recovery forum – Gary Wilson is profiting from YBOP:

The above is hardly surprising as Prause has employed many sock-puppet identities to post, primarily on porn-recovery forums, about Wilson. For exmaple hundreds of comments by Prause’s apparent avatars can be found at the links below. And, they are but an incomplete collection:

Another reddit/pornfree post that appeared about the same time (Prause deleted her sockpuppet’s username, as she often did after posting):

Janey/Prause made the irrational claim that I was “paying off” The Reward Foundation for a TEDx talk opportunity that occurred years earlier, in 2012. It had been arranged in 2011, years before the charity was conceived of or organized. Obviously, no such subterfuge was needed. I had the right to give my book proceeds to anyone at any point, or put them in my pocket. I chose the Reward Foundation because I respect its balanced, educational objective.

Neither organization (the Scottish Charity Regulator nor the Melting Pot) responded to “Janey,” as she offered no evidence, and wouldn’t identify herself, claiming “whistleblower status” (although, of course, she wasn’t an employee of either, and was not under threat). Had the charity not had a strong, respected relationship with the Melting Pot, and had it already been required to file financial statements with the Scottish Charity Regulator, “Janey’s” malicious claims might have done a lot of damage to the charity’s reputation and initiated a time-consuming, costly audit, etc.

In late 2016, Prause outed herself as “Janey Wilson” when she demanded (repeatedly and unsuccessfully) that Dan Hind of Commonwealth Publishing confirm my connection with the Scottish charity called The Reward Foundation to Prause in writing. Copying both MDPI (the ultimate publisher of the paper discussed earlier) and a publication ethics organization (COPE), Prause told Commonwealth’s Hind that he had already written her to this effect.

However, the only correspondence Hind had with anyone on the subject of Wilson and The Reward Foundation was with “Janey,” and he has stated this in writing. Thus, Prause has now outed herself as the former “Janey.” When Hind didn’t respond to Prause’s repeated demands, she then demanded the information via Commonwealth’s web designer – accompanied, as usual, by defamation and threat:

You may wish to encourage the site content owner that you designed to clarify that his author was caught claiming to “donate” proceeds  from a book that actually went into his own pocket. Mr. Hind has failed to respond to inquiries with the Committee on Publication Ethics. I assume you would not want your name entangled in fraud like this in any way.

Prause seems to believe that the fact that my share of book proceeds goes to a Scottish registered charity, which I listed as my affiliation for purposes of two academic papers published in 2016, means that I am somehow pocketing the proceeds (from my own book) – and thus have a conflict of interest, which is purportedly grounds, in her mind, for my paper being retracted. Does any of this make any sense in light of the facts?

In fact, I am not on the Board of the charity, and certainly have no say over the book proceeds it receives as a consequence of my irrevocable donation. Incidentally, my affiliation is now public, as it is mentioned in both papers I published in 2016. In short, there is nothing hidden or improper going on, and no conflict of interest whatsoever – despite Prause’s claims behind the scenes and publicly.

Within days of Nicole Prause (as herself) emailing MDPI to demand that they retract Park et al., 2016, Twitter account “pornhelps” attacked Mary Sharpe of The Reward Foundation. In the tweet @pornhelps all but admits she is Prause:

Prause, a Kinsey grad and former academic, calls herself a neuroscientist, and appears to have started college about 15 years earlier. Not long after this revealing tweet “pornhelps” deleted both its Twitter account and website (pornhelps.com) – as it became apparent to others that Prause often tweeted with this account and helped with the website.

The following sections of this page provide examples of Prause and “pornhelps” simultaneously attacking and defaming some of Prause’s favorites targets (men who run porn-recovery forums, porn addiction researchers, TIME editor Belinda Luscombe, who wrote a cover story Prause didn’t approve of):

The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine was informed of this behavior (apparently engaged in by one of their two reviewers). When it was suggested that Prause might be behind these bizarre emails and the paper’s initial rejection, the editor didn’t deny it. The paper was promptly accepted…and then not published after all, based on a claim that it was too late to meet the print deadline for YJBM’s “Addiction” issue.

A different, substantially updated version of the paper was then submitted to the journal Behavioral Sciences. After a few rounds of reviews and rewriting it was accepted as a review of the literature. Its final form was quite different from the original YJBM submission. During this process, the paper was reviewed by no fewer than 6 reviewers. Five passed it, some with some suggested revisions, and one harshly rejected it (Prause, again). As part of this process, the authors were given all of the comments by the reviewers (but not their identities). The reviewers’ concerns were thoroughly addressed, point by point.

From these comments, it became evident that the “harsh reviewer” of the Behavioral Sciences paper had also reviewed the paper at YJBM. About a third of the 77 points raised did not relate to the Behavioral Sciences submission at all. They referred to material that was only present in the earlier version of the paper, the one that had been submitted to YJBM.  At a much later date, Prause submitted the original YJBM version to a regulatory board (in an effort to have the published paper retracted), thus confirming she was the person behind the many harassing “Janey Wilson” emails.

In the course of her attacks on the paper’s authors, Nicole Prause has violated the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) code of ethics for academic reviewers multiple times. Section 5, in the “Guidelines on Good Publication Practice” PDF (on this page) outlines eight rules for peer reviewers. Nicole Prause has violated at least three COPE’s rules:

(2) The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.

  • Prause broke confidentiality. She used Wilson’s affiliation with The Reward Foundation to harass the officers of the Reward Foundation and to pepper the Scottish Charity Register with false allegations about Wilson.

(3) The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.

  • Prause kept the manuscript and later submitted it to regulatory boards as part of a frivolous demand for retraction. (Apparently, she never realized the paper had been accepted by YJBM once her review was disqualified.)

(4) Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’ permission.

  • Prause used specific content of the YJBM submission as a part her bogus claim to regulatory boards without the authors’ permission.

Update: In May, 2018 Prause falsely claimed to journal publisher MDPI (and others) that, based on the charity’s recent public filing (with a name redacted, as is standard), expense reimbursements paid to a charity officer were in fact paid to me. I forwarded Prause’s claim to Darryl Mead, Chair of The Reward Foundation, who debunked Prause’s claims: See for the documentation.


October, 2016 – Prause publishes her spurious October, 2015 “cease and desist” letter. Wilson responds by publishing his letter to Prause’s lawyer.

On October 15, 2015 Gary Wilson received a cease and desist letter from a lawyer representing Nicole Prause. A year later Prause published her cease and desist letter on AmazonAWS, and linked to it under a petition to Psychology Today (asking the organization to reconsider its editorial policy). Prause commented under the petition multiple times saying that members of two organizations (IITAP & SASH) were all “openly sexist and assaultive to scientists.” In a strange disconnect, the main evidence Prause supplied for this blanket statement was the cease and desist letter sent only to Wilson, reproduced below. Wilson is not a member of SASH or IITAP.

There is no other way to say this: All four claims in the above cease & desist letter are bogus. The most absurd claim is that Wilson said that Prause appeared in porn. Gary Wilson wrote the following letter asking both Prause and the lawyer to provide evidence to support their allegations. Wilson’s letter in full:

In the intervening 30 months neither Prause nor the lawyer have responded. Neither has provided any evidence to support Prause’s allegations – because the allegations are false. It’s clear that Prause’s motivation was threefold:

  1. to intimidate Wilson so that he might remove his critiques of Prause’s studies,
  2. to create a letter she could show her allies as “proof positive” that Wilson is harassing her (even though it is proof of nothing and merely made up),
  3. to produce an “official letter” to show journalists so as to discourage them from contacting Wilson.

October, 2016 – Prause had co-presenter Susan Stiritz “warn campus police” that Gary Wilson might fly 2000 miles to listen to Prause say porn addiction isn’t real

Prause continues to spin a fable that Gary Wilson has threatened to “show up” at one of her talks. This is poppycock. Prause has provided no evidence to support this claim, and Wilson has no desire to hear Prause speak (let alone pay to hear her speak). In mid-October, 2016 Nicole Prause placed the following PDF on AmazonAWS. Prause posted a link to the PDF under a petition to Psychology Today (which was gathering support to ask the organization to reconsider its editorial policy).

While nothing in this message (below) can be verified, it appears to be written by Susan Stiritz. It also appears to be describing Stiritz relaying Prause’s fabricated claim to a campus policeman to the effect that Gary Wilson was planning to attend the AASECT summer institute. Put simply, Wilson was claimed to be planning to fly 2000 miles, pay for 4 nights in a St Louis hotel, and pay over $1000 to AASECT, just to hear Prause and David Ley explain how porn addiction has been “debunked.” Prause even provided a picture of Wilson, which she must have “stolen,” because he didn’t send it to her (reproduced below).

So this is the “proof” that Gary Wilson is dangerous: a made-up tale by Prause, told to a friend, who relayed it to a campus cop 2000 miles from where Wilson lives via message, which Prause now offers as “proof” of Wilson’s evil actions. What’s missing from all of this claptrap is one iota of evidence that hints that Wilson ever indicated that he intended to attend a Prause lecture – or threaten her in any way whatsoever.

While Prause claims Wilson is “dangerous,” the only danger of having Wilson in the audience is that he might, with awkward questions, debunk Prause’s claims by citing more than 3 dozen neurological papers that support the porn addiction model, and 80 studies that link porn use to sexual dysfunctions and lower sexual & relationship satisfaction. That’s the real reason she doesn’t want Wilson attending her lectures.


Ongoing – Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters

Prause has a history of sending cease and desist (C&D) letters to people who question her academic credentials and expertise. She claims to have sent (at least) seven such letters, which she has repeatedly mischaracterized on social media as “no contact orders.” Only courts and regulatory bodies issue “orders,” as that word is commonly understood, and only then after giving both parties the chance to be heard. Prause’s C&D letters to anyone who questions her come from her lawyer, not a judge, and seem expressly intended to stifle criticism and honest debate.

Worse, on the basis of merely sending these unsubstantiated letters, Prause insists she has the legal right to prevent anyone who has received such a letter from defending against, or replying to, her demeaning online statements about them or others – even if they simply wish to supply evidence that counters her untrue statements. When those letter recipients try to speak out, she publicly and falsely accuses them of “violating no contact orders” and of “harassment.” The clear, and clearly false, implication of her statements is to suggest these people are acting illegally.

To our knowledge, Prause has never obtained a court or regulatory order against any C&D letter recipient. Her aggressive tactics and knowingly false accusations instead appear calculated to bully and intimidate her detractors into silence.

Prause has also used a modified version of this tactic against Rhodes and PornHelp.org, among others by attacking them and their speech online, then if they dare to correct or defend, publicly demanding they “not contact [her] by any means.” If they subsequently dare to correct a falsehood or call her out, she accuses them of violating a “no contact” and threatens to sue.  And then, despite her demand, she continues to attack them online in the future.

