Archive for category: Uncategorized

TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO:

 

Wright, P.J. Arch Sex Behav 50, 387–392 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01902-9

“Let it go, let it go

Can’t hold it back anymore

Let it go, let it go

Turn away and slam the door” (Elsa – Disney’s Frozen)

The wisdom of Elsa’s self-admonition to let go of her attempts at overcontrol struck me as an important life-lesson the first time I watched Frozen with my nieces and nephews. I am hoping my own young daughter (just over a year old, and a first time listener to Frozen songs this week) can also learn the important principle of letting go.

Kohut, Landripet, and Stulhofer’s (2020) recent article on pornography and sexual aggression reminded me that I’ve wanted to suggest the same to my fellow pornography researchers for at least a few years now regarding the use of “control” variables (S. Perry, personal communication, June 26, 2018). Specifically, the purpose of this letter is to encourage my colleagues to “let go” and “slam the door” on the prevailing approach to the treatment of third variables in pornography effects research (i.e., the predominate conceptualization of third variables as potential confounds, rather than as predictors, mediators, or moderators).

I outline several problems with the current approach. I indict my own work as specific illustration, rather than cite by name the work of others, as I too have been guilty of overcontrol. Because I am friend, fellow Kinsey Institute affiliate, and collaborator to Stulhofer (Milas, Wright, & Stulhofer, 2020; Wright & Stulhofer, 2019), and because his article was the final prompt that motivated this letter, I also use Kohut et al. (2020) as a specific example with which to illustrate my points. My goal is to encourage research practices that will facilitate our understanding of the effects of pornography, not to excoriate or incite. I believe this is accomplished best through constructive evaluation of oneself and one’s friends, rather than personally unknown others.

Current Approach and Its Problems

Pornography effects research is a subfield of media effects research, wherein social scientists use quantitative methods to investigate the impact of pornography on users’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Wright, 2020a). I would be hard-pressed to recommend a more effective way to become exhaustively (and exhaustingly, in both the physical and mental sense) familiar with a body of research than to conduct regular narrative reviews (e.g., Wright, 2019, 2020a; Wright & Bae, 2016) and meta-analyses (e.g., Wright & Tokunaga, 2018; Wright, Tokunaga, & Kraus, 2016; Wright, Tokunaga, Kraus, & Klann, 2017). Through such literature syntheses, I have observed that (1) the vast majority of pornography effects studies from the 1990s on have been conducted using survey methods and (2) the predominate analytical paradigm in this body of research is to ask if pornography use (X) is still correlated with some belief, attitude, or behavior (Y) after statistically adjusting for an ever increasing and ever more peculiar list of “control” variables (Z_{ad infinitum}).

Here are just a few examples of variables that researchers have deemed necessary to include as controls: sexual experience, pubertal status, age, relationship status, sexual orientation, gender, education, socioeconomic status, race, perceptions of religious texts, emotional connectedness with caregiver, exposure to spousal violence, substance use, marital status, political affiliation, hours of work in a week, parents’ marital status, sex drive, ethnic identity, antisociality, depression symptoms, PTSD symptoms, relationship satisfaction, peer attachment, sex talk with peers, attachment to parents, television viewing, parental control, perceived sexual experience of peers, sensation seeking, sexual sensation seeking, life satisfaction, family background, sexual self-esteem, sexual assertiveness, attitudes toward sexual coercion, age of friends, social integration, internet use, music video viewing, religious affiliation, relationship length, immigrant background, living in a large city, parental employment, smoking, history of theft, truancy, conduct problems at school, age of sexual debut, dating activity, telling lies, cheating on tests, social comparison orientation, geographical location of residence, masturbation frequency, religious service attendance, sexual satisfaction, satisfaction with decision making, number of children, ever divorced, employment status, number of religious friends, frequency of sex in the past week, and enrollment in a postsecondary school.

Again–these are just a few examples.

The (ostensible) logic underlying the current approach is that pornography may not be an actual source of social influence; rather, some third-variable may cause individuals to both consume pornography and express/engage in the belief, attitude, or behavior in question. Few authors, however, explicitly identify how each variable they selected as a control could cause both pornography consumption and the outcome being studied. Sometimes, a general statement is made (sometimes with citations, sometimes without) that prior research has identified the variables as potential confounds and this is why they are included. Other times, no explanation is offered other than to list the various control variables. It is very difficult to find studies that identify a specific theoretical perspective as justifying the selection of controls (more on this point later). It is even rarer to find a study that justifies why the variables were modeled as controls rather than predictors, mediators, or moderators (I don’t believe I’ve ever seen this).

As promised, I confess that I too have included a battery of underjustified controls in several studies. As one example, in Wright and Funk (2014), I included seven control variables with no more justification than the statement that “prior research” indicated the “importance of controlling” for them (p. 211). As another example, in Tokunaga, Wright, and McKinley (2015) I included 10 control variables with the only justification being that they were “potential confounding variables” suggested “in previous research” (p. 581). In my defense, at least I actually cited the “prior/previous research” that had suggested these variables…

In sum, when the pornography effects research landscape is considered in totality, it is my contention that the inclusion of controls is idiosyncratic, inconsistent, atheoretical, and overdone. My best guess is that researchers either include controls because prior researchers have, they believe editors or reviewers will expect it (Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016), or because they have fallen victim to the “methodological urban legend” that “relationships with control variables are closer to the truth than without control variables” (Spector & Brannick, 2011, p. 296). I know that earlier in my career each of these applied to me.

The problems with this “everything but the kitchen sink approach” to control variable inclusion (Becker, 2005, p. 285) are manifold. But the two that are most relevant to the way controls are used in the pornography effects literature are:

1. The chance of Type II error increasing due to true variance being partialled from the pornography–outcome correlation (Becker, 2005). Becker also notes that Type I errors can increase if the controls are associated with the predictor but not the criterion. However, I am not aware of this as a problem in the pornography effects literature. The question is always whether the statistically significant pornography–outcome bivariate correlation holds after controlling for Zad infinitum.
2. The chance of totally missing and/or misunderstanding the actual “antecedents-contexts-effects” in the pornography– outcome dynamic dramatically increasing (Campbell & Kohut, 2017, p. 8). The progression of knowledge is not only stagnated but obfuscated every time variance is incorrectly attributed to “confounding” when the third-variable is, in reality, a predictor, mediator, or moderator in the ponography effects process (Spector & Brannick, 2011). It is partly for this reason that Meehl (1971) identified the current approach to third variables in the pornography effects literature (i.e., overwhelmingly modeled as controls, not predictors, mediators, or moderators) as a “methodological vice” that leads to “grossly erroneous inferences” (p. 147).

These problems can sometimes compound each other. For example, if what is actually a mediator is modeled as a control, processual misunderstanding increases as does the chance of a Type II error regarding a now increasingly likely null pornography–outcome partial correlation.

Religiosity and sensation seeking are prime examples. These variables are taken for granted as potential confounds that must be “controlled” when, in fact, there is evidence that they are part of the pornography effects process. Perry (2017, 2019; see also Perry & Hayward, 2017) has found in several longitudinal studies across different samples that pornography viewing prospectively predicts decreases in religiosity for both adolescents and adults. Thus, rather than religiosity confounding associations between, for instance, pornography use and recreational attitudes toward sex (e.g., Peter & Valkenburg, 2006), it may be a mediator (pornography → decreases in religiosity → more favorable attitudes toward recreational sex).

Sensation seeking has also been conceptualized as an immutable trait that could only confound pornography–outcome correlations. The taken-for-granted narrative is that sensation seeking could affect pornography consumption and (insert sexual risk outcome here) and therefore be a confound, but could not be impacted by pornography consumption. The empirical record suggests otherwise, however. In the realm of sexual media in general, Stoolmiller, Gerrard, Sargent, Worth, and Gibbons (2010) found in their four-wave, multiple year longitudinal study of adolescents that R-rated movie viewing predicted later sensation seeking, while earlier sensation seeking did not predict later R-rated movie viewing. Stoolmiller et al. note that their results “provide empirical evidence of an environmental media effect on sensation seeking” (p. 1). Subsequent analyses of these data focusing on sexual content specifically found that sexual content exposure predicted increases in sensation seeking, which in turn predicted risky sexual behavior (O’Hara, Gibbons, Gerrard, Li, & Sargent, 2012). In the realm of pornography specifically, our recent meta-analysis on pornography and condomless sex explicitly tested whether sensation seeking is better conceptualized as a confound or a mediator (Tokunaga, Wright, & Vangeel, 2020). The data supported a mediation conceptualization, not a confounding conceptualization.

“Preexisting” sexual attitudes have also been assumed to confound pornography–sexual behavior associations. However, using four national probability metasamples of adults, two measures of pornography consumption, two measures of sexual attitudes, and two measures of sexual behavior, I found in a recent study that sexual attitudes did not confound pornography—sexual behavior associations; they mediated them (pornography → sexual attitudes → sexual behavior) (Wright, 2020b). Likewise, our meta-analysis of the pornography and impersonal sex literature found that pornography use predicted impersonal sexual behavior through impersonal sexual attitudes (i.e., impersonal sexual attitudes were a mediator). No evidence was found for the prediction that associations between pornography and impersonal sexual behavior were confounded by sexual attitudes (Tokunaga, Wright, & Roskos, 2019).

But certain variables–for instance, demographics–must surely be confounds only, one might retort. I suggest that even “demographic” variables be carefully evaluated. Consider sexual orientation, a variable taken for granted as a control in the pornography effects literature. Interview data are fairly clear that pornography can affect both the awareness and expression of a sexually diverse identity. For example, a man in Giano’s (2019) study of how online sexual experiences shape gay men’s identities stated:

I remember the first time I went to a gay porn site and saw two men engaging in sex. I remember thinking I shouldn’t be turned on if I wasn’t gay, but I was. It was at that moment when I realized that this is real–I’m gay. It was equally exciting and scary. (p. 8)

Similarly, Bond, Hefner, and Drogos (2009) reported that “young males in the pre-coming out stage used Internet pornography to understand and develop their same-sex feelings” (p. 34).

In sum, with the current approach to controls in the pornography effects literature, (1) “power might be reduced [which] could lead to a Type II error (Becker, 2005, p. 287) and (2) “it is possible that the [third variables rotely modeled as controls] play a substantive rather than extraneous role in the network of relations the researcher is studying,” but we are regrettably unaware of this (Becker et al., 2016, p. 160).

Kohut et al. (2020) reported results on pornography consumption and sexual aggression from two samples of adolescent males. Their selection and justification of controls follows the predominate pattern in the pornography effects literature and is not my primary point of emphasis. Like many others, including myself (see Tokunaga et al., 2019 and Wright, 2020b, for exceptions), they did not identify any theory as guiding their identification of controls. They simply cited their own previous lament (Baer, Kohut, & Fisher, 2015) about previous studies “failing to account for potential confounds” (p. 2) and began to list several variables that prior studies had found to be correlated with pornography use or sexual aggression (e.g., sensation seeking, impulsiveness, sex drive). As the number of variables that prior studies have found to correlate with pornography use or sexual aggression easily numbers in the hundreds, it is not clear how the five control variables listed were identified among the sea of possibilities.

Ultimately, Kohut et al. concluded their section on controls with the argument that their inclusion provided a more rigorous test than would have been the case without their inclusion: “Failing to control for constructs that jointly influence pornography use and sexual aggression may substantially affect estimations of the activating effects of pornography use on sexual aggression” (p. 3). No mention is made of the possibility that these “confounds” could actually be mediators (e.g., sensation seeking–pornography consumption increasing sensation seeking, which subsequently increases sexual aggression) or moderators (e.g., impulsiveness–pornography consumption predicting sexual aggression, but only for men who are impulsive). Nor is any mention made of Bernerth and Aguinis’ (2016) “best-practice recommendations for control variable usage,” which are to “Stop” and not use controls if the only rationales for inclusion are either (1) “to provide conservative or rigorous tests of my hypotheses” or (2) “because previous research finds empirical relationships between this variable and variables in my study” (p. 273).

However, although problematic, it was not the specific controls or their inclusion rationale in this particular study that ultimately led me to (finally) write this letter. As I have admitted, I have been guilty of the same. No, the tipping point was Kohut et al.’s statements about our meta-analysis on pornography and sexually aggressive behavior (Wright et al., 2016) in relation to a recent meta-analysis by Ferguson and Hartley (2020). Given that the influence and importance of meta-analyses are significantly larger than any one study, these statements were the ultimate impetus for writing.

Kohut et al. (2020, p. 15) stated that our meta-analysis’ use of bivariate (rather than third-variable adjusted) correlations resulted in a “likely inflating [of] the focal associations” [we found that pornography use was a robust predictor of both verbal and physical sexual aggression]. They go on to say that their “observations of Wright et al.’s over-reliance on inflated effect sizes are corroborated by more recent meta-analytic findings which indicate that once control variables are properly accounted for, nonviolent pornography use is generally not associated with sexual aggression (Ferguson & Hartley, 2020)” (p. 16).

Two elements of these unfortunate statements are in need of redress.

Firstly, the notion that bivariate correlations are “inflated” while covariate-adjusted correlations are indicative of the true nature of the relationship in question is a classic illustration of the fallacy that Spector and Brannick (2011) called the “purification principle”:

The implicit belief that statistical controls can yield more accurate estimates of relationships among variables of interest, which we will call the “purification principle,” is so widespread, and is so accepted in practice, that we argue it qualifies as methodological urban legend— something accepted without question because researchers and reviewers of their work have seen it used so often that they do not question the validity of the approach. (p. 288)

Meehl (1971) said this about the erroneous notion that the inclusion of control variables leads to a more accurate conclusion about the nature of the X → Y association in question:

One cannot label a methodological rule as playing it safe when it is likely to produce pseudo-falsifications, unless we have a strange philosophy of science that says we want wrongly to abandon good theories. (p. 147)

I contend that the theories that have been used to predict that the use of pornography increases the likelihood of sexual aggression (e.g., classical conditioning, operant learning, behavioral modeling, sexual scripting, construct activation, gendered power) are good ones that we should not wrongly abandon because of the regrettably widespread application of the purification principle in pornography effects research.

This segues directly to the second unfortunate element of these statements. According to Kohut et al. (2020), “control variables are properly accounted for” by Ferguson and Hartley (2020). As Kohut et al. do not explain why they perceive Ferguson and Hartley’s use of controls as “proper,” we must go directly to the source. Upon doing so, one becomes confused as to how Kohut et al. evaluated Ferguson and Hartley’s list of controls as “proper,” since no such list is provided. The only specific mention of controls regards an index of “best-practice analysis” in which studies that adjusted for “mental health,” “family environment,” and “gender” are given “1 point” (p. 4). What is found is the repeated rhetorical reassurance from Ferguson and Hartley that their unarticulated and unexplained controls are “theoretically relevant.” What is also found is that the “standardized regression coefficients (βs)” used in their meta-analysis “were calculated from the most conservative value (e.g., involving the greatest number of theoretically relevant controls)” (p. 3).

Before circling back to the question of what theory or theories Ferguson and Hartley (2020) used to identify “theoretically relevant” controls (since no identificatory theory is mentioned in their paper), here are a few statements from methodologists pertinent to the singling out of “the most conservative value” for analysis:

We take exception to the common viewpoint that larger numbers of CVs [control variables] constitute a better, more rigorous methodological approach than including fewer or no CVs. This viewpoint is based on the flawed assumption that adding CVs necessarily produces more conservative tests of hypotheses and reveals the true relations among variables of interest. (Becker et al., 2016, p. 159)

Many researchers…presume that adding controls is conservative and likely to lead to a conclusion that is at least closer to the truth than omitting them. As Meehl (1971) notes, this practice is far from conservative. In fact it is in many cases quite reckless. (Spector & Brannick, 2011, p. 296)

A second answer that should also stop control consideration surrounds the rationale of conservative, rigorous, or stringent” tests of study hypotheses. This is a fallacy initially debunked years ago (Meehl, 1971; Spector & Brannick, 2011) with enough accumulated evidence at present to conclude there is nothing conservative or rigorous about including statistical controls (Carlson & Wu, 2012). (Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016, p. 275)

In sum, it is difficult to deduce how Ferguson and Hartley’s nonexistent list of controls was determined as “proper” unless guided by the usual regrettable assumption that “more controls = a more accurate result.”

And finally, back to the question of whether we should be assured by Ferguson and Hartley’s (2020) reassurance that the controls they included in their meta-analysis were derived theoretically. Since, as I mentioned, they neither provide their full list of controls or the theory or theories that were used to identify these controls in the primary studies they meta-analyzed, I searched the studies common to our meta-analysis (Wright et al., 2016) for the words “control,” “confound,” “covariate,” and “theory” to see if any theory was named to guide the selection of controls in these primary studies. I did not find any evidence that these studies used theory to guide their selection of controls (third variables in confluence model research [e.g., Malamuth, Addison, & Koss, 2000] are sometimes modeled as controls and other times as moderators). A key “best-practice” for control variable usage common to all of the control variable methodologists cited previously is the explicit guidance of theory. Without it, the use of controls is highly likely to result in Type II errors and/or model misspecification.

Recommendations

Where to go from here? There are two possibilities. I’ll start with my secondary preference.

One possibility is for pornography effects researchers to continue to control for “potential confounds,” but to do so following the best-practice recommendations from control variable methodologists (e.g., Becker et al., 2016; Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016; Spector & Brannick, 2011). These include reporting results with and without controls, explicitly incorporating controls into hypotheses and research questions, and subjecting controls to the same reliability and validity standards expected of focal measures. I note, however, that the #1 suggestion of Becker et al. (2016) is “When in doubt, leave them out!”

My first preference is for pornography effects researchers to let go of the “potential confound” paradigm completely and move into what might be called a “predictors, processes, and contingencies” paradigm. In other words, instead of considering third variables as extraneous to and contaminant of the effects of pornography on beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, I would prefer if pornography researchers incorporated third variables into causal models as antecedents, mediators, and moderators. This preference aligns with Slater’s (2015) Reinforcing Spirals Model (RSM) of media use and effects:

Traditional media effects analyses attempt to assess cause-effect relations by controlling away as many other variables as might be implicated in the causal process, to minimize the threat of third-variable, alternative causal explanations. The RSM, in contrast, would suggest that further insight can be gained by incorporating variables, such as individual differences and social influences as predictors of media use rather than as statistical controls. One can then consider the total effect of media use as summed across all the direct and indirect effects. In other words, RSM suggests that traditional media effects analyses, by trying to control for variables that are part of the causal process and are not really third variables providing competing causal explanations, in fact are likely to reduce the actual effects that should be attributed to the role of media use. (p. 376)

Although social science rests on fewer unverifiable assumptions than other methods of knowing about human behavior, if we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that our studies proceed from certain assumptions that can never be irrefutably confirmed or falsified to the satisfaction of 100% of scholars. I was born in 1979. There were social scientists who believed pornography could not affect its users before I was born and I guarantee there will be social scientists when I’m gone (hopefully, at least another forty or so years) who will believe the same.