A number of the C&D letters Prause has posted online or sent are reproduced as images below. Prause placed links to three of her C&D letters on her Amazon AWS pages (C&D 1, C&D 2, C&D 3), presumably so that she could easily link to each in tweets, on Facebook, and in the comment sections under online articles. To repeat: we are not aware of Prause ever acting on any of the aggressive, albeit empty, threats in these letters. We believe they are intimidation tactics, pure and simple. Finally, the recipients of the C&D letters emphatically state that Prause’s lists of wrongdoings were manufactured lies. Anyone can pay an internet-based lawyer to write spurious C&D letters.

Four of the five C&D letters are reproduced below. The 5th C&D letter, and Wilson’s reply to Prause’s lawyer, are in this section.

Linda Hatch PhD (who is addressed as “Ms.” instead of “Dr.” in the letter, an error that Prause has repeatedly insisted is incontrovertible proof of “misogyny”) Note that Prause had her lawyer cruelly copy the editor of a site where Dr. Hatch regularly blogs. Prause then posted both of these publicly on amazonaws.com. It’s clear that the bogus C&D letters were meant to “punish” the recipients for thoughtfully critiquing Prause’s flawed studies and challenging Prause’s unsupported claims.

————————————————

Robert Weiss LCSW, CSAT-S

 

In the above C&D letter Prause claims that Weiss misleadingly stated that Prause no longer has a university affiliation. While there is no evidence that Weiss said this – Prause isn’t affiliated with any university.

————————————————

Marnia Robinson, JD

It’s entertaining that Prause accused Robinson of saying that Prause is no longer employed by a university and that her contract with UCLA was not renewed – when both are true.  The reality behind Prause’s so-called no-contact request is exposed in the very first section of this page. Since Prause’s April, 2013, no-contact request Prause and her sockpuppets have posted hundreds of libelous comments on social media and elsewhere. In Prause’s twisted world it’s OK for her defame and harass others, but no one is allowed to defend themselves from her abuse.

————————————————

Gabe Deem, who recovered from porn-induced ED, founded RebootNation, and dismantled a Prause paper with this critique: Nothing Adds Up in Dubious Study: Youthful Subjects’ ED Left Unexplained – by Gabe Deem (2015)

These same 4 bogus assertions of wrongdoing were copied and pasted from Prause’s C&D to Gary Wilson (see Wilson’s response to Prause’s lawyer).

In addition, Prause falsely (we believe) claimed to have sent cease & desist letters to the 4 panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast.


OTHERS – October, 2016: Prause states falsely that SASH and IITAPboard members and practitioners are openly sexist and assaultive to scientists

On October 12, 2016 a petition to Psychology Today (asking the organization to reconsider its editorial policy) was published on “petitionbuzz.com” The next day Nicole Prause & Jim Pfaus posted four comments under the petition. Prause & Pfaus co-authored this paper (it’s not an actual study), that they claim debunked porn-induced ED. Two peer-reviewed papers (paper 1, paper 2) and three lay critiques say otherwise (1, 2, 3). As do 25 studies linking porn use to sexual problems. Under the petition, Jim Pfaus calls SASH and IITAP “addiction cults” and “snake oil salesmen” (Pfaus is not a therapist). He also falsely claims that there’s “no empirically-based clinical or biological science supporting porn addiction or the negative effects of porn use.”

Pfaus is not telling the truth: 37 neurological studies & 12 reviews of the literature support the porn addiction model, and 80 studies link porn use to sexual dysfunctions and lower sexual & relationship satisfaction. Not a single neurological study falsifies the porn addiction model, including this one. There are codes in both the ICD and DSM that allow reimbursable diagnoses of the disorders, and “compulsive sexual behavior disorder” is proposed for inclusion in the ICD-11. (Note: Like Prause, Jim Pfaus has a history of misrepresenting the research, and even making false statements – as he did here about Prause & Pfaus 2015.)

In a reply comment, Prause echoed fellow troll Pfaus calling “IITAP/CSAT’s” snake oil salesmen. Now that’s an unbiased researcher.

Nicole Prause posted 3 more comments, including this one where she claims that all members of IITAP and SASH are “openly sexist” and “assaultive to scientists”:

What evidence does Prause provide to incriminate all the members in these two very large and diverse organizations, accusing them all of “sexism and assaults on scientists?” Prause posts links to her fabricated claims about Gary Wilson (described above).

Since Wilson is not a member of either organization, it’s baffling how Prause’s ramblings about Wilson incriminate over a thousand therapists, PhDs, medical doctors and psychologists belonging to these two organizations. Once again, we have inflammatory and defamatory claims without a shred of evidence.


OTHERS – November, 2016: Prause asks VICE magazine to fire infectious disease specialist Keren Landman, MD for supporting Prop 60 (condoms in porn)

California Proposition 60 would have mandated condom use in porn films. It was supported by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), a nonprofit HIV/AIDS care and advocacy organization, and vehemently opposed by porn producers and interestingly enough, Nicole Prause and colleague David Ley. In the run up to the 2016 election, Prause and Ley seemed obsessed with defeating Prop 60, while relatively unconcerned about graver issues such as health care, immigration, or jobs. Both Prause and Ley spent considerable effort tweeting and re-tweeting attacks on Prop 60, and support for the Free Speech Coalition, the lobbying arm for the porn industry (tweet1, tweet2, tweet3, tweet4, tweet5, tweet6, tweet7, tweet8, tweet9, tweet10, tweet11 – NOTE: Prause deleted many of these tweets in April, 2016). One such example of Prause supporting the porn industry:

David Ley even wrote a Psychology Today article denouncing Proposition 60: Condoms in Porn: A Solution in Search of a Problem. More Tweets by Prause in support of the porn industry:

Prause lets us know how she voted:

———-

In a series of tweets, Prause joins an “adult actor” in attacking a Keren Landman, a medical doctor specializing in infectious disease.

In Prause’s esteemed opinion, VICE magazine should have fired expert Dr. Landman for writing an article supporting Prop 60:

Freelancer? While Prause’s degree is in statistics, Keren Landman MD is a researcher, medical epidemiologist, and infectious disease specialist who once worked for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV infection is one of her specialties, having published several papers in the field. Once again, we have Prause personally attacking experts in a field, while simultaneously failing to support her position with empirical evidence. (Does anyone believe Prause’s claim that “every independent scientist supports prop 60″?) Whatever anyone thinks about Prop 60, Dr. Landman’s position is supported by research, and Nicole Prause’s is not.

The question remains: Why are both Prause and Ley such outspoken supporters of the porn industry, and so eager to attack anyone and everyone who suggests porn use or sex without a condom may pose problems?


OTHERS – November, 2016: Prause falsely claims to have sent cease & desist letters to panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast

On November 10, 2016 “Mormon Matters” published the following podcast: 353–354: Championing the “Addiction” Paradigm with Regard to Pornography/Sex Addiction. It was a response to an earlier Mormon Matters podcast (episodes 347–348) where Prause and three therapists tried their very best to debunk porn addiction and sex addiction. In Podcast 353–354, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon was joined by four panelists: Jackie Pack (LCSW, CSAT–S, CMAT), Alexandra Katehakis (MFT, CSAT-S, CST-S), Stefanie Carnes (Ph.D., CSAT-S), and Donald Hilton (M.D.).

Within a few minutes of the podcast going live, Nicole Prause and, apparently, her sock puppets (“Skeptic”, “Lack of expertise on panel”, “Danny”) posted a dozen comments attacking the four panelists. Prause & sock puppets was joined in her ad hominem fest by Jay Blevins and Natasha Helfer-Parker (two of the therapists who collaborated with Prause on episodes 347-348). Over the next few days, Prause, Jay Blevins, and Natasha Helfer-Parker posted dozens more ad hominem comments. Nicole Prause posted her typical lies about Gary Wilson stealing photos, having to lock down her lab, and “fortifying her home” (maybe she installed a bomb-shelter to protect her from unfavorable blog posts). Also, in one of her numerous comments, Prause claimed that:

  1. She had sent Cease & Desist letters to members of the panel
  2. Two of the panelists are currently under APA investigation

Prause’s comment:

We contacted the panelists, and it was confirmed that:

  1. No panelist has received a cease and desist letter from Dr. Prause, and
  2. No panelist has been contacted by the APA (the American Psychological Association).

Once again, we have evidence that Nicole Prause is making false statements. And suppose Prause had actually sent cease and desist letters? It would be evidence of nothing, as anyone can pay a lawyer to send a spurious cease and desist letter (as Prause is wont to do).

Update: All of the many comments under podcast: 353–354, including several libelous ones by Prause, have mysteriously disappeared. Is this another instance of Prause trying to cleanup her public image? (In April of 2018 she deleted hundreds of her libelous and harassing tweets.)


OTHERS – December, 2016: In a Quora answer Prause tells a porn addict to visit a prostitute (a violation of APA ethics and California law)

Below is a screenshot of Prause’s original answer posted in response to this Quora question: How can I overcome masturbation and/or porn addiction? What are the best methods? While Prause’s post was written in September, 2016, its existence was further publicized in this December 14th IITAP blog post that responded to AASECT’s proclamation that porn and sex addiction are myths. (Thereafter the original Prause response was deleted.)

Here is the paragraph from IITAP’s response that linked to the Prause Quora post. (Keep in mind that Prause was an instrumental figure in misleading a small band of AASECT therapists that porn and sex addiction had been debunked – not the case).

On the other side, many clinicians are expressing worry that people who truly are sexual addicts are harmed by well-meaning sex therapists who without insight or full understanding of these issues discount the problematic nature of these symptoms, thus writing off a client’s compulsive sexual behavior patterns as normal and non-consequential, even suggesting that clients’ issues are related more to their attitude about sex than the sex itself. This stance is clearly harmful to those clients who are getting and sharing STD’s with unwitting partners and/or losing marriages, jobs and educational opportunities due to self-described excessive porn use, online hook-ups and the like. Consider, for instance, the recently published blog from a well-known researcher, and AASECT faculty member that recommended that someone with a porn addiction should go see a sex worker instead of masturbating to porn (since the posting of this article this blog has been removed). From the IITAP educational perspective, such blatant disregard of compulsive behavior can without question be harmful to the client and those close to him or her.

Prause’s suggestion to visit a prostitute is in the last paragraph:

While this is not harassment, it’s relevant because it shows a complete disregard for professional ethics, ethical and social norms, and the rule of law. This theme permeates everything revealed about Nicole Prause on this page.


OTHERS – December, 2016: Prause reports Fight the New Drug to the State of Utah

Nicole Prause seems to tweet more about Fight The New Drug (FTND) than she does about her or others’ research. A quick look reveals that Prause tweeted 35 times about FTND in November & December 2016.

On December 19, 2016, Prause wrote an e-mail to the Utah State Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), in which she accused Fight the New Drug in its online Fortify program (an online educational curriculum for teens and adults seeking to overcome compulsive pornography use) of  both “soliciting sexual stories from children” without parental consent and “coercing” children to provide these stories. While underscoring that she was a “licensed psychologist in California (CA #27778)” and a “mandated reporter” the single reference she provided to support her initial claim was a hit-piece from an online website called “Harlot Magazine.”