While it is an existential possibility that pornography is the lone communicative domain where messages and meanings have zero impact, and that any correlation between pornography use and beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors is always spurious and due entirely to some other independent and immutable causal agent, I believe there is sufficient theoretical reasoning and empirical evidence to assume that this is not the case. Accordingly, I echo Elsa once again in asking my colleagues to “turn away and slam the door” on the “does pornography still predict (outcome) after controlling for the kitchen sink?” approach. Instead, I ask that we direct our attention to third variables that differentiate the frequency and type of pornography consumed, the mechanisms that lead to particular outcomes, and the people and contexts for whom those outcomes are more or less likely.

References

1. Baer, J. L., Kohut, T., & Fisher, W. A. (2015). Is pornography use associated with anti-woman sexual aggression? Re-examining the confluence model with third variable considerations. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 24, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.242-A6.

Article Google Scholar

2. Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021.

Article Google Scholar

3. Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053.

Article Google Scholar

4. Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69, 229–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12103.

Article Google Scholar

5. Bond, B. J., Hefner, V., & Drogos, K. L. (2009). Information-seeking practices during the sexual development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: The influence and effects of coming out in a mediated environment. Sexuality and Culture, 13, 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-008-9041-y.

Article Google Scholar

6. Campbell, L., & Kohut, T. (2017). The use and effects of pornography in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.004.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

7. Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111428817.
8. Ferguson, C. J., & Hartley, R. D. (2020). Pornography and sexual aggression: Can meta-analysis find a link? Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020942754.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

9. Giano, Z. (2019). The influence of online experiences: The shaping of gay male identities. Journal of Homosexuality. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1667159.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

10. Kohut, T., Landripet, I., & Stulhofer, A. (2020). Testing the confluence model of the association between pornography use and male sexual aggression: A longitudinal assessment in two independent adolescent samples from Croatia. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01824-6.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

11. Malamuth, N. M., Addison, T., & Koss, M. (2000). Pornography and sexual aggression. Annual Review of Sex Research, 11, 26–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10532528.2000.10559784.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

12. Meehl, P. (1971). High school yearbooks: A reply to Schwarz. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030750.

Article Google Scholar

13. Milas, G., Wright, P., & Stulhofer, A. (2020). Longitudinal assessment of the association between pornography use and sexual satisfaction in adolescence. Journal of Sex Research, 57, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1607817.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

14. O’Hara, R. E., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Li, Z., & Sargent, J. D. (2012). Greater exposure to sexual content in popular movies predicts earlier sexual debut and increased sexual risk taking. Psychological Science, 23, 984–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435529.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

15. Perry, S. L. (2017). Does viewing pornography diminish religiosity over time? Evidence from two-wave panel data. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1146203.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

16. Perry, S. L. (2019). How pornography use reduces participation in congregational leadership. Review of Religious Research, 61, 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-018-0355-4.

Article Google Scholar

17. Perry, S. L., & Hayward, G. M. (2017). Seeing is (not) believing: How viewing pornography shapes the religious lives of young Americans. Social Forces, 95, 1757–1788. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow106.

Article Google Scholar

18. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online material and recreational attitudes toward sex. Journal of Communication, 56, 639–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00313.x.

Article Google Scholar

19. Slater, M. D. (2015). Reinforcing spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between media content exposure and the development and maintenance of attitudes. Media Psychology, 18, 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.897236.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

20. Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110369842.

Article Google Scholar

21. Stoolmiller, M., Gerrard, M., Sargent, J. D., Worth, K. A., & Gibbons, F. X. (2010). R-rated movie viewing, growth in sensation seeking and alcohol initiation: Reciprocal and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 11, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0143-z.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

22. Tokunaga, R. S., Wright, P. J., & McKinley, C. J. (2015). US adults’ pornography viewing and support for abortion: A three-wave panel study. Health Communication, 30, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.875867.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

23. Tokunaga, R. S., Wright, P. J., & Roskos, J. E. (2019). Pornography and impersonal sex. Human Communication Research, 45, 78–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy014.

Article Google Scholar

24. Tokunaga, R. S., Wright, P. J., & Vangeel, L. (2020). Is pornography consumption a risk factor for condomless sex? Human Communication Research, 46, 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa005.

Article Google Scholar

25. Wright, P. J. (2019). Sexual socialization and internet pornography. In A. Lykins (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sexuality and gender. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_13-1.
26. Wright, P. J. (2020a). Media and sexuality. In M. B. Oliver, A. A. Raney, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 227–242). New York, NY: Routledge.

Google Scholar

27. Wright, P. J. (2020b). Pornography and sexual behavior: Do sexual attitudes mediate or confound? Communication Research, 47, 451–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218796363.

Article Google Scholar

28. Wright, P. J., & Bae, S. (2016). Pornography and male sexual socialization. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of men and masculinities (pp. 551–568). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar

29. Wright, P. J., & Funk, M. (2014). Pornography consumption and opposition to affirmative action for women: A prospective study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313498853.

Article Google Scholar

30. Wright, P. J., & Stulhofer, A. (2019). Adolescent pornography use and the dynamics of perceived pornography realism: Does seeing more make it more realistic? Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.024.

Article Google Scholar

31. Wright, P. J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2018). Women’s perceptions of their male partners’ pornography consumption and relational, sexual, self, and body satisfaction: Toward a theoretical model. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42, 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1412802.

Article Google Scholar

32. Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., & Kraus, A. (2016). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression in general-population studies. Journal of Communication, 66, 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12201.

Article Google Scholar

33. Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., Kraus, A., & Klann, E. (2017). Pornography and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 43, 315–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12108.

Article Google Scholar

This page is for journalists and other investigators who may have read assertions that Dr. Prause is a victim. Mere claims, no matter how vivid or how many of one’s friends echo them, are not evidence. True evidence is based on facts that can be verified. Much “evidence” that is published on social media is not admissible in legal proceedings because it is hear-say, irrelevant, conclusory, or otherwise not fact-based.

In situations where facts matter, Dr. Prause’s claims have not fared well. This page collects some of the legal victories over Nicole Prause. What works on her Twitter fans doesn’t cut it in a court of law.

In 2013, former academic Dr. Prause began openly harassing, libeling and cyberstalking Gary Wilson (for critiquing her flawed EEG study). Within a short time she also began targeting others, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, a former UCLA colleague, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, TraffickingHub, NoFap.com, RebootNation, YourBrainRebalanced, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. To counter her obsessive harassment and false claims, YBOP was compelled to document some of Dr. Prause’s activities on these extensive pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6.

While harassing and defaming others, Dr. Prause has cleverly cultivated – with zero verifiable evidence – a myth that she is “the victim” of most anyone who dares to disagree with her assertions surrounding porn’s effects or the current state of porn research. (See: Nicole Prause’s fabrications of victimhood exposed as groundless.) In the wake of her mounting legal entanglements and losses, her fabricated claims of victimhood have grown exponentially. Is she attempting to divert attention from her relentless harassment/defamation of her targets?

Are more legal loses in the offing for Prause? Three of her victims filed defamation suits against because she attempted to destroy their careers and ruin their reputations (Prause’s attacks on all 3 continue unabated):

1. Donald L. Hilton, Jr. v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, Case No. 5: 19-CV-00755-OLG
2. Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366
3. Aaron M. Minc, Esq v. Melissa A. Farmer and Nicole R. Prause, Case No: CV-20-937026 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
   

Why haven’t Prause’s many other defamation victims filed lawsuits against her? No matter how egregious a false accusation, a defamation suit is not a practical remedy because legal fees can run hundreds of thousands of dollars for her victims yet cost zero dollars for Prause. This is because, so far, her unlucky insurance company has covered her defense costs in such suits. This is why Prause brazenly continues to defame me and many others (including the two who have filed defamation suits against her, Don Hilton and Alex Rhodes). She doesn’t have to pay a dime while bleeding her victims dry. Even if I or others were victorious, collecting damages and attorney fees is problematic. Only the lawyers come out ahead in such suits.

Nevertheless, some of her attacks have provoked legal action (and the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney hours). These proceedings have had definitive outcomes – unfavorable to Prause. The legal victories below are listed from most recent to earliest.

---

1) Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Second Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause

Activist porn researcher owes penalty plus court costs after her defamation suit fails

ASHLAND, OREGON: January 28, 2021: Best-selling author and public health advocate Gary Wilson has won another legal victory against sexologist and vocal porn-industry proponent Nicole Prause.

Last year, Prause sought a frivolous restraining order against Wilson in California. The Court dismissed it and granted Wilson’s anti-SLAPP motion, leaving Prause obligated to pay his attorney fees.

Prause filed a second frivolous proceeding against Wilson in December, 2020 for alleged defamation. At a hearing on January 22, 2021 an Oregon court ruled in Wilson’s favor and charged Prause with costs and an additional penalty.

In the past 18 months Prause has publicly threatened (or filed) a dozen lawsuits intended to bully others into silence. She targets those who publicly reveal her close ties to the porn industry and her malicious conduct, or who have made sworn statements in the 3 defamation suits currently active against her.*

Wilson’s latest legal victory comes on the heels of Prause’s failed multi-pronged attempt to censor Wilson’s website with the help of fellow mental health professionals. Her hostile campaign began almost 2 years ago when Prause applied for his site’s well established trademarks, including the exclusive legal right to control Wilson’s actual URL (“YourBrainOnPorn.com”). The trademark grab failed, and the marks were registered in Wilson’s name in 2020.

Meanwhile, in March 2019, Prause’s confederate Daniel A. Burgess registered a trademark-infringing domain name “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com,” which engaged in various transparent ploys to divert YourBrainOnPorn.com traffic to the impostor website. After many attorney hours, in January, 2021 Wilson obtained the RealYourBrainOnPorn.com domain name as settlement of allegations of trademark infringement. Earlier, in October, 2020, the impostor site’s associated Twitter account @BrainOnPorn was permanently suspended for harassment.

After his latest court victory Wilson said, “I am astounded by the calculated abuse directed at people who dare to speak publicly about porn’s harms.” He added, “The malicious censorship tactics of the porn industry and its sexology allies curb scientific and public debate. Just as Big Tobacco once did, they distract the public from the well-documented risks of porn’s harm to both users and those it exploits.”

Wilson hosts www.YourBrainOnPorn.com, a clearinghouse for the latest research, media, and self-reports on pornography’s effects and harms. Some years ago, he presented the immensely popular TEDx talk “The Great Porn Experiment” (~14 million views). Wilson has long critiqued questionable published research and public statements about pornography use. He is also the author of Amazon best seller Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction. It is available in multiple languages, and one edition has already been praised as one of the top non-fiction books of the last decade.

* Donald L. Hilton, Jr. v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, Case No. 5: 19-CV-00755-OLG; Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366, and Aaron M. Minc, Esq v. Melissa A. Farmer and Nicole R. Prause, Case No: CV-20-937026 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In each case, numerous men and women have come forward with sworn statements that Prause has also targeted them: affidavit #1, affidavit #2, affidavit #3, affidavit #4, affidavit #5, affidavit #6, affidavit #7, affidavit #8, affidavit #9, affidavit #10, affidavit #11, affidavit #12, affidavit #13, affidavit #14, affidavit #15, affidavit #16.

THE COURT ORDER

Declaration of Gary Wilson

Below is the declaration I supplied to the court (I also supplied over 100 pages of supporting materials).

I, Gary Wilson, declare and state as follows:

This case is the second SLAPP suit Plaintiff has brought against me. The first was decided in my favor following a hearing on August 6, 2020 by the California Superior Court (Prause v. Wilson Case No. 20TRO01022). The judge granted my anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s legal action against me. He ruled that she had wrongfully attempted to silence my right speak out on a matter of public interest and stated that her legal proceeding lacked minimal merit.

A week before that hearing, Plaintiff’s own attorney attempted to resign from her case because Plaintiff had threatened him with litigation unless he did something her attorney regarded as “not warranted under existing law and [which] cannot be supported by good faith argument.” (From the Declaration of Brett A. Berman, Esq., dated July 31, 2020.) From earlier pleadings it appeared that she was demanding that he file a large quantity of inadmissible evidence. The judge refused to accept her attorney’s resignation. In addition, at the hearing a few days later, the judge ruled most of Plaintiff’s sworn statement to be inadmissible as hearsay, irrelevant, conclusory, etc.

Plaintiff is also the defendant in 3 defamation suits pending in United States Federal District Courts: Donald L. Hilton Jr v. Nicole Prause and Liberos LLC, Case No: SA: 19-CV-00755-OLG; Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause and Liberos LLC, Case No. 2:19-CV-01366-MPK; and Aaron M. Minc, Esq v. Melissa A. Farmer and Nicole R. Prause, Case No: CV-20-937026. In the first two cases, numerous men and women, including myself, have come forward with sworn statements that Plaintiff has also targeted them.

Plaintiff has an extensive history of engaging in both malicious use of process and filing baseless administrative complaints against multiple targets. In the past few years, Plaintiff has filed more than 40 malicious complaints/reports with professional boards, law enforcement, employers, and oversight agencies/tribunals (against at least 28 different people and organizations). There are undoubtedly more such complaints/reports, as some boards and agencies do not disclose whistleblowers’ identities. For example, I believe she was also behind a complaint against me filed with the Oregon Psychology Board (for practicing psychology without a license). I only learned of it after it had been summarily dismissed. I have never held myself out as a psychologist, or as anything but an author, a former anatomy, physiology and pathology instructor at vocational schools, and a former adjunct instructor at Southern Oregon University.

In the past year or so Plaintiff has filed at least 4 small claims suits (in addition to a baseless restraining order request), and has publicly threatened several more. Plaintiff often directs her malicious reporting and malicious use of process toward those of us who have supplied sworn statements in the above defamation cases. Is she attempting to intimidate and discredit us as witnesses?

Last year, Plaintiff filed a USPTO trademark application for my well established common law trademarks, including an application for my decade-old website’s actual URL. This required months and hundreds of hours of attorney time to register and protect my trademarks, and to stop the illicit trademark squatting and infringement that she and her colleagues pursued in the interim. She has also threatened and misled my webhost endeavoring (unsuccessfully) to have my website shuttered, among other hostile actions too numerous to list here.

Background

Plaintiff, a former academic, is a researcher and public commentator on matters relating to sexuality, including purported benefits of pornography use. I am an author, advocate, and public commentator whose work focuses on the negative physical and mental health effects of digital pornography use. I host a popular website called YourBrainOnPorn.com. Amazon’s top selling book in the pornography studies category is my book Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction. It is already being translated into some seven languages. My evidence-based TEDx talk “The Great Porn Experiment” has been viewed more than 13 million times.

Plaintiff’s views and my views about pornography use and its effects frequently differ. I do not “hate” her research, but I have publicly critiqued a couple of Plaintiff’s papers and some of her public statements concerning her conclusions. Plaintiff appears to be cozy with the pornography industry. I say this based on her public online acceptance of an offer of help from the primary lobbying arm of the industry, photos of her attending industry events, her consistent backing of the industry’s interests on social media, and her attacking and defaming on social media, and via malicious reports, any who raise awareness of the potential risks of online pornography use.

From 2013 through present day, Plaintiff has made repeated false, public, defamatory statements about me in the press and via social media. Plaintiff has falsely and publicly stated, among other defamatory assertions, that I am a “stalker” of women; that I have made “death threats” against her and encouraged others do so the same; that I have engaged in illegal computer intrusion; that I have misrepresented my credentials; that I have engaged in fraud; that I am a white supremacist and a member of hate groups; and that I have threatened scientists.

Plaintiff has made similar defamatory statements about dozens of others who share my views about the potential risks of digital pornography use. As noted, several of them have already sued her, in part because she continues to make public, defamatory statements notwithstanding the pending defamation cases.

Anti-SLAPP

The goal of the special motion to strike procedure in ORS § 31.150 is to weed out meritless claims meant to harass or intimidate so as to prevent the exercise of constitutional free speech rights. Courts broadly apply it to all statements made “in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with any issue of public interest,” that arises out of: (1) any conduct; (2) in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech; and (3) in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. “Public issue” and “issue of public interest” have themselves been broadly construed. An online search reveals that small claims courts around the country have granted anti-SLAPP motions when appropriate.

This lawsuit arises from my protected speech in connection with an issue of public interest: the potential effects of digital pornography use and the claims and activities of pornography researchers/spokespersons, including Plaintiff. Expert researchers in the field, other than those aligned with Plaintiff, often express views similar to mine.

My website YourBrainOnPorn.com receives an average of 15,000 unique visitors each day. It is a clearinghouse for research on the effects of pornography and other items of interest to visitors. A small percentage of my site’s 12,000+ pages are devoted to commentary on various scientists’ research and press statements. Some of my commentary is critical of methodology and claims made; some of it addresses the apparent bias and questionable behavior of researchers/spokespersons; and some of it documents Plaintiff’s hostile activities and defamatory material produced by Plaintiff and others.

It is evident from the widespread interest in my website, book and TEDx talk, that the public is interested in the subject of pornography’s effects and the work/behavior of researchers in this field. Thus, I believe the “public interest” test of ORS § 31.150 has been met.

According to Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, once the “public interest” test has been met the court will grant the motion to strike unless the plaintiff can introduce substantial evidence of a probability of prevailing on the claim. ORS § 31.150(3). Plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on her claims.

In her earlier SLAPP suit Plaintiff sought a meritless restraining order based on numerous fabrications. In this suit she has listed multiple causes of action, but the only evidence she offers are statements, allegedly written by me, which she apparently considers to be defamatory. I indeed made all of the statements except for the last one. The last one was made by journalist Megan Fox in an article entitled, “’No Fap’ Porn Addiction Support Group Founder Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation.” (Plaintiff is the sexologist mentioned in the title.)