Nicole CC’d the CEO of Fight the New Drug (FTND), Clay Olsen, on her complaint to DCFS. Subsequent phone calls from FTND to DCFS revealed that (while they could officially neither confirm nor deny whether an investigation was taking place) (1) the accusation from Prause meets none of the criteria for something DCFS investigates, and (2) it was not necessary for FTND to meet with DCFS since there was “nothing to investigate” and “nothing to explain.”

Despite all this, Prause continued publicly tweeting her concerns about “@FightTheNewDrug child victims” and posted the following request to all her twitter followers, “if your child completed @FightTheNewDrug Fortify program, asking sexual hx, Utah DCFS wants to talk to you. This how to get heard.”

Thus Prause continues her pattern of misusing regulatory bodies for unwarranted complaints – partly as a way to intimidate individuals and organizations and partly as a way for her to subsequently use her own specious and defamatory accusations in broader media opportunities.


OTHERS – January, 2017: Nicole Prause tweets that Noah B. Church is a scientifically inaccurate non-expert and religious profiteer

Once again, Prause launches an unprovoked, defamatory twitter attack on a man who recovered from porn-induced ED. The following Prause tweet seems to be related to Noah’s appearance on the DearSugarRadio segment “My Fiancé Is Addicted To Porn“.

Was Noah scientifically inaccurate? Nope. As is usual, Prause fails to describe the supposed inaccuracies.

Is Noah an expert? Yes indeed, as Noah has:

Is Noah religious? Nope. He is an atheist, which he has stated many times in past.

Is Noah a profiteer? His book, videos and website are all given freely. Noah only charges for one-on-one coaching because it’s so time-consuming.

We assume that Dr. Prause doesn’t treat clients for free (if she sees clients). We know that Prause offered (for a fee) her “expert” testimony against sex addiction and porn addiction. She also receives payment for speaking engagements where she debunks porn and sex addiction.

Finally, consider the fact that it is a violation of APA (American Psychological Association) principles for psychologists to attack those trying to recover.


OTHERS – January, 2017: Prause smears professor Frederick M. Toates with a bogus claim

Prior to the publication “The Routledge International Handbook of Sexual AddictionPrause tweets that the book’s “only neuroscience chapter was written by a person with no neuroscience training”:

The chapter in question is 3.2 – “The Neuroscience of Sexual Addiction” and was written by Frederick M. Toates DPhil DSc.

The 73-year old Toates is Emeritus Professor of Biological Psychology at The Open University and Vice-President of the Open University Psychology Society. He is not only trained in neuroscience, he is a professor of biological psychology (neuroscience).

With two doctoral degrees, Frederick Toates is a pioneer in the study of motivational systems (the reward system), especially in relationship to sexual desire and motivation. His latest book: How Sexual Desire Works: The Enigmatic Urge. Professor Toates was publishing biological research and authoring neuroscience books before Nikky Prause was a gleam in her parents’ eyes. While Professor Toates is still actively publishing and working in academia, non-academic Prause hasn’t been associated with a university for over 2 years.

With Prause’s targets expanding, it appears that there is no lie too outrageous to tell nor target too unassailable to smear. Welcome to the club, Professor Toates.


OTHERS – January, 2017 (and beyond): Prause defames publisher MDPI, calling Behavioral Sciences a “fake journal”

MDPI is the Swiss parent company of numerous academic journals, including Behavioral Sciences. Prause is obsessed with MDPI because (1) Behavioral Sciences published two articles that Prause disagrees with (because they discussed papers by her, among hundreds of papers by other authors), and, (2) Gary Wilson is a co-author of Park et al., 2016. The two paper:

The second paper (Park et al.) didn’t analyze Prause’s research. It cited findings in 3 of her papers. At the request of a reviewer during the peer-review process, it addressed the third, a 2015 paper by Prause & Pfaus, by citing a scholarly piece in a journal that heavily criticized the paper. (There was not enough space in Park et al. to address all the flaws and unsupported claims found in Prause & Pfaus.)

A few days after Park et al.‘s publication Prause insisted that MDPI retract it. The professional response to scholarly articles one disapproves of is to publish a comment outlining any objections. Behavioral Sciences’s parent company, MDPI, invited Prause to do this. Prause declined the offer and demanded (unwarranted) retraction instead. Since Park et al.’s publication Prause has been trying every weapon in her arsenal to have the paper retracted (including sending bogus complaints to the medical boards of all 7 physicians who co-authored the paper). Her emails to MDPI officials, filled with spurious claims and easily debunked allegations, have failed to achieve her goal. No one on the receiving end of her invective had ever witnessed such bizarre behavior by a researcher.

Most unprofessionally, she has turned to threats and social media (and most recently the Retraction Watch blog) to bully MDPI into retracting Park et al. In addition, she informed MDPI that she had filed complaints with the American Psychological Association and the doctors’ medical boards. She also pressured the doctors’ medical center and Institutional Review Board, causing a lengthy, thorough investigation, which found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the paper’s authors.

Having failed to bring about an unmerited retraction, Dr. Prause has continued to make untrue statements about the journal itself, claiming that Behavioral Sciences is a predatory journal (it isn’t – it’s PubMed indexed), and that Park et al. was never reviewed (normally a journal sends a paper to 2 reviewers for comments and criticisms). In reality, the paper was reviewed at least 6 times that we know of (for Behvavioral Sciences alone), including one very antagonistic review from Dr. Prause – who later indirectly identified herself as the person who reviewed not only the Behavioral Sciences submission, but an earlier, much shorter version of the paper, submitted to Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine (YJBM).

In many of her emails to MDPI (and others), Prause mentioned her “77 criticisms” and falsely claimed that they had not been addressed. In reality, many of the 77 so-called problems were carelessly copied and pasted from Prause’s review of the YJBM submission; 25 of them had nothing to do with the Behavioral Sciences submission. In other words, the only reviewer to condemn the paper had cut and pasted dozens of criticisms from a review done at another journal (YJBM), which no longer had any relevance to the paper submitted to Behavioral Sciences. This is highly unprofessional.

Even apart from that glaring irregularity, few of the 77 problems could be considered legitimate. Yet, we carefully combed through each comment mining for useful insights, and wrote a comprehensive response to all comments for Behavioral Sciences and its editors. Almost all of the remaining 50 critical comments were either scientifically inaccurate, groundless, or were simply false statements. Some were repetitive. The authors provided MDPI with a point by point response to each so-called problem.

In her frustration and obsession, Prause resorted to Twitter (and to Wikipedia) to wage her battle, lying in the following tweet:

Prause is claiming that publisher MDPI is on predatory journal list cataloged by librarian Jeffrey Beall. This assertion is false, and there’s no list associated with the link Prause tweeted. MDPI does not publish predatory journals. In fact, it was investigated years ago after it was mistakenly placed on a predatory list, and formally determined to be a legitimate publisher. See: http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/534. The man (Jeffrey Beall) who made the error eventually deleted his entire operation

MDPI responds:

Prause Twitter rampage has continued (a few of her tweets below):

 

MDPI responds to Prause:

CEO of MDPI Franck Vazquez, Ph.D, also responds, as does Prause:

Prause keeps going (MDPI eventually ignores her Twitter tagging):

Has Prause been trying to have MDPI thrown out of PubMed and other indices based on her untruths? Three tweets from August, 2016 – just a few weeks after Park et al., 2016 was published:

Second tweet:

Third tweet:

Another tweet from November, 2017 suggesting Prause is still harassing regulatory agencies about MDPI (https://twitter.com/NicoleRPrause/status/935983476775387136):

From a hit piece containing several false statements by Prause: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2016/12/op-ed.html. One article referred to is Park et al., the review co-authored by 7 Navy doctors and me. The other is co-authored by other experts, including Todd Love PsyD – whom Prause has also harassed. (Again, MDPI was formally exonerated and removed even before Beall took his list down.)

Prause has also tried to interfere with other MDPI journal issues by defaming MDPI:

———-

Here are examples of Prause unprofessionally shaming others for collaborating/publishing with/receiving awards from MDPI:

——

———-

——–

Here Prause plays her favorite card – accusing others of misogyny – without a shred of evidence (just as she has done with me and multiple others).

More false accusations of misogyny:

Prause falsely claims the Behavioral Sciences paper she attacked was retracted. This is both defamatory and unprofessional.

The Twitter conversation continues:

After a lengthy, thorough, time-consuming investigation, MDPI decided not to retract the paper, and circulated a draft editorial criticizing Prause’s unprofessional behavior. As soon as Prause was informed, she initiated an unprofessional, untruthful email exchange with MDPI – copying bloggers David Ley (her close colleague) and Retraction Watch among others. On the same day of this email barrage harrasing and threatening MDPI, Prause employed multiple Wikipedia usernames (which violates Wikipedia rules) to edit Wikipedia, inserting false information about MDPI and attacking the authors of Park et al., the MDPI president, and two others in the organization.

While Prause’ email threats are not on social media (yet), she has copied bloggers who are positioned to damage the reputations of MDPI in the media, if they choose. Ley blogs on Psychology Today and has often served as the Mouth of Prause. Neuro Skeptic has a popular blog that disparages legitimate (and sometimes dubious) research. Adam Marcus writes for Retraction Watch. Prause also copied Iratxe Puebla, who works for COPE, an organization that addresses publication ethics. Already, a blogger from Retraction Watch has begun investigating the matter, demanding comments on various unsupported, Prause-like claims of impropriety.


January, 2017 (and earlier): Prause employs multiple sock puppets (including “NotGaryWilson“) to edit Wikipedia pages

The use of multiple user accounts to edit Wikipedia pages violates Wikipedia rules and is referred to as “sock puppetry” (or simply “socking”). We have already revealed one of Prause’s sock puppets, who edited the Belinda Luscombe Wikipedia page that day after TIME published Luscombe’s cover story, “Porn and the Threat to Virility,” which Prause disapproved of. It’s clear from the comments, content, and usernames that Nicole Prause has created several more accounts to edit Wikipedia articles, such as “pornography addiction,” “sex addiction” and “effects of pornography.”

First, here’s a list of edits done by a Prause sock puppet identified only by an IP address (75.82.147.215). Note the comment associated with this one particular edit:

·  19:06, 19 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-9,453)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (This section talked only about delta fos-B, which has never been investigated with respect to erotica. Gary Wilson, a known porn blogger who makes money from porn “addiction” added this section, as he is the only one promoting it. It should be removed.) (Tag: section blanking)

Naming “Gary Wilson” is a dead give-away that the above user account is Nicole Prause. Reality Check: Gary Wilson makes no money related to this endeavor, and he did not add the DeltaFosB section to the “Pornography Addiction” Wiki page. As time passed, Prause fell back into her usual pattern of creating usernames with 3-4 capitalized words. For example:

While the above edits suggest that all are Prause as they consistently attack IITAP, Carnes, the addiction model, and falsely claim there’s no science supporting either porn or sex addiction. If there was any doubt, two of them once again comment about Gary Wilson and DeltaFosB. First, a telling “PatriotsAllTheWay” comment:

04:55, 21 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-9,433)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (Delata fos B has never been linked to sexual behaviors in humans, not once. This section was added by Gary Wilson, promoting his book for profit of the same idea.) (Tag: section blanking)

A few comments: 1) All of Gary Wilson’s profits from the sales of his book go to charity, and his website is otherwise entirely non-commercial; 2) Contrary to Prause’s claim, DeltaFosB is present in humans and all neuroscientists studying its mechanisms agree that DeltaFosb is involved with multiple physiological functions, including sensitization to sexual activity and addiction.

A Wikipedia “user-page” is automatically created for every username that edits a Wikipedia article. “NotGaryWilson” is the only Prause sock puppet to have made a comment on its user page. Here’s what “NotGaryWilson” wrote about the “Sex Addiction” article:

As you are probably aware, anti-porn groups repeatedly sabatoge these pages for profit. Delta FOSb has no direct support, but is a pet idea from Gary Wilson, paid anti-porn activist. So, yes, I did mean to remove the text and will go ahead and remove it again. I will add the justification back. There is no evidence supporting the connections Wilson makes, which is why it is so easy to spot his writing.

As with the “Pornography Addiction” Wikipedia page, Gary Wilson in fact added none of the DeltaFosB material to the “Sexual Addiction” Wikipedia page. As stated, Wilson is paid by no one, and makes no money on this endeavor. Finally, only non-academics David Ley and Nicole Prause ever assert that DeltaFosB is not involved with initiating addiction-related brain changes. (Prause is particularly obsessed discrediting with DeltaFosB.) Contrary to their unsupported rantings, DeltaFosB’s role in addiction and sensitization is well established in both animal and human studies (see list 1 and list 2 for DeltaFosB studies). A veteran Wikipedia editor responds to the above comments by “NotGaryWilson”:

I’m C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sexual addiction without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don’t worry; the removed content has been restored.

And,

It’s pretty clear from your username that you have an axe to grind with the topic. Chopping broad sections from the article is not a constructive way to go about this. You need to discuss your changes on the talk page and get broad support for them.C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Don’t hold your breath for broad (legitimate) support for unsupported claims about Wilson or DeltaFosB. Sometimes Prause uses an IP address as a username. This Wikipedia user only edited “Sex Addiction” blabbering on about “FosB” and CSATs & IITAP – two of Prause’s favorite targets:

It appears that Nicole Prause employed two additional usernames to edit the Fight The New Drug Wikipedia page (FTND is one of Prause’s favorites targets):

What makes us suspect that both usernames are Nicole Prause? Not only did both usernames edit only the FTND Wikipedia page, both created the section featuring Prause’s often-tweeted op-ed that appeared in the Salt Lake City Tribune. Prause wrote the critique of Fight the New Drug’s previous op-ed, then persuaded 7 of her PhD buddies to sign off on it. Prause’s op-ed cited only a few irrelevant citations, while offering no neuroscience-based studies. It also made several false statements about the content and references in the earlier FTND op-ed. Several experts responded with this dismantling of the Prause op-ed: Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016).

In late November, 2017 Prause once again asked the ICD-11 to delete the proposed diagnosis of “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” (sex addiction, porn addiction). Her entire argument on the ICD rested upon a press release by 3 non-profit kink organizations (Center for Positive Sexuality, National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, and The Alternative Sexualities Health Research Alliance), and AASECT’s  2016 proclamation. (In addition, she falsely claimed that ATSA supported her views.) YBOP wrote an article dismantling the “group position” paper opposing porn and sex addiction (November, 2017). A few days later Prause used two new usernames to edit the Sex Addiction Wikipedia page adding content that mirrors her ICD-11 request to abolish “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder”:

In a rare turn of events, the Nicole Prause Wikipedia page was created by a Wikipedia employee. Whatever this employee’s motivation, there is little doubt that two primary usernames editing thsi page are Prause herself:

As pointed out above, Prause’s usernames often conatin 2-3 capitalized words. The last user name – OMer1970 – likely stands for “Orgasmic Meditation”, as this user’s edits are about Prause’s study on the effects of “Orgasmic Mediation”(commonly called “OM”). Prause is receiving a whole lot of money to study “the benefits” of OM, which involves a man straddling a woman and stroking clitoris. A 3-day workshop OM workshop costs $3,999.00 per person (if paid in full).


OTHERS – April, 2017: Prause insults Professor Gail Dines, PhD, perhaps for joining the Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography?

Prause, who has not been affiliated with any academic institution for more than 2 years, attacks Professor Dines in a Tweet:

This public insult was part of a thread where Prause scathingly assailed a university student in Sweden for endeavoring to study abuse of porn performers.

Another tweet calling both Gail Dines and Fight The New Drug (FTND) liars and “anti-LGBT” and “anti-woman”:


OTHERS – May, 2017: Prause attacks SASH (Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health)

Background: Prause has asserted that she has “debunked” and “falsified” the work of dozens of expert addiction neuroscientists with a single flawed study. That study has been formally critiqued repeatedly in the academic literature, as explained below.

Perhaps upset that SASH’s new Position Paper dared to look to the preponderance of neuroscientific evidence on the subject of sexual behavior addiction instead of looking to Prause’s assertions, Prause tweeted the following unjustifed, retaliatory claims. SASH has never commented on Prause.

Tweet #1 to SASH:

Tweet #2 to SASH:

————


OTHERS – May, 2017: In response to paper presented at a urology conference Prause calls US Navy urologists “activists, not scientists.”

Prause’s typical tactics are two-fold: 1) disparage every study that links porn use to negative outcomes, 2) personally attack those involved with the study. These behaviors serve her goal, which is to “prove” that porn use is rarely harmful, and almost always beneficial. In this tweet she disparages a study by US navy urologists, saying they are “activists, not scientists.”

Prause follows this attack with her own “official” press release attacking the study, which Prause has never seen. A second Prause tweet asserts that the medical doctors “ducked from reporters due to shame.” This is found nowhere in the article Prause tweeted and Prause did not attend the urology conference where the paper was presented:

It must be noted that Prause’s own “ED paper,” Prause & Pfaus 2015,  wasn’t a study at all. Instead, Prause claimed to have gathered data from four of her earlier studies, none of which addressed erectile dysfunction. Additional problem: The data in the Prause & Pfaus (2015) paper do not match the data in the four earlier studies. The discrepancies are not small and have not been explained.

A comment by researcher Richard A. Isenberg MD, also published in Sexual Medicine Open Access, points out several (but not all) of the discrepancies, errors, and unsupported claims (a lay critique describes more discrepancies). Nicole Prause & Jim Pfaus, the paper’s co-authors, made a number of false or unsupported public claims associated with this paper.

Many journalists’ articles about this study claimed that porn use led to better erections, yet that’s not what the paper found. In recorded interviews, both Prause and Pfaus falsely claimed that they had measured erections in the lab, and that the men who used porn had better erections. In this Jim Pfaus TV interview Pfaus states:

“We looked at the correlation of their ability to get an erection in the lab.”

“We found a liner correlation with the amount of porn they viewed at home, and the latencies which for example they get an erection is faster.”

In this radio interview Prause claimed that erections were measured in the lab. The exact quote from the show:

“The more people watch erotica at home they have stronger erectile responses in the lab, not reduced.”

Yet this paper did not assess erection quality in the lab or “speed of erections.” The paper only claimed to have asked guys to rate their “arousal” after briefly viewing porn (and it’s not clear from the underlying papers that even that actually happened in the case of all subjects). In any case, an excerpt from the paper itself admitted that:

“No physiological genital response data were included to support men’s self-reported experience.”

Nowhere in Prause & Pfaus 2015, or the 4 underlying papers, were lab measures of erectile functioning mentioned or reported. Truth? What’s that?


OTHERS – September 14, 2017: Prause claims all who believe porn can be harmful and addictive are “science-illiterate & misogynistic”

Link to twitter thread

——–


OTHERS – January 24, 2018: Prause files groundless complaint against therapist Staci Sprout

Continuing her behind-the-scenes pattern of filing baseless, harassing complaints against anyone whose views Prause disagrees with, Prause filed a complaint against therapist Staci Sprout, accusing Sprout of “conspiracy theories.” This was after falsely accusing her on a Facebook post comment of practicing without a license. Note that Prause tried to persuade the State of Washington to hide Prause’s bogus complaint from Sprout. Because the complaint was baseless, Prause was not considered a whistleblower, and identity was not protected.

————————————————————————————

According to the records, Washington received Prause’s complaint on January 24th, and the case was opened on January 30th. Two days later (February 1st) the State of Washington dismissed the empty complaint (without an investigation) and closed the case, declaring that even if the allegations were true, no violation of law would have occurred.

To understand Prause’s dishonesty and irrational action look at her “complaint” to the State of Washington. Prause targeted the following Sprout post, which is found on the Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder section (CSBD) of the ICD-11 (you can’t read the comments unless you create a username):

Again let us not neglect to consider the financial interests of those who benefit by the billions from unidentified, untreated compulsive sexual behavior. Two easy examples: “free” pornography sites who are paid for advertising, and drug manufacturers of ED drugs. They might even have lobbyists.

Context: The above comment was made in a general response to dozens of Nicole Prause comments where Prause personally attacked therapists and organizations (IITAP, SASH, ASAM) for supposedly “profiting from sex and porn addiction.” Prause has spent the last 2 years obsessively posting on the ICD-11 beta draft, doing her best to prevent the CSBD diagnosis from making it into the final manual. In fact, Prause has posted more comments than everyone else combined.

When Sprout dared to point out the more likely profiteers, Prause reported her to Washington State! Here’s Prause complaint to the Board:

Violation: Stated that we had “lobbyists” and that “pornography sites who are paid for advertising, and drug manufactures of ED drugs”. None of this is true. Neither I nor any of my colleagues who publish peer-reviewed science have any “lobbyist” efforts. These conspiracy theories appear promoted to support her own books and profit her therapy practice.

Notice how Prause lied, saying that Sprout’s comment was about Prause and unnamed colleagues – and not, as Sprout actually wrote, about the billions made by “free pornography sites” (most owned by wealthy Mindgeek) and “drug manufacturers of ED drugs”. In short, this is not a legitimate complaint; it’s simply harassment.

—————

Update (5-14-18): Prause harasses & defames Staci Sprout on her Facebook page:

————–

Update (6-8-18): The beta draft of the upcoming ICD-11 (the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases – the world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual) is online, and available for interested parties to comment on. (A simple sign-up is needed to view and participate.) The ICD-11 is predicted to come out in 2018, or soon thereafter. Its mental-health-expert authors have included a diagnosis that can be used to diagnose anyone suffering from compulsive sexual behavior (including sexual behavior addictions) called “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.” Note: Prause has posted more comments in this comment section than everyone else combined. In the comments section under this new proposal, Prause attacks Staci Sprout, falsely claiming that Sprout “is under continued investigation” by the State of Washington.