Plaintiff is a public figure who is very vocal on social media and in the press, which means that others can be expected to speak about her and her activities. The statements Plaintiff alleges I made do not rise to the threshold of defamation of anyone, let alone a public figure. Although not all of them were made by me, those I did make expressed publicly my good faith opinions and observations about Plaintiff’s potential biases, publicly exposed her malicious behavior, or publicly defended myself and others against Plaintiff’s unfounded claims. My statements constitute protected speech related to issues of public interest.

All my comments were based upon publicly available information or behavior I have personally observed in Plaintiff’s thousands of social media posts or in her sworn statements in legal proceedings. In the course of commenting on Plaintiff’s actions and her work I have never invaded her privacy, interfered with her business, or knowingly contributed to her losing any research contract. I have never threatened her or encouraged others to threaten her, and never posted her confidential information or anything that would place her safety at risk.

Plaintiff implies that my alleged comments were all made recently, but all of the statements I made, like similar observations I had previously expressed, were initially stated prior to the last 12 months. Defamation claims must be made within one year. (ORS § 12.120)

For all of the above reasons, there is no probability of Plaintiff prevailing in this action.

In conclusion, Plaintiff’s complaint is yet another transparent attempt to silence me through an unconstitutional and intolerable prior restraint on my right to free speech. I respectfully request that the court take notice of the recent anti-SLAPP motion granted by the California Superior Court based on Plaintiff’s similarly empty claims, and grant my motion to strike pursuant to ORS § 31.150 plus my court costs.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct of my own personal knowledge. Executed this 15^th day of December 2020 at Ashland, Oregon.

Gary Wilson

---

2) YBOP acquires www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com in trademark infringement settlement (January 2021)

The www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com URL has been granted to YBOP after its former owner(s), in apparent collaboration with Nicole R. Prause, registered and maintained the URL as part of a campaign to de-platform YBOP.

Specifically, Gary Wilson obtained the RealYourBrainOnPorn.com (RealYBOP) domain name as settlement of allegations of infringement upon his trademarks. The rest of this page documents the hostile campaign of Prause and her cronies, which began with an attempt to de-platform YBOP, followed by efforts to confuse its visitors, and finally used YBOP’s own trademarks to disparage it. (THE FULL STORY)

While Daniel A. Burgess registered www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com, Prause’s numerous victims believe she orchestrated the content on RealYBOP and operated its social media accounts. Prause may deny involvement, but simple observation, RealYBOP experts’ correspondence, WIPO’s report, and considerable evidence point to her management of the social media accounts and realyourbrainonporn.com (evidence here).

The RealYBOP site was also used to prop up an associated Twitter account named “Real Your Brain On Porn” (@BrainOnPorn). Its manager (presumably Prause) publicly insisted that the Twitter account reflected the views of all of the “experts” in the line-up on the now shuttered RealYBOP website.

Exercising its supposed “collective” voice, the @BrainOnPorn Twitter account tweeted more than 1,000 defamatory and malicious statements about anyone with whom Nicole Prause disagreed (i.e., anyone who dared to counter the preferred narrative of the sex/porn industry). In October, 2020 the account was permanently suspended for violating Twitter rules (Prause’s original Twitter account was also permanently suspended for harassment). For much more see these extensive pages:

• RealYourBrainOnPorn (@BrainOnPorn) tweets: Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause & pro-porn allies collaborate on a biased website and social media accounts to support the porn industry agenda (beginning in April, 2019)
• RealYourBrainOnPorn (@BrainOnPorn) tweets, page 2: Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause & pro-porn allies collaborate on a twitter account to support the porn industry and to harass & defame anyone who speaks about porn’s negative effects
• Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause) defamation/harassment of Gary Wilson: They “discover” fake porn URLs in the Internet Wayback Archive (August, 2019)
• Porn Science Deniers Alliance (AKA: “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com” and “ScienceOfArousal.com”)
• RealYourBrainOnPorn (@BrainOnPorn) tweets DIRECTLY supporting the porn industry, especially Pornhub

---

3) Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause’s Efforts to Silence Him

Vocal porn researcher’s attempted restraining order denied as frivolous; must pay substantial attorney fees in a SLAPP ruling.

ASHLAND, OREGON: August 16, 2020: Best-selling author and public health advocate Gary Wilson has won a legal victory against sexology researcher and pornography proponent Nicole Prause. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against Wilson constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully Wilson into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay Wilson’s attorney fees.

Wilson is the author of the best selling book Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction, presenter of the immensely popular TEDx talk “The Great Porn Experiment,” (13+ million views) and host of the website www.YourBrainOnPorn.com, a clearinghouse for the latest research, media, and self-reports on pornography’s effects and harms. Wilson has long critiqued Prause’s published research and public statements about pornography use.

“It is ironic that the porn industry cloaks itself in First Amendment protections while porn proponents like Nicole Prause attempt to limit and silence criticism about the well-documented risks of porn’s harm to its users and to the public,” Wilson said after the Court ruling. “This is another important victory over the defamation and harassment endured by advocates who dare to speak publicly about porn’s harms.“

I believe her restraining order attempt was also an attempt to discredit me as a witness in the two defamation suits others have filed against Prause. It failed, and has now further discredited her instead, exposing her as lying for years that I was “stalking” her.

Important to note the initial judge denied Prause a temporary restraining order in February, 2020, when she filed it without notice to me. This was a loud signal to her that she had a weak case. Denial of the TRO meant that Prause had to inform me about the restraining order, and it was set for an initial hearing (which led to a second hearing, as Prause still had not served me properly).

For the next 3 months, Prause could have dropped the fraudulent restraining order with no repercussions to herself, and I would have been stuck with my attorney fees without much recourse. In June, partly to avoid being in Prause’s presence at the hearing scheduled for July, and partly in response to being unjustly accused of having threatened by her in order to suppress my voice, I filed an anti-SLAPP motion to have the restraining order dropped. At that point, she could only go forward. Court documents filed in my anti-SLAPP motion:

• Gary Wilson’s Anti-SLAPP – Notice of Motion to Strike Restraining Order (May 14, 2020)
• Staci Sprout declaration for Gary Wilson
• Alex Rhodes declaration for Gary Wilson

I filed my motion in part because Prause had begun slapping baseless small claims court ‘defamation’ suits on people, which require defendants to be served in CA. I was confident that she would serve me with one of her nuisance small claims court suits if I came to CA to testify for the restraining order hearing.

As it turns out, the judge combined the two matters, and both Prause and I were able to participate remotely (due to Covid 19). This spared me from going anywhere near her, thankfully. Perhaps its evident that, far from physically threatening her, I’ve been assiduously avoiding her presence. My August 5th, court filings responding to Prause’s July 29 declaration:

• Gary Wilson’s declaration (August 5, 2020)
• Gary Wilson’s point by point reply to Nicole Prause (August 5, 2020)
• Gary Wilson’s evidentiary objections: almost all were sustained (August 5, 2020)
• Declaration to be Relieved as Nicole Prause’s Counsel (her lawyer said Prause was trying to force him to engage in unethical behavior)

Shortly before the August 6 hearing, her own attorney tried unsuccessfully to withdraw from representing her. One of his reasons, according to his Declaration, was that she was attempting to force him to behave unethically, that is, to do something he could not do in good faith. We know from his filed document seeking a continuance that she had tried to make him submit a lot of inadmissible “evidence” (likely in the form of letters from her friends, and unsupported accusations), so we suspect he was referring to this.

Her attorney also asked to withdraw because she was apparently threatening him with suit because he wouldn’t do her bidding. He stated that communications with Prause had irretrievably broken down. This occurred after he filed her reply to my anti-SLAPP motion (and there was no further legal work to be done short of the hearing itself).

The judge decided not to delay the hearing, and Prause was represented by the firm’s of-counsel attorney, who did an excellent job on her behalf – although he had little to work with by the time all the evidentiary objections were dealt with.

Prause lied throughout her declaration. One demonstrable example is Prause falsely stating that “as a result of Gary Wilson’s actions, I have relocated many times”.

In tweets, interviews, articles, and court documents, Prause has repeatedly claimed that she constantly moves due to numerous stalkers breathing down her neck (mainly me). In her August, 2019 filing, Prause claimed to have moved on July 1, 2019 “out of fear of Wilson’s stalking” (note the date):

As with the Hilton court filings, Prause’s request for a restraining order contained no evidence that she had ever relocated her residence, let alone moved because of me. It would be very easy to provide receipts or leases, yet Prause failed to do so. Prause revealed the truth in her August, 2020 bankruptcy petition. She filed it to escape liability for 3 yet-to-be-tried defamation suits (Hilton, Rhodes, Minc), and avoid paying me the attorney-fee debt she had incurred (Prause was not actually insolvent, as she reported ~$270,000 in savings). This screenshot of her bankruptcy filing reveals Prause has not moved in the last 3 years!

Why is Prause finally disclosing the truth in her bankruptcy filings that she hasn’t, in fact, been moving her residence or business due to stalking? Well, in the filings she must provide all sorts of verifiable financial and personal documents to the bankruptcy court. If her fairytale of constantly moving didn’t match her documents, she could be charged with perjury. In contrast, there was no system in place to fact-check Prause in the Hilton suit or in my anti-SLAPP suit, so she was able to lie with impunity.