Prause is lying, as evidenced by the documents presented above.


OTHERS – January 29, 2018: Prause threatens therapists who would diagnose sexual behavior addicts using the upcoming “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” diagnosis in the ICD-11

Her aggression is absurd given the fact that experts who serve on the ICD-11 wrote, in the world’s top psychiatry journal that,

Currently, there is an active scientific discussion about whether compulsive sexual behaviour disorder can constitute the manifestation of a behavioural addiction[5]. For ICD-11, a relatively conservative position has  been recommended, recognizing that we do not yet have definitive information on whether the processes involved in the development and maintenance of the disorder are equivalent to those observed in substance  use disorders, gambling and gaming[6]. For this reason, compulsive sexual behaviour disorder is not included in the ICD-11 grouping of disorders due to substance use and addictive behaviours, but rather in that of  impulse control disorders. The understanding of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder will evolve as research elucidates the phenomenology and neurobiological underpinnings of the condition[7].

Anyone who considers the proposed disorder itself can see that it is intended to encompass sexual behavior addicts by whatever label.


OTHERS – February, 2018: Prause lies about a brain scan study (Seok & Sohn, 2018) by well-respected neuroscientists

This section concerns an internet porn study by Korean neuroscientists Seok and Sohn (PubMed indexed studies for Ji-woo Seok) – Gray matter deficits and altered resting-state connectivity in the superior temporal gyrus among individuals with problematic hypersexual behavior (2018). Prause falsely claims states that there were “no controls for literally any confound”:

Not so, but before we get to the truth it’s worth noting that her claim is very bold indeed, as  3 Prause studies on porn users failed to control for much of anything, including screening to establish that they were addicted to porn (Prause et al., 2013Steele et al., 2013, Prause et al., 2015). In fact, these 3 Prause studies chose to ignore numerous standard exclusion criteria normally employed in addiction studies, such as psychiatric conditions, other addictions, psychotropic medications, drug use, other compulsions, depression, religiosity, age, sexuality, gender, etc.

In reality, Seok & Sohn, 2018 carefully screened subjects for “sex addiction” (PHB). PHB was defined by two qualified clinicians based on clinical interviews using PHB diagnostic criteria set in previous studies, Table S1. Seok & Sohn also controlled for multiple variables. From Seok & Sohn, 2018:

We used the following exclusion criteria for PHB and control participants: age over 35 or under 18; other addictions such as alcoholism or gambling addiction, previous or current psychiatric, neurological, and medical disorders, homosexuality, currently using medication, a history of serious head injury, and general MRI contraindications (i.e., having a metal in the body, severe astigmatism, or claustrophobia).

In addition, Seok & Sohn 2018 assessed (controlled for) multiple psychological variables, including depression. From their study:

To identify comorbid tendencies among subjects with PHB, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., 1996), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) (Beck and Steer, 1990), and Barrett’s Impulsiveness Scale II (BIS-II), as adapted by Lee (1992) were administered. The score of BIS-II was used as a covariate to remove the effects of impulsivity. The BIS-II consists of 35 questions with dichotomized ‘‘yes” (1) or ‘‘no” (0) answers. The total score ranges from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating greater levels of impulsivity. Information about the demographic and clinical characteristics of all participants is presented in Table 1.

Put simply, Prause lied.


March, 2018 – Libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University

Dr. Nicole Prause prepared a libelous blog piece, which she posted on an adult industry website. It was removed after Wilson tweeted this. (original url: http://mikesouth.com/scumbags/dr-nicole-prause-destroys-yourbrainonporn-…)

Note: Prause often flaunts her close ties to the adult industry. The site describes itself as follows:

Mike South adult industry blog, the premier destination for adult industry news since 1998. Mike South was a small-time porn producer, who won two AVN awards, turned adult news blog pioneer. South was cited on a host of major news sites, and Gawker.com acknowledged him as “the gonzo king of porn gossip”.

In her defamatory piece, she knowingly, falsely stated that,

[Gary Wilson] claims to have been a “professor in Biology”. In reality, he was supposed to be an undergrad instructor, not a professor, for a lab section at Southern Oregon University. He was fired  without pay immediately before completing even a quarter.

In truth, Gary was an Adjunct Instructor at Southern Oregon University and has never claimed to be a professor (although careless journalists and websites – including a now-defunct website that pirated many TEDx talks and described the speakers carelessly without contacting them – have assigned him an array of titles in error).

He taught at Southern Oregon University on two occasions. He was never “fired,” as can be seen from the employment documents beneath this paragraph. Gary also taught anatomy, physiology and pathology at a number of other schools over a period of two decades, and was certified to teach these subjects by the education departments of both Oregon and California.

——————————————————-

Below is the “un-redacted” copy of the document Prause posted on several websites. Prause claimed it meant that Gary was terminated, when it actually meant “terminate paychecks” as Gary had to resign due to a medical emergency. The Prause versions redacted the COMMENTS section, where SOU stated that Gary resigned due to a health issue.

Furthermore, Gary receives no compensation from the charity to which his proceeds from his book go. His position as Research Officer is an honorary (volunteer) one. Nor does he serve on the Board of the charity or otherwise determine how it disburses its funds.

He hopes that one day TED will remove the unmerited warning that his critics lobbied (long and hard) to have placed on his very popular TEDx talk.

In addition to placing the redacted employment document and associated libelous statements on a porn industry site, Prause used Quora and Twitter to spread her lies. In doing so, Prause was banned from Quora, and suspend by Twitter. See these two sections from the “Prause page”:

Gary also hopes that Dr. Prause will quit libeling and harassing him and others. Although this new instance of libel (her false claim that Gary was fired) isn’t as shocking as her libelous claim that she has a no-contact court order against him, it is equally untrue.

Perhaps it is time for Dr. Prause to grow up and behave like the professional she claims to be.

PS: Southern Oregon University confirmed that Nicole Prause was the only one who sought these records. Email below:

Prause’s usual partner in targeted harassment, David Ley, also falsely stated that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon university:

Both Prause and Ley are obsessed cyberstalkers.


March 5, 2018 – Prause permanently banned from Quora for harassing Gary Wilson

On March 3rd 2018, Nicole Prause posted a defamatory article on Quora: https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-about-your-brain-on-porn-movement/answer/Nicole-Prause. In her piece, Prause posted redacted copies of Gary Wilson employment records and knowingly, falsely stated that Southern Oregon University had fired Wilson. On the same day she publsihed her Quora article, Prause posted ten more demeaning and untruthful comments about co-author Wilson and his work, all containing a link to her defamatory piece:

  1. https://www.quora.com/How-legitimate-is-yourbrainonporn-Is-PIED-really-a-thing/answer/Nicole-Prause
  2. https://www.quora.com/How-it-will-affect-my-future-if-I-masturbate-every-day/answer/James-Ali-5/comment/55887335
  3. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-really-such-a-thing-as-porn-addiction/answer/Tanner-Edmonds-1/comment/55887156
  4. https://www.quora.com/If-youve-told-your-spouse-over-and-over-that-you-arent-happy-with-the-level-of-physical-contact-youre-getting-and-things-dont-improve-could-you-be-blamed-for-having-an-affair-What-else-can-you-do/answer/Michael-Wells-12/comment/55887111
  5. https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-concentrate-on-my-Passion-while-I-am-addicted-to-Sex-Masturbation/answers/1564714/comment/55878336
  6. https://www.quora.com/A-girl-will-accept-my-proposal-if-I-stop-watching-porn-should-I-do-that-Well-porn-is-not-a-bad-thing/answer/James-Hinds/comment/55878261
  7. https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-I-stop-watching-porn/answer/Roy-Pavel-Drakov/comment/55878221
  8. https://www.quora.com/Habits-What-are-good-ways-to-keep-yourself-from-wanking/answer/Andrei-Rocnea/comment/55878094
  9. https://www.quora.com/If-masturbating-daily-is-good-for-health-then-whats-the-purpose-behind-the-%E2%80%98no-fap%E2%80%99-movement/answer/James-Ali-5/comment/55795714
  10. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-normal-if-my-boyfriend-doesnt-look-at-me-when-Im-naked-but-watches-hot-girls-on-Instagram-all-the-time/answer/Gwen-Sawchuk/comment/55795634

Wilson reported Prause to both Quora and Twitter for violation of terms of service and harassment. Both acted upon Wilson’s complaints, removing his employment document and Prause’s false interpretation of it. Confirmation of Quora acting on Wilson’s complaint (not the first violation for harassing Gary Wilson):

—————————————————

Quora permanently bans Nicole Prause for harassment:

—————


March 12, 2018 – Prause’s Liberos Twitter account suspended for posting Gary Wilson’s private information in violation of Twitter Rules

————————


Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials

In her defamatory articles, tweets, and Quora posts Prause has knowingly and falsely stated that Gary Wilson claimed to be “professor in biology” or a “neuroscientist”. Gary was an Adjunct Instructor at Southern Oregon University and taught human anatomy, physiology & pathology at other venues. Although careless journalists and websites have assigned him an array of titles in error over the years (including a now-defunct page on a website that pirates many TEDx talks and describes the speakers carelessly without contacting them) he has always stated that he taught anatomy & physiology. He has never said he had a PhD or was a professor.

Below is the screenshot Prause posts to “prove” that Gary Wilson has misrepresented his credentials (again, the Gary Wilson page no longer exists). Note: Until Prause produced her “proof,” Gary had never seen this site and has never communicated with its hosts, never uploaded the page in question and never removed it. Thus he certainly never provided a bio, or claims of “professorship.”

On the about page the Keynotes.org website said that it is not an agency and that anyone could upload a video and speaker bio: Keynotes.org is not an agency, but rather, a media site…. Keynotes.org is crowdsourced and fueled by TrendHunter.com, the world’s largest trend spotting website. Thus, it is even possible that Prause uploaded Gary’s TEDx talk with a purposely inaccurate bio in order to fabricate her desired “proof” of misrepresentation. After 5 years of continuous harassment and cyber-stalking, faked documents, libelous assertions, hundreds of tweets, and dozens of usernames with hundreds of comments, nothing would surprise us.

Gary taught at Southern Oregon University on two occasions. Gary also taught anatomy, physiology and pathology at a number of other schools over a period of two decades, and was certified to teach these subjects by the education departments of both Oregon and California. Gary does not seek speaking engagements and has never accepted fees for speaking. Moreover, YBOP accepts no ads, and the proceeds from Gary Wilson’s book go to a registered charity.


March and April, 2018 – Prause files bogus DMCA takedown requests in an attempt to hide her harassment and defamation

As you can see in the 3 preceding sections, Prause posted Gary Wilson’s Southern Oregon University employment records on Twitter, Quora, and an adult website. In her defamatory posts, Prause knowingly and falsely stated that Gary Wilson was fired and had never previously taught at Southern Oregon University. Wilson was not fired and had previously taught at SOU. These violations resulted in Prause being permanently banned from Quora and suspended from Twitter, with a warning. Wilson sent the adult website (MikeSouth) a DMCA takedown notice, which resulted in the Prause “article” being deleted. (deleted url: http://mikesouth.com/scumbags/dr-nicole-prause-destroys-yourbrainonporn-…).

In a clear reprisal for having had her impulsive plans foiled, Prause filed her first DMCA takedown request with my website host on 3/29/2018. For those who may not know, DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A DMCA takedown notice is used to have copyrighted materials removed from a website. Prause filed a DMCA takedown as a backdoor way to have this page chronicling her harassment and defamation removed or gutted. Prause is claiming that screenshots of her tweets are copyrighted material. Tweets are generally not copyrightable, and hers are not. Every day thousands of websites and countless Twitter users post screenshots of tweets. A portion of Prause’s first DMCA complaint:

Identification of material that is infringing and which you wish to have taken down or blocked and enough information to allow the OSP to locate the material, e.g., an URL to the offending page;
URL: www.yourbrainonporn.com containing 3,040 references to me. Examples are attached and include pages like: https://yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website

A portion of Gary Wilson’s response to Prause’s DMCA takedown request:

It’s disturbing that Prause claims to be a victim here, as I have documented multiple instances of her harassing myself and others – including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, former UCLA colleagues, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, and the head of the academic journal CUREUS: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website

No one appears to be stalking Prause. It is she who stalks and harasses others. Most of my site’s references to Prause are on this very long page that chronicles 5 years of Prause harassing and libeling me and others.

As for other places where Prause name appears, YBOP contains about 10,000 pages, and it’s a clearinghouse for nearly everything associated with Internet porn use and its effects on the user. Nicole Prause has published multiple studies about porn use and hypersexuality, and by her own admission, is a professional “debunker” of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems.

A Google search for “Nicole Prause” + pornography” returns about 11,000 pages. She’s quoted in hundreds of journalistic articles about porn use and porn addiction, in addition to her research related to pornography use. She’s on TV, radio, podcasts, and YouTube channels claiming to have debunked porn addiction with a single (heavily criticized) study. So Prause’s name is inevitable on a site like mine, which functions as a clearinghouse for research and news associated with Internet porn’s effects. YBOP also critiques other questionable research on porn and related subjects. These critiques are not personal, but rather substantive.

This DMCA take-down request is just the latest in a long string of harassment incidents by Prause. Dr. Prause has tweeted about me nearly 100 times, while I never tweet about her (other than correcting a few of her lies). Prause has used dozens of fake usernames to post comments about me on porn recovery forums (https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website#ybr). Prause has created an amazon AWS page to libel and harass me and many others (https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/PressRelease_DefamationBySenatorWeiler.txt).

Thank you for your attention.

Gary Wilson

After a few back and forths with Wilson the website host suggested, “that the two of you can work out whatever it is that is going on here“.  Gary Wilson responded:

Dear ______

Thank you for your message. Dr. Prause already has my contact information, which you are welcome to provide her again. However, she has demanded that I not contact her directly (even though I have never initiated direct contact with her). Unfortunately, therefore, I’m not sure how it would be possible for us to exchange views or reach an accord in the way you propose.

My website is a clearing house for news related to claims about porn’s effects. It is my understanding, based on legal advice, that Tweets are generally not copyrightable, nor are images of them protected by the DMCA. There are no other images relating to Dr. Prause that I’m aware of on YBOP.

Dr. Prause’s behavior and biases, as documented by her Tweets, are essential reading for anyone trying to understand the politics currently influencing the study and reporting of internet porn’s effects. Thus, without solid reason for their removal, they need to remain on YBOP.

I regret that Dr. Prause has tried to involve [you] in her latest harassment efforts.

Best regards,

Gary

The YBOP hosting service responded by “closing the ticket”:

Greetings,

Thank you for the update on this issue. We’ll pass along your contact email address. I hope this leads to an amicable solution for both of you.

At this time we consider this Copyright Infringement matter resolved. I have set this ticket to automatically close in 96 hours while we continue to monitor for additional complaints.

If you have any questions please let me know.

Not to be deterred, Prause acquired the services of DMCA Defender.com, who filed a second DMCA takedown request on April 17th, 2018. Once again, DMCA Defender claimed that screenshots of tweets are somehow copyrighted. They provided no authority to support the assertion, but did provide the urls of each screenshot. Gary Wilson, once again, responded to Prause’s harassment:

Dear _______

In case you need details for your records, I see that my harasser, Nicole Prause, has now hired a company to assist her in spurious DMCA takedown requests. Prause is falsely claiming that screenshots of her tweets and Facebook comments are copyrighted material. Nearly all of the screenshots the company complains of can be found on the YBOP page that documents Prause’s harassment of myself and others – including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, former UCLA colleagues, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, and the head of the academic journal CUREUS. See – https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website

As stated in response to Prause’s previous DMCA attempt, my website is a clearing house for news related to claims about porn’s effects. It is my understanding, based on legal advice, that Tweets are not copyrightable, nor are images of them protected by the DMCA. With this request, Prause is attempting to remove evidence of her harassment, cyber-stalking and defamation. Unless the law itself changes, the screenshots need to remain.

This DMCA take-down request appears to be the latest in a long string of harassment incidents. Dr. Prause has tweeted about me nearly 100 times, while I never tweet about her (other than correcting a few of her lies). In fact, Prause attacked me yet again on twitter yesterday.

Prause has used dozens of fake usernames to post comments about me on porn recovery forums

Prause has created (and linked to) an Amazon AWS page to libel and harass me and various others: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/PressRelease_DefamationBySenatorWeiler.txt. Prause has an additional 10 Amazon pages about me – all contain false allegations and faked ‘evidence.’

Just prior to Prause‘s first DMCA takedown attempt, she placed my employment records from Southern Oregon University on several venues, including Twitter, Quora, and an adult industry website. Prause falsely claimed that I was fired (I wasn’t), and that I had never before taught at SOU (I had). All explained here:

The outcome was that Prause was permanently banned from Quora, was temporarily banned from Twitter. In response to my request, the adult industry website (http://mikesouth.com/scumbags/dr-nicole-prause-destroys-yourbrainonporn-dont-fall-22064/) subsequently deleted Prause’s libelous “article.” This incident apparently spurred Prause to attempt to her two specious DMCA takedown requests.

Again, I regret that she is wasting your time in this way.

Gary Wilson

In the end Wilson’s website host closed both cases, finding no merit in Prause’s DMCA take-down requests.

Note: At the same time Prause was attempting her bogus DMCA takedowns, she also deleted hundreds of the tweets were she harassed, libeled, or bullied many individuals and organizations named on this page.


OTHERS – April 11, 2018: Prause falsely claims medical journal Cureus is a predatory journal and engages in fraud

Nicole Prause attacked Cureus on Twitter over a paper that it had merely corrected (slightly). Prause claimed that Cureus is a predatory journal which engages in fraud. Both claims are false as predatory journals always charge for publication and are not PubMed indexed. Cureus does not charge authors for publishing, and it is PubMed indexed. Prause, as expected, provided no examples of Cureus engaging in fraud.

First, the Journal’s twitter acount debunked Prause’s lies:

Next, John Adler, MD stepped in to refute Prause’s claims. She then falsely accused him of violating a non-existent no-contact order, blocked him on Twitter, and phoned in a spurious complaint of harassment to the Stanford’s Dean’s Office.

John Adler’s final reponse, before being blocked by Prause:

Under the retraction watch article we have a Prause comment, followed by Adler’s response:

As Adler pointed out, Prause was given a chance to publish a comment in his Journal but chose instead harass him and his journal on social media and with emails to Stanford University.


May 20, 2018 – Ley & Prause falsely claim that Gary Wilson & Don Hilton gave evidence in a case by Chris Sevier

As they often do, Ley and Prause team up to defame and harass those they disagree with. This time they play twitter tag in a pre-planned attack on Gary Wilson, Don Hilton, and Mary Ann Layden. We know it was a pre-planned event as the “evidence” they both tweeted was in a concurrent email with other untruths about Wilson sent from Prause to MDPI (Ley was cc’d on the email).

In Ley’s first tweet he sets things up for Prause by falsely stating that Chris Sevier was the “creator of porn is public health crisis legislation.” In reality, Utah was the first state to pass a resolution about porn and Sevier had nothing to do with it. Ley’s so-called proof is screenshot from this incredibly long page containing four years of court filings full of allegations in the case, Sevier v. Apple inc.

That’s right, Sevier is suing Apple over pornography. If you want to know more about this case or Sevier read this Daily Beast article: Chris Sevier, who wants to put a porn filter on every internet-connected device, jokingly calls himself ‘the mentally ill stalker who wants to marry his computer.

Anyhow, Ley’s chosen excerpt, from 4 years of Sevier’s unhinged rantings in court filings, surrounds Sevier’s belief that “all Gay people are sex addicts”:

 

Why did David Ley choose this random excerpt about gays from Sevier’s January, 2014 court filing? So he and Prause could falsely assert that Wilson, Hilton, and Layden are anti-gay crazies.

Before we go any further, it must be mentioned that Chris Sevier seems to be universally believed by all who experience a brush with him to be a mentally unstable attention-seeker who chronically lies and harasses individuals and organizations associated with the so-called “anti-pornography movement.” Incidentally, “crazy” supporters are a time-honored strategy for tarnishing and impeding a cause.

Regardless of who his true masters may be, Sevier “makes shit up.” It has grown so bad that organizations (those genuinely behind the “porn as a public health crisis” movement) have been forced to take legal action against Chris Sevier. For example, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) sent Sevier a cease and desist letter and published a statement denouncing Sevier’s actions. An excerpt:

The second matter relates to the author of the HTPA. The bill (sans resolution language) was developed by Chris Sevier, also known as Chris Severe. We have had a difficult relationship with Mr. Sevier over the last several years, to say the least. We have not found him trustworthy in our past dealings and therefore cannot rely on his assertions that those groups and those legislators that he claims are supporters of HTPA are actually in support. That is because, in the past, Sevier has falsely represented that our organization and NCOSE President Patrick Trueman and NCOSE Executive Director Dawn Hawkins are in support of his work. We have demanded that Sevier stop using our names.

In 2015, the office of a United States Senator alerted us to the fact that Sevier was promoting a version of the HTPA at the U. S. Capitol and was representing to U. S. Senate offices that Patrick Trueman was an author of the bill. This was false. A key legal assistant with that senator’s office also said that Sevier was visiting other senate offices claiming that his boss, the senator, was supporting the legislation, which was also false.

Several organizations have contacted us over the past couple years to complain that Sevier was also using their names without authorization and some of those organizations have complained that he was threatening them with legal sanctions when they refused to support him and his work. Several organizations have contacted us over the past couple years to complain that Sevier was also using their names without authorization and some of those organizations have complained that he was threatening them with legal sanctions when they refused to support him and his work.