My legal victory comes on the heels of a complaint against UK-based SCRAM Media for publishing a story falsely claiming that Prause had received “death threats” as the consequence of a crowdfunding campaign by NoFap host, Alex Rhodes. According to a UK press release, the SCRAM story falsely stated that NoFap and Rhodes affiliated themselves with right-wing extremists (including anti-Semites); incited extremists to harass Prause; conducted a crowdfund that led to Prause being stalked; and filed a frivolous lawsuit in US Federal Court in order to stymie Prause’s academic research. When presented with evidence disproving those claims, SCRAM retracted the article, paid Rhodes substantial damages and legal costs, and apologized publicly, before shutting down entirely. (More below)

Prause is being sued in 3 unrelated federal civil lawsuits accusing her of making knowingly false and damaging statements about people who have raised concerns about internet porn. (See above.) In those cases, the plaintiffs allege Prause made untrue, defamatory statements accusing them of stalking, sexual harassment, and antisemitism, and claiming they were under investigation by law enforcement and professional licensing bodies. In each case, numerous men and women have come forward with sworn statements that Prause has also targeted them.

THE COURT ORDER

THE FULL STORY

---

4) Beware! Spreading defamation can create legal liability

SCRAM Media relied on Prause for misinformation about Alexander Rhodes and NoFap. The outlet printed her lies. SCRAM had to apologize and pay substantial damages to Rhodes and NoFap. As a consequence, SCRAM unfortunately went out of business. Similarly, Prause persuaded colleague Melissa Farmer to spread defamation about US attorney Aaron Minc. Both the colleague and Prause have been sued for defamation. (See section below this one.)

Here is SCRAM’s public apology:

An apology to Alexander Rhodes and NoFap LLC

May 21, 2020

By Scram Media, Sam Bright and Kate Plummer

On 20 January 2020 we published an article on scramnews.com entitled “Academic receives “death threats” from far-right after crowdfunding campaign to sue her.”The article contained numerous false and defamatory statements concerning NoFap LLC (‘NoFap’) and its founder Alexander Rhodes. In particular, the article wrongly suggested that NoFap and Mr Rhodes were affiliated with extremists (including anti-Semites); that they had brought a frivolous and vexatious defamation claim in order to stymie legitimate academic research; that they had incited extremists to harass and threaten the defendant in those proceedings (a Dr Nicole Prause); and that they had published misleading information about the campaign in order to secure crowdfunding.

We wish to unequivocally retract the allegations contained within the article and apologise for the damage and distress caused to NoFap and Mr Rhodes by the publication.

We acknowledge that what we published was wholly misleading and an inaccurate representation, both of the work undertaken by NoFap and Mr Rhodes, and of the defamation claim brought by Mr Rhodes against Dr Prause, and that neither Mr. Rhodes or NoFap have incited members of extremist hate groups to harass or threaten Dr Prause.

Mr Rhodes’ defamation claim against Dr Prause does not concern her research, but rather alleged defamatory attacks on Mr Rhodes and NoFap. The formal copy of the legal Complaint in that claim (issued in the US Federal Court) can be found here. We acknowledge that there was, and is, nothing misleading about the crowdfunding campaign associated with this litigation.

NoFap is a pornography recovery online platform which enables users to connect with a supportive community of individuals determined to reduce or eliminate pornography use and free themselves from compulsive sexual behaviours. Unlike many initiatives that have traditionally criticised pornography, Mr Rhodes’ website prides itself on being secular, apolitical, sex-positive, and science-based. We understand that it is used by men and women from all over the world, from a wide variety of backgrounds, religious and spiritual beliefs (or non-belief), sexual orientations and identities, ages, nationalities, ethnicities, and other characteristics.

We wish to apologise to Mr Rhodes, NoFap and our readers. and we have agreed to pay substantial damages to NoFap and Mr Rhodes together with legal costs in respect of the damage/distress caused by the article.

Scram Media Limited
Sam Bright
Kate Plummer

The press release: NoFap LLC and Alexander Rhodes secure substantial libel damages and apology from Scram News (22.05.20)

Scram Media Limited and two of its contributors have apologised and agreed to pay defamation damages to US-based NoFap LLC and its founder Alexander Rhodes after publishing an article on ScramNews.com titled “Academic receives “death threats” from far-right after crowdfunding campaign to sue her.”

NoFap runs an online pornography recovery platform that enables users to connect with a supportive community of individuals determined to reduce or eliminate pornography use and free themselves from compulsive sexual behaviours. It receives millions of visitors every month and has been covered by a wide variety of outlets, including CNN, The New York Times, BBC, Business Insider, Time Magazine, MTV, The Washington Post, and Showtime.

The Scram News article contained numerous false and defamatory statements concerning NoFap and Mr Rhodes. In particular, the article wrongly suggested that NoFap and Mr Rhodes were affiliated with extremists (including anti-Semites); that they had brought a frivolous and vexatious defamation claim in the US Federal Court in order to stymie legitimate academic research; that they had incited extremists to harass and threaten the defendant in those proceedings; that a crowdfunding campaign for the litigation had resulted in a defendant being stalked and their address being posted online; and that they had published misleading information about the case by wrongly suggesting that the defendants have ties to the pornography industry in order to secure funding.

Scram has now published a full retraction and apology which can be found here. This acknowledges that the publication was wholly misleading of the work undertaken by NoFap and Mr Rhodes, of the defamation claim brought by Mr Rhodes and the crowdfunding campaign, and that neither Mr Rhodes or NoFap have incited members of such extremist hate groups to harass or threaten the defendant. Mr Rhodes’ defamation claim does not concern the defendants’ research, but rather alleged defamatory attacks on Mr Rhodes and NoFap. The legal Complaint in that claim can be found here.

Scram Media Limited has agreed to pay Mr Rhodes substantial damages and his legal costs. It has undertaken not to republish similar false allegations.

Unlike many initiatives that have traditionally raised concerns about pornography, NoFap LLC prides itself on being secular, apolitical, sex-positive, and science-based. It is used by men and women from all over the world, from a wide variety of backgrounds, religious and spiritual beliefs (or non-belief), sexual orientations and identities, ages, nationalities, ethnicities, and other characteristics.

Commenting on the settlement, Mr Rhodes said:

“Our success in raising awareness about pornography addiction has resulted in us being the subject of a prolonged smear campaign orchestrated by elements who have close ties with the pornography industry, who have sought to falsely portray us as being affiliated to religious groups, hate groups, and extremists in an attempt to discredit us. Our website unites people from all walks of life to overcome porn addiction together. These elements appear to want to falsely controversialize the issue and misrepresent us to distract people from our actual views, the facts, and the emerging body of scientific research. Despite their ongoing defamation and disinformation campaign, we will continue to provide resources for recovering porn addicts.”

NoFap LLC and Alexander Rhodes were represented in the UK claim by Iain Wilson and Elisabeth Mason.

Further details about this story.

---

5) Melissa Farmer PhD sued and retracts, after re-tweeting Prause-generated lies

In July 2020, Prause apparently persuaded colleague Melissa Farmer PhD to help spread her defamation about attorney Aaron Minc. Minc’s firm was representing Alexander Rhodes in his defamation lawsuit against Prause, although another attorney actually represented Rhodes (not Minc). However, only Minc had a Twitter account. This seems to be the reason Prause publicly targeted Minc with wild, unsupported tweets claiming that Minc had sent Prause’s private information to “people that have been threatening to kill [her] for years.”

Despite Minc’s public denial on Twitter, Farmer, one of Prause’s duped followers, directly shared Prause’s defamatory tweets about Minc with the Ohio State Bar Association, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and the Ohio Supreme Court’s Twitter accounts! As part of her the smear campaign, Farmer falsely claimed that Minc had engaged in an ethics violation. For added effect, Farmer attached a screenshot image of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 4.4 taken from the Ohio Supreme Court website. (Prause regularly cites irrelevant statutes and regulations to bolster her smear campaigns, so we suspect she supplied Farmer with the image.)

On September 9, 2020 Aaron Minc, JD filed a defamation suit against Melissa Farmer, promising to add Prause as a co-defendant to the Farmer defamation suit if and when the Prause’s bankruptcy judge allowed it (“Relief from Stay”). See – September, 2020: Aaron Minc, JD announces his defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause (Minc owns the law firm representing Alex Rhodes). Prause was duly added. The three filings by Aaron Minc:

1. Aaron Minc vs Melissa Farmer (September 9, 2020)
2. Motion for relief from stay adding Prause to complaint (in Prause’s bankruptcy) November 10, 2020
3. Background facts regarding this dispute (April 23, 2021)

Meanwhile, the judge denied Farmer’s Motion To Dismiss, and the case was set for trial. It appears that Farmer’s insurance company recognized that its client was unlikely to prevail, and we speculate that she came to a financial arrangement with Minc. In April, 2021 Farmer filed a settlement with Minc, which the judge signed off on. As part of this settlement Farmer filed a sworn affidavit stating, among other things, that,

5. At the time I published the tweet, I had no evidence that Aaron Minc had engaged in conduct that violates Ohio’s Rules of Professional Conduct, nor did I have any personal knowledge that Aaron Mine directly sent Nicole R. Prause’s home and work address to a group of people that have been threatening to kill her for years. I fully regret publishing the tweet and I realize it was a mistake to publish the tweet. I have no evidence that the allegations against Mr. Mine are true. I have no evidence that the claims made by Nicole R. Prause are true. I apologize to Mr. Minc for any distress caused by my actions. (emphasis supplied)

In short, it appears that Melissa Farmer and her lawyers could offer no justification to defend her (Prause’s) libelous statements about Minc. Farmer admitted this, accepted her defeat, and got out. This leaves Prause to face the repercussions of her misconduct alone. But Farmer suffered the stress, embarrassment and professional repercussions of a lawsuit thanks to being drawn into Prause’s malicious smear campaign.

Once again, it is evident that spreading Prause’s lies can have grave repercussions for those duped.

From the April 14, 2021 – STIPULATED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT:

PAGE #3, naming Prause:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PAGE #6 – Farmer’s retraction disavowing Prause’s claims:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

6) Malicious trademark squatting fails

In January 2019, Nicole Prause applied for YBOP’s well established trademarks, including the exclusive right to use Wilson’s actual URL (“YourBrainOnPorn.com”), with a view to displacing YBOP with her own version of his site. This was an outright censorship attempt by Prause, who has been obsessively harassing and defaming Wilson for over 8 years. Not only that, she lied on her sworn application that she knew of no one who had rights in the marks she was applying for…even though one of the marks was my URL that had been in use (and under attack by Prause) for nearly a decade! Perjury.

Her attempted trademark-grab was also illicit. To file it, she (falsely) claimed that no one but Prause had the right to use my URL, which I had been using for almost a decade, and which she had publicly been disparaging for years. She also had to declare that if she used the mark it was unlikely “to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.” Note that such a willful and false statement is punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 USC 1001.

Prause’s trademark application forced me (Wilson) into expensive legal battles with her (8-page cease & desist letter to Nicole Prause – May 1, 2019). Only when it was time to proceed in Federal court did she abandon her dishonest trademark application (October, 2019).

After her application failed, the trademarks were registered in Wilson’s name in 2020.

In a startling “coincidence,” Prause’s legal counsel for the trademark disputes was Wayne B. Giampietro, one of the primary lawyers defending Backpage.com. Backpage was shut down by the federal government “for its willful facilitation of human trafficking and prostitution.” (See this USA Today article: 93-count indictment on sex trafficking charges revealed against Backpage founders).

The indictment charged Backpage.com owners, along with others, of conspiring to knowingly facilitate prostitution offenses through the Backpage.com website. Authorities contended some of the trafficked people included teenage girls. For details on Giampietro’s involvement see: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2017cv05081/341956. Backpage.com assets were seized by Arizona, with Wayne B. Giampietro LLC listed as forfeiting $100,000.

---

What’s going on with Nicole Prause?

In 2013 former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause began openly harassing, libeling and cyberstalking Gary Wilson. (Prause has not been employed by an academic institution since January, 2015.) Within a short time she also began targeting others, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, a former UCLA colleague, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, NoFap.com, RebootNation, YourBrainRebalanced, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity (See – Numerous Victims of Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process).

While spending her waking hours harassing others, Prause cleverly cultivated – with zero verifiable evidence – a myth that she was “the victim” of most anyone who dared to disagree with her assertions surrounding porn’s effects or the current state of porn research (See: Nicole Prause’s fabrications of victim-hood exposed as groundless: she is the perpetrator, not the victim). To counter the ongoing harassment and false claims, YBOP was compelled to document some of Prause’s activities. Consider the following pages. (Additional incidents have occurred that we are not at liberty to divulge – as Prause’s victims fear further retribution.)

• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 2)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 3)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 4)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 5)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 6)

In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts. That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015).

Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause added two media managers/promoters from Media 2×3 to her company’s tiny stable of “Collaborators.” (Media 2×3 president Jess Ponce describes himself as a Hollywood media coach and personal branding expert.) Their job is to place articles in the press featuring Prause, and find her speaking engagements in pro-porn and mainstream venues. Odd tactics for a supposedly impartial scientist.

Prause began to put her name to falsehoods, openly cyber-harassing multiple individuals and organizations on social media and elsewhere. Since Prause’s primary target was Gary Wilson (hundreds of social media comments along with behind the scenes email campaigns), it became necessary to monitor and document Prause’s tweets and posts. This was done for her victims’ protection, and crucial for any future legal actions.

It soon became apparent that Prause’s tweets and comments were rarely about sex research, neuroscience, or any other subject related to her claimed expertise. In fact, the vast majority of Prause’s posts could be divided into two overlapping categories:

1. Indirect support of the porn industry: Defamatory & ad hominem comments targeting individuals and organizations that she labeled as “anti-porn activists” (often claiming to be a victim of these individuals and organizations). Documented here: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5.
2. Direct support of the porn industry:
   • direct support of the FSC (Free Speech Coalition), AVN (Adult Video News), porn producers, performers, and their agendas
   • countless misrepresentations of the state of pornography research and attacks on porn studies or porn researchers.

This page contains a sampling of tweets and comments related to #2 – her vigorous support of the porn industry and its chosen positions: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry? The page is divided into 4 main sections:

1. SECTION 1: Nicole Prause & the porn industry:
   1. Falsely accusing others of saying the porn industry funds some of her research (but no one said that)
   2. In 2015 the Free Speech Coalition offers Prause assistance: she accepts and immediately attacks Prop 60 (condoms in porn)
   3. The Free Speech Coalition allegedly provided subjects for a Prause study that she claims will “debunk” porn addiction
   4. Prause’s direct support for porn & sex industry (FSC, AVN, XBIZ, xHamster, PornHub, BackPage.com, etc.)
   5. Prause’s intimate relationships with porn industry performers, directors, producers, etc.
   6. Evidence that Nicole Prause attends porn industry awards (XRCO, AVN)
2. SECTION 2: Was Nicole Prause “PornHelps”? (PornHelps website, @pornhelps on Twitter, comments under articles). All accounts deleted once Prause was outed as “PornHelps.”
3. SECTION 3: Examples of Nicole Prause supporting porn industry interests via misrepresentation of the research & attacking studies/researchers.
4. SECTION 4: “RealYBOP”: Prause, Daniel Burgess and associates create a biased website and social media accounts to support a pro-porn industry agenda, and to harass & defame those who say anything negative about porn.

After years of sitting on the evidence, YBOP is of the view that Prause’s unilateral aggression has escalated to such frequent and reckless defamation (falsely accusing her many victims of “physically stalking her,” “misogyny,” “encouraging others to rape her,” and “being neo-Nazis“), that we are compelled to examine her possible motives.

Please note: There is unequivocal evidence that the porn industry funded the sexology profession for decades. Sexology’s agenda still appears to serve the porn industry. Thus, the evidence on this page should be viewed in a larger context. See Hugh Hefner, the International Academy of Sex Research, and Its Founding President to understand how porn-industry friendly sexologists influenced the Kinsey Institute. Prause is a Kinsey grad.

---

INTRODUCTION: Burgess is now claiming victim-hood, yet he initiated all contact (Facebook, Twitter), posting numerous defamatory comments and eventually infringing on YBOP’s trademark by creating “realyourbrainonporn.com“.

Prior to February, 2018 I had never heard of Daniel Burgess LMFT. Suddenly, out of nowhere Mr. Burgess (@BurgessTherapy) employed multiple social media platforms to attack me and YBOP. Burgess’s targeted harassment and defamation occurred on Twitter (under several @YourBrainOnPorn tweets) and Facebook (the YBOP Facebook page, one of Burgess’s Facebook pages, and the Marriage and Family Therapists Facebook page).

In July of 2020 Daniel Burgess wrote a lie-filled letter for Nicole Prause to use in her defense against my Anti-SLAPP suit. I won the lawsuit as Prause, and her letter writers, were exposed as lying or fabricating evidence: Prause’s restraining order denied as frivolous & she owes substantial attorney fees in a ant-SLAPP ruling. Burgess’s letter, which has been tweeted dozens of times, insinuated that he was the victim because I created the current page to expose his defamation, cyberstalking and trademark infringement. Absolutely ludicrous, as Burgess initiated all contact with me (defamation on several social media accounts), and created www.realyourbrainonporn.com, infringing on my trademark, while its Twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) defamed me and many others (including doxing my son and his mother). Burgess’s letter falsely claimed that:

1. I posted his home address and phone number on YBOP (a bald-faced lie).
2. I published “hundreds of pages of defamatory accusations” (Burgess provided zero examples of defamatory accusations). I only published this current page and two other primary pages describing:
   • Burgess’s trademark infringement/Twitter account – RealYourBrainOnPorn tweets: Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause & pro-porn allies create a biased twitter account to support the porn industry and to harass & defame anyone who speaks about porn’s negative effects.
   • Burgess’s participation in a smear campaign – Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause) defamation/harassment of Gary Wilson: They “discover” fake porn URLs in the Internet Wayback Archive (August, 2019).
3. I put “pictures” of his wife & family on YBOP. Not true. He appears to referring to the avatar associated with his defamatory Facebook comments – which I reproduced below and are still present on my Facebook page!
4. He received “multiple legal threats”. In reality, Burgess only received 2 cease and desist letters – both for illegal trademark infringement of YBOP.

You be the judge, is Daniel Burgess the victim or the perpetrator?

We begin with documentation of with Burgess’s one-sided reign of cyberstalking and defamation:

YourBrainOnPorn Facebook Page

Screenshots of Burgess posting numerous defamatory comments on the YBOP Facebook page (this is where I first encountered Daniel Burgess). Very important to note: as of November, 2020 Burgess libelous comments were still there. So any claims of me outing him, or his family, are ludicrous.

Link to the page I provided to Burgess (he had no comments): Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others. Note: Burgess is now claiming that the above screenshot of him harassing & defaming me on my Facebook page constitutes “doxing.” That’s a perfect example of DARVO – Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then lie and claim that the abuser is the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.

By the way, ‘doxing’ refers to posting private information, which I did not do. His comments are public, and on the YBOP Facebook page.

Update (August, 2020): Court rulings expose Prause as the perpetrator, not the victim, confirming that Burgess knowingly engaged in defamation per se. In March of 2020, Prause sought a groundless temporary restraining order (TRO) against me using fabricated “evidence” and her usual lies (falsely accusing me of stalking). In Prause’s request for the restraining order she perjured herself, saying I posted her address on YBOP and Twitter (perjury is nothing new with Prause). I filed an lawsuit against Prause for misusing the legal system (TRO) to silence and harass me. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully me into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay Wilson’s attorney fees.

On YBOP Twitter Threads

Not long after the above tirade of false statements and defamation, Burgess went to his little-used Twitter account to spew a bunch of venom and unsupported drivel. Nine tweets in a row targeting me (Burgess has since deleted these tweets and changed the name of the Twitter account to @MyAscentTherapy):

On the “Marriage and Family Therapists” Facebook Group

Soon after Burgess attacked me on the YBOP Facebook page and Twitter, he set his sights on the 6,000 member “Marriage and Family Therapists” Facebook group (his unsupported claims about YBOP and the research are addressed in the next section). Eighteen replies to Burgess by therapists Staci Sprout and Forest Benedict are the bulk of what remains of Burgess’s defamatory tirade. Here’s an example of one of the many MFT Facebook page comments where Burgess defamed me:

It appears that Burgess was kicked off the “Marriage and Family Therapists” Facebook group for defaming others in the thread, yet he is now spreading his fairy tale that I initiated contact with him. The only so-called ‘contact’ I initiated was a Cease & Desist letter to Burgess for trademark infringement.

Burgess Creates Fake Twitter Account to Defame & Harass Me

On June 14, 2019 I posted the following Twitter thread in response to harassment and defamation from the “RealYourBrainOnPorn” Twitter account. (As explained here, the RealYBOP website and social media accounts are engaging in illegal trademark infringement and attempted trademark squatting.) On June 15th the dormant “Ron Swanson” account entered my thread claiming to have a background in law, offering me legal assistance:

The “Ron Swanson” Twitter account is demonstrably fake. A quick examination of “Ron Swanson’s” Twitter revealed it was fake and probably conducting a fishing expedition.

I suspected “Swanson” was Burgess because, out of its mere 20 tweets in 3 years, one linked to pictures of Burgess and his wife engaging in a CrossFit competition (Burgess’s primary Facebook page is CrossFit Dan). The “Ron Swanson” tweet with a link:

The link goes to this NugentTherapy Instagram post (the page has since mysteriously vanished):

It’s no secret that Burgess and his wife met at CrossFit. He even created a Facebook page chronicling all this (update – in an attempt to hide evidence, Burgess deleted the page). Note: because Burgess is not only defaming me, trolling me, sending me threatening letters via his lawyer Wayne Giampietro, engaging in blatant trademark infringement, and related litigation, I have been forced to document his, and his alias’s, online behaviors.

The mystery of “Ron Swanson” solved.

Burgess continued to use his RonSwanson alias. The minute RealYBOP tweeted the SoCal ACLU letter (described on this page) “Ron Swanson” tweeted it four times, all at @YourBrainOnPorn. The “Ron Swanson” account hadn’t tweeted anything since his two June 15th tweets attempting to deceive me with his offer of sage legal advice. The four tweets:

Burgess no longer trying to hide the fact that he’s “Ron Swanson”.

On August 21, 2019, Burgess alias (@RonSwansonTime tweeted a screenshot of fraudulent porn URLs (of pages that never existed). It appeared under a NerdyKinkyCommie tweet ranting about me. Nerdy is a professional troll and Prause-collaborator who received a 7-day Twitter suspension for harassing me (entire saga explained here). RonSwansonTime was then joined in the thread by Nicole Prause and David Ley – what an amazing coincidence.

These tweets are the first I, or anyone else, had ever heard of the existence of the fake URLs (of nonexistent pages on YBOP’s Wayback Machine archive). Initial sequence of events on August 21st:

1. NerdyKinkyCommie trolls me (for the 100th time or so)
2. @RonSwansonTime immediately post 2 tweets on the thread, with screenshots and links to the WayBack Machine
3. Nicole Prause immediately joins the thread
4. David Ley adds his two cents

I then outed @RonSwansonTime as a likely Burgess alias, which resulted in “Ron” setting his Twitter account to “protected” (just more evidence that Ron Swanson is really Burgess).

Why would a fake Twitter account go private? To hide evidence?

In summary, Burgess is now fabricating stories that I initiated contact with him and “cyberstalked” him. As you can see, Burgess is lying. He is the perpetrator not the victim.

In August, 2019 some of Burgess’s comments and social media accounts vanished and a presumed alias Twitter account went private (@RonSwansonTime). This occurred after:

1. legal actions revealed that Daniel Burgess is the current owner of the realyourbrainonporn.com URL (for much more see – Aggressive Trademark Infringement Waged by Porn Addiction Deniers (www.realyourbrainonporn.com)
2. the realyourbrainonporn.com Twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) went on a 4-day, 110+ tweet defamatory rampage targeting Gary Wilson, while the realyourbrainonporn.com email account harassed Wilson’s friends with the same defamatory garbage. For details, see:
   • Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/YourBrainOnPorn/status/1165299052746960896
   • Extensive article: Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess) defamation/harassment of Gary Wilson: Fake porn URLs “found” in the Internet Wayback Archive (August, 2019)

In addition to the malicious character-impugning campaign conducted by the “Real Brain On Porn” Twitter account (which mirrors Nicole Prause’s litany of falsehoods), the Twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) also explicitly accused me of at least 3 felonies:

1. Stalking women in person
2. Making death threats
3. Hacking into websites

Publicly accusing people of moral turpitude and felonies is actionable. In fact, the above libelous statements are deemed “defamation per se” – which means that I need not show any commercial damages in order to recover (proceeds from my book go to charity). Legal counsel believes that Daniel Burgess is the legally culpable party. We have until August, 25th, 2020 to file a defamation lawsuit (others have also been defamed by “Real Brain On Porn” Twitter account).

A big wow: Prause and Daniel Burgess’s legal counsel in their trademark battles with me is Wayne B. Giampietro. He was one of the primary lawyers defending backpage.com. Backpage was shut down by the federal government “for its willful facilitation of human trafficking and prostitution.” (see this USA Today article: 93-count indictment on sex trafficking charges revealed against Backpage founders). The indictment charged backpage owners, along with others, of conspiring to knowingly facilitate prostitution offenses through the website. Authorities contend some of the trafficked people included teenage girls. For details on Giampietro’s involvement see – https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2017cv05081/341956. In an odd turn of events, backpage.com assets were seized by Arizona, with Wayne B. Giampietro LLC listed as forfeiting $100,000.

UPDATES:

1) Summer, 2019: On May 8, 2019 Donald Hilton, MD filed a defamation per se lawsuit against Nicole Prause & Liberos LLC. On July 24, 2019 Donald Hilton amended his defamation complaint to highlight (1) a malicious Texas Board of Medical Examiners complaint, (2) false accusations that Dr. Hilton had falsified his credentials, and (3) affidavits from 9 other Prause victims of similar harassment & defamation (John Adler, MD, Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes, Staci Sprout, LICSW, Linda Hatch, PhD, Bradley Green, PhD, Stefanie Carnes, PhD, Geoff Goodman, PhD, Laila Haddad.)

2) October, 2019: On October 23, 2019 Alexander Rhodes (founder of reddit/nofap and NoFap.com) filed a defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause and Liberos LLC. See the court docket here. See this page for three primary court documents filed by Rhodes: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos.

3) November, 2019: Finally, some accurate media coverage on serial false accuser, defamer, harasser, trademark infringer, Nicole Prause: “Alex Rhodes of Porn Addiction Support Group ‘NoFap’ Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation” by Megan Fox of PJ Media and “Porn wars get personal in No Nut November”, by Diana Davison of The Post Millennial. Davison also produced this 6-minute video about Prause’s egregious behaviors: “Is Porn Addictive?”.

4) January, 2020: Alex Rhodes filed an amended complaint against Prause which also names the RealYBOP twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) as engaging in defamation. For the story, and all the courts documents, see this page: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos. RealYBOP’s lies, harassment, defamation, and cyberstalking have caught up with it. The @BrainOnPorn twitter is now being named in two defamation lawsuits. PDF’s of court documents naming @BrainOnPorn:

• July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.
• First Amended Complaint: 1-24-20 – Alex Rhodes v. Nicole Prause (20 pages)
• Exhibit #3: Screenshots of Nicole Prause and @BrainOnPorn defaming Alex Rhodes (61 pages)
• Exhibit #11: Gary Wilson affidavit (123 pages)
• Exhibit #10: Staci Sprout, LCSW affidavit (15 pages