In 2014, our general counsel had to write a cease and desist letter to Sevier demanding that he cease threatening our organization on various matters and reminding him that as a lawyer he is bound be definitive rules of professional responsibility.

In 2016 Sevier sued the state of Utah following the passage of the above-mentioned resolution developed by our office which declares pornography to be a public health crisis. The lawsuit was ostensibly over the issue of filters (a copy of the complaint is here). It included an extended footnote, part of which we are including here, which attacks NCOSE’s President Patrick Trueman and Executive Director Dawn Hawkins in bizarre terms…..

Very important set of facts: Don Hilton and Mary Ann Layden are on the board of directors of NCOSE and both regularly present at NCOSE conventions and NCOSE-related gatherings. How likely is it that they would be furthering Sevier’s “cause” by contradicting the position taken by NCOSE against Sevier?

With Ley’s set-up, Prause next tweets that Sevier claimed Gary Wilson and “these experts” were ready to testify:

No way! Hilton, Layden and Wilson never agreed to testify for Sevier, and certainly never agreed to testify that “all gay people are sex addicts.” It’s true that “Severe” emailed Gary Wilson in 2014. In Wilson’s response he suggested Severe visit his website for information. Wilson never agreed to testify, and did not respond to further emails from Severe. Don Hilton was asked if he had ever communicated with Sevier/Severe. He said he had not. Put simply, Sevier, and the Prause-Ley tag team, are lying.

With nothing but lies to back him up, Ley caps off the tag-team twitter like this:

Both Prause and Ley are obsessed cyberstalkers, with 200 tweets or more about Gary Wilson alone. Their assertions here are reprehensible and disgusting, yet fully in character.


May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit the MDPI Wikipedia page (and is banned for sock-puppetry & defamation)

In an earlier section we recounted Prause’s harassment of MDPI and its journal Behavioral Sciences. We also chronicled Prause’s long history of employing multiple fake usernames on Wikipedia (which violates its rules) to harass many of the individuals or organizations listed on this page. For example:

Prause’s latest Wikipedia barrage occurred from May 24th to the 27th and involved at least 6 fake usernames (called “sock-puppets” in Wikipedia jargon). The following links take you to all the edits by these particular usernames (“user contributions”):

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Suuperon
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NeuroSex
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Defender1984
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/23.243.51.114
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.51.228.243
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.194.90.6

The first four usernames edited the MDPI Wikipedia page, while 3 of the 6 edited the Nofap Wikipedia page, the Sex Addiction page and the Pornography Addiction page. All 3 pages are obsessions of Prause. Even Wikipedia recognized the usernames as belonging to the same person because all the names were banned for “sock-puppetry.” We can be sure it was Prause editing the MDPI page because:

1) The most recent batch of emails between MDPI and Nicole Prause started on May 22, with MDPI notifying all involved that one minor technical correction and an editorial would be forthcoming. This enraged Prause who responded with a string of demands and threats, followed by false accusations and personal attacks.

2) The edits began with user NeuroSex whose only edit before May 24th was an unsuccessful attempt to have other Wikipedia pages link to the Nicole Prause Wikipedia page (February, 2018). From the NeuroSex talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Nicole Prause has been reverted.

3) The Wikipedia content revolves around one of Prause’s ongoing obsessions: discrediting and attempting retraction of the paper co-authored by Gary Wilson and US Navy doctors: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016)

4) All theWikipedia edits mirror concurrent Prause tweets and her emails to MDPI (many of which Wilson has seen).

5) The sock-puppets claimed to possess private MDPI emails – which they wanted to post to the MDPI Wikipedia page. Here’s what NeuroSex said in her comment. (Note: In her concurrent emails to MDPI, Prause cc’d RetractionWatch, apparently to threaten MDPI with public retaliation.):

I have images that verify each of the claims (e.g., email from the publisher, email from the listed editor, etc.). RetractionWatch and other outlets are considering writing reviews of it as well, but I cannot be sure those will materialize. How is best to provide such evidence that verifies the claims? As embedded image? Written elsewhere with images and linked?

Let’s provide a few examples of the “NeuroSex” edits (lies) related to Gary Wilson and to Park et al., 2016 – followed by Wilson’s comments:

—————————————–

NeuroSex edit #1: Gary Wilson was by <ref>{{cite web|title=paid over 9000 pounds|url=https://www.oscr.org.uk/downloadfile.aspx?id=160223&type=5&charityid=SC044948&arid=236451}}</ref> The Reward Foundation to lobby in the US on behalf of anti-pornography state declarations.

Wilson comment: NeuroSex linked to a redacted document, claiming that Gary Wilson was paid 9,000 pounds by Scotish charity The Reward Foundation. Two days earlier Prause falsely claimed to journal publisher MDPI, COPE, David Ley, Neuroskeptic, Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch (and others) that, based on the charity’s recent public filing (with a name redacted, as is standard), expense reimbursements paid to a charity officer were in fact paid to Wilson. Prause has not checked her facts, and she is mistaken. Wilson has never received any money from The Reward Foundation. Gary Wilson forwarded Prause’s claim to Darryl Mead, Chair of The Reward Foundation. His response:

From: Foundation Reward <_____________@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:17 AM
To: gary wilson
Subject: Re: Concerns raised to the attention of COPE by Nicole Prause. Manuscript ID behavsci-133116

Dear Gary:

I have looked into this. Prause said:

 On 22/05/2018 20:48, Nicole Prause wrote:
> It appears Wilson did receive money from The Reward Foundation.  Attached is The Reward Foundation Annual Report. Per item C6 referring to travel that describes Gary Wilson’s travel totaling 9,027 pounds.
>
> I request that any correction include this financial COI, or time be  allotted to properly demonstrate that this was not a financial  conflict of interest.
>
> Nicole Prause, Ph.D. Liberos <http://www.liberoscenter.com>

This is a reference to our 2016-17 Annual Accounts. A version of the accounts with identity redaction was published by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and can be downloaded at https://www.oscr.org.uk/search/charity-details?number=SC044948#results, copy attached. This redaction process is done by OSCR without input from the named charity.

The relevant section with redaction reads as per this screen shot.

The individual referred to in C6 is Darryl Mead, the Chair of the Reward Foundation. I am that person and I made the claim for reimbursement of travel and other costs.

The original document reads as follows:

 

There is no reference to Gary Wilson in any part of the expenditure for the Reward Foundation because there were no payments to him.

With best wishes,

Darryl

In summary, Prause falsely accused Wilson of receiving funds from The Reward Foundation. She then publicized her lie to MDPI, COPE, RetractionWatch, and others, using the redacted document she submitted (just as NeuroSex lied to Wikipedia in her failed attempt to have her related edits accepted).

Update, 6-7-18: For no reason in particular, Prause posted a comment on the ICD-11 about Gary Wilson (must create a username to view comments). In this comment Prause repeats the above lie she stated in an email exchange with MDPI, RetractionWatch, and COPE (and on Wikipedia):

Over the next few days Nicole Prause posted 4 more libelous comments on the ICD-11 attacking Gary Wilson and continuing to falsely assert that he is a paid employee of The Reward Foundation. Darryl Mead, the Chair of The Reward Foundation, eventually responded:

As Expected, Prause rsponded with several more lies and personal attacks.

Update, 6-18-18: Prause created another Wikipedia username to edit the MDPI wikipedia page – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.51.228.245 – and added the following:

In 2016, another MDPI journal, Behavioral Sciences, published a review paper claiming pornography caused erectile dysfunction. Six scientists independently contacted MDPI concerned about fraud and other issues in the article, initiating an independent review by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE recommended retracting the article.[31] The listed paper editor, Scott Lane, denied having served as the editor. Thus, the paper appears not to have undergone peer-review. Further, two authors had undisclosed conflicts of interest. Gary Wilson’s association with The Reward Foundation did not properly identify it as an activist, anti-pornography organization. Wilson also had posted extensively in social media that the study was “by the US Navy”, although the original paper stated that it did not reflect the views of the US Navy. The other author, Dr. Andrew Doan, was an ophthalmologist who ran an anti-pornography ministry Real Battlefield Ministries, soliciting donations for their speaking.[32] Further, the Committee on Publication Ethics determined that the cases were not properly, ethically consented for inclusion. MDPI issued a correction for some of these issues,[33] but has refused to post corrections for others to date as described by Retraction Watch.[31]

Several of the above lies debunked:

  1. There were not 6 scientists – only Prause contacted MDPI.
  2. My association with The Reward Foundation was fully disclosed from the beginning. As explained earlier, my affiliation with The Reward Foundation (TRF) was always clearly stated, both in the initial Behavioral Sciences article and in the recent correction (the original PubMed version). The purpose of the newly published correction was to counter Dr. Prause’s incessant defamatory claims that I receive money from TRF, and that I make money from my book (my proceeds for which, in fact, go to the charity)
  3. I posted that the paper involved 7 US Navy doctors. The Navy had no problems with my comments.
  4. Dr. Andrew Doan is both an MD and a PhD (Neuroscience – Johns Hopkins), is the former of Head of “Addictions and Resilience Research” in the Department of Mental Health at the Naval Medical Center. (He has since been transferred and promoted, and has different responsibilities.) Doan has authored multiple papers on behavioral addiction/pathologies relating to technologies (in some cases with a co-author of the paper you have written about here). In short, he is a qualified senior author. Those other papers can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=doan+klam. His non-profit, Real Battlefield Ministries (RBM), did not discuss pornography prior to publication of the paper. Even if RBM had presented on pornography it would not have been a conflict of interest.
  5. As described above, COPE’s decision was hypothetical and did not apply to our paper as the US Navy doctors more than complied with their Naval Medical Center – San Diego’s IRB consent rules. The Naval Medical Center San Diego’s IRB policy does not consider case reports of less than four patients in a single article to be human subject research and does not require the patients to consent to inclusion in an article. Although the researchers were not required to obtain consent, for two cases, verbal and written consents were obtained. In the third case where anonymity was unlikely to be compromised, no written consent was obtained. Incidentally, at Dr. Prause’s insistence, after the paper was published, the actions of the Navy co-authors with respect to this paper were thoroughly reviewed in an independent Navy investigation. Result? I have a copy of the official report by a Navy lawyer affirming that the co-authors complied with all the IRB’s rules.

——————————————

NeuroSex edit #2: In 2015, the MDPI journal ”” published a paper ”Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports”. It was widely promoted during political attempts in the USA to define pornography as a public health hazard. However, it was soon discovered that many fraudulent statements appeared in the paper, often claiming the opposite of what a cited study had described

Wilson comment: To begin with, NeuroSex (Prause) got the publication date wrong: our paper was published in August, 2016, not in 2015. Second, our paper was not widely promoted. Third, no fraudulent statements were made and we cited all references correctly. A bit of background is in order.

Pre-MDPI history

The story of Prause’s efforts relating to the paper that was ultimately published as Park et a l., 2016 actually begins before the involvement of MDPI and Behavioral Sciences. An earlier, much shorter version of the paper, with the same authors and author affiliations as it had when later submitted to Behavioral Sciences, was first submitted to Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine (YJBM). It’s worth reviewing certain conduct in connection with this paper when it was under consideration by YJBM.

One of the 2 reviewers of the paper gave it a scathing review with 70+ criticisms, and it was duly rejected. Around the time that YJBM rejected the paper, a “Janey Wilson” began harassing my book publisher, Commonwealth Publishing, and the registered charity to which I donate all of my share of my book’s proceeds (recounted in this section). I am the author of Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction.

Note: The submission to YJBM was the only place my affiliation with the charity, The Reward Foundation (TRF), could be found, as it was nowhere public. In other words, apart from the Board of TRF and myself, only the YJBM editor and its two reviewers knew about this affiliation. And yet, “Janey” claimed to have evidence of this affiliation, and used my affiliation to fabricate various allegations of wrongdoing by TRF and me.

Later, Dr. Prause submitted her scathing YJBM review with 70+ criticisms to a regulatory board (as part of an effort to have the published paper retracted), thus confirming she had indeed provided the YJBM with an unfavorable review of the paper. (Further evidence that she was a YJBM reviewer turned up during the Behavioral Sciences submission process, as recounted below.) Incidentally, Prause’s actions are a clear violation of COPE’s rules for peer reviewers (Section 5 of the “Guidelines on Good Publication Practice”), which require reviewers to keep confidential anything they learn through the review process.

YJBM was informed of (1) the harassing behavior engaged in by “Janey,” (2) “Janey’s” possible true identity, and (3) the fact that “Janey” may have violated COPE’s rules for peer reviewers by making public confidential information about me.

The paper was promptly accepted by YJBM…and then not published in that journal after all, due to the journal’s decision that it was too late to make the requested revisions and still meet the print deadline for YJBM’s special “Addiction” issue.

Behavioral Sciences

A revised and updated version of the paper was then submitted to the journal Behavioral Sciences. After a few rounds of reviews and further restructuring it was accepted as a review of the literature, with case studies. Its final form was quite different from the original YJBM submission.

During this process, the paper was reviewed by no fewer than 6 reviewers. Five passed it, some with some suggested revisions, and one harshly rejected it (It was Prause again, as she later revealed).

Phase one of this process unfolded as follows: The paper was reviewed twice, one of them a harsh rejection, one favorable. Puzzled by the harsh rejection, Behavioral Sciences sent the paper out for review to 2 other reviewers. These reviewers passed the paper. Behavioral Sciences cautiously rejected the paper but allowed the authors to “revise and resubmit.” As part of this process, the authors were given all of the comments by the reviewers (but not their identities). The reviewers’ concerns were thoroughly addressed, point by point (available upon request).

From these comments, it became evident that the “harsh reviewer” of the Behavioral Sciences paper had also reviewed the paper at YJBM. About a third of the 77 points raised did not relate to the Behavioral Sciences submission at all. They referred to material that was only present in the earlier version of the paper, the one that had been submitted to YJBM.

In other words, the harsh reviewer had cut and pasted dozens of criticisms from a review done of an earlier iteration of the paper at another journal (YJBM), which no longer had any relevance to the paper submitted to Behavioral Sciences! This is highly unprofessional. Moreover, Prause eventually revealed herself as the author of these criticisms in her complaint to the medical boards (see above), in which she shared her YJBM review of the obsolete version of the paper. (Apparently, she never realized the YJBM paper had been accepted by YJBM once her review was disqualified.)

Incidentally, when Prause was asked to review the paper at Behavioral Sciences she apparently did not reveal that she had already reviewed the paper at another journal. It would have been standard reviewer etiquette to reveal her earlier review effort.

Let me summarize Prause’s multiple objections to our paper. Again, 25 or so of them had nothing whatsoever to do with the Behavioral Sciences paper Prause had been asked by Behavioral Sciences to review. These items referred to its first submission at YJBM. This alone should disqualify the entire review from further consideration.

Yet, we carefully combed through each comment looking for any useful insights, and wrote a comprehensive response to all 77 comments for Behavioral Sciences and its editors. Almost all of the remaining 50 critical comments were either scientifically inaccurate, groundless, or were simply false statements. Some were repetitive. In short, while reviewers’ comments always improve any paper to some degree, there really wasn’t the need to “fix” much of the paper itself in light of Prause’s comments. What we did do was strengthen the paper itself with 50 more citations, lest other readers make any of the same errors she had.

The paper was rewritten and revised. Next, two more reviewers reviewed and passed it with various suggestions, including a suggestion to restructure it as a “review with case studies.” Satisfied that all legitimate concerns had been addressed, Behavioral Sciences published the paper.

Immediately after publication in August, 2016 Prause insisted that MDPI retract Park et al., 2016. The professional response to scholarly articles one disapproves of is to publish a comment outlining any objections. Behavioral Sciences’s parent company, MDPI, invited Prause to do this. She declined. That’s right, Prause was given full opportunity to critique the paper in Behavioral Sciences – and she ran the other way.

Instead she unprofessionally turned to threats and social media (and most recently the Retraction Watch blog) to bully MDPI into retracting Park et al. In addition, she informed MDPI that she had filed complaints with the American Psychological Association and the doctors’ medical boards. She also pressured the doctors’ medical center and Institutional Review Board, causing a lengthy, thorough investigation, which found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the paper’s authors.

Prause concurrently complained repeatedly to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). COPE finally wrote MDPI with a hypothetical observation relating to (Prause’s narrative about) consents obtained for the case studies in the paper, and a question about retraction. MDPI thoroughly re-investigated the consents obtained by the doctors who authored the papers, as well as US Navy policy around obtaining consents. Written consents had been obtained for the two extensive case studies, and the third case study involved so little identifying information that a written consent was deemed unnecessary. On this basis, MDPI declined to retract the paper.


May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit the Nofap Wikipedia page

As described above, from May 24th to the 27th, 2018 Prause employed six fake usernames to edit the Wikipedia pages of her ongoing obsessions: MDPI, Nofap, Sexual Addiction, and Pornography Addiction. Even though Prause’s main target was MDPI, two of her sock-puppets took the time to attack Nofap, with edits and defamatory comments. As she has done in Twitter comments and in personal attacks on Alexander Rhodes, Prause called members of Nofap dangerous misogynists.

User contributions – Suuperon

User contributions – 209.194.90.6

  • 03:28, 24 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+379)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (‎Support groups: NoFap community has recently raised security concerns paralleling Incels and due to this paper discovering considerable misogynist attacks in NoFap. I suggest removal, but at least should warn people community is not safe.)

Prause’s assertions are nonsense as Nofap is simply an online forum for people trying to quit porn – hardly a threat to anyone. Anyhow, one of Prause’s edits involved deletion of a yet to be published paper by researcher Alec Sproten – How Abstinence Affects Preferences (2016). Sproten’s preliminary results, like a handful of other studies, reported significant benefits by participants who ceased using porn. Excerpts from Sproten’s article:

Results of the First Wave – Main Findings

  1. The length of the longest streak participants performed before taking part in the survey correlates with time preferences. The second survey will answer the question if longer periods of abstinence render participants more able to delay rewards, or if more patient participants are more likely to perform longer streaks.
  2. Longer periods of abstinence most likely cause less risk aversion (which is good). The second survey will provide the final proof.
  3. Personality correlates with length of streaks. The second wave will reveal if abstinence influences personality or if personality can explain variation in the length of streaks.

Results of the Second Wave – Main Findings

  1. Abstaining from pornography and masturbation increases the ability to delay rewards
  2. Participating in a period of abstinence renders people more willing to take risks
  3. Abstinence renders people more altruistic
  4. Abstinence renders people more extroverted, more conscientious, and less neurotic

Unfortunately, Prause’s deletion of the Sproten study has not yet been reversed.


May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit “Sex Addiction” & “Porn Addiction” Wikipedia pages

The previous two sections chronicle Prause’s Wikipedia-based attacks on two of her favorite targets: MDPI and Nofap. In Prause’s recent 4-day Wikipedia blitz three of her sockpuppets edited two other objects of her disdain: the Wikipedia pages on “Sexual Addiction” and “Pornography Addiction” (which her numerous sockpuppets had previously edited over the years). In her many edits Prause attacks familiar targets such as Dr. Todd Love, Fight The New Drug, therapist Staci Sprout, Dr. Patrick Carnes, CEO of MDPI, the American Society for Addiction Medicine, and a protein – DeltaFosB.

Here we present selected edits and remarks from three sockpuppets, followed by our comments:

User contributions: NeuroSex

Comment: Once again, Prause is attacking therapist Staci Sprout, who Prause harassed and defamed in a groundless complaint filed with Washington State Dept. of Health. The State of Washington dismissed the empty complaint (without an investigation) and closed the case. Prause has also attacked Staci Sprout on Twitter and on the ICD-11 comment page  for “Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder.”

———–

User contributions: Suuperon

  • 02:16, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-172)‎ . . Sexual addiction ‎ (‎Controversy: infographic was created by Mormon group Fight The New Drug, an anti-pornography organization. Not neutral and does not accurately reflect history, such as including individuals with no field influence

Comment: Prause’s harassment and defamation of Fight The New Drug (FTND) involves 50 or more tweets, reporting FTND to the State of Utah, posting on the FTND Facebook page that FTND is guilty of science fraud & that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice, and writing 2 op-eds attcking FTND – both of which were addressed and discredited in these 2 responses:

———–

User contributions: Suuperon

  • 02:20, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-3,460)‎ . . Sexual addiction ‎ (‎Mechanisms: Large section about FOSB made no mention of link to sex and had about 7 broken links (numbers clearly pasted from some other source, not properly attributed))
  • 02:01, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-356)‎ . . m Sexual addiction ‎ (‎Mechanisms: Lead claim of “wide acceptance” as addiction in humans linking to only animal studies is more activism on this entry. False

Comment: The above two edits and comments involve DeltaFosB, which Prause sockpuppets have been complaining about for over 3 years now (see 2 of Prause’s earlier posting about DeltaFosB:  “PatriotsAllTheWay” & “NotGaryWilson”). This is nothing new as Prause and David Ley’s 2014 opinion piece on porn addiction railed against DeltaFosB – with the foremost DeltaFosB researcher saying that Ley & Prause’s commentary sounded like a “bad Saturday Night Live parody.”

Contrary to Prause’s claim, DeltaFosB is present in humans, and with high levels seen in the reward centers of human cocaine addicts (post-mortem) who suddenly died. Put simply, all the neuroscientists studying its mechanisms agree that DeltaFosb is involved with multiple physiological functions, including sensitization to sexual activity and addiction.

———–

User contributions: 185.51.228.242

Comment: Over the last few years Prause has defamed and harassed Patrick Carnes, Stefanie Carnes and their educational organization (IITAP) with at least 100 comments on social media and elsewhere. As documented here, Prause went so far as to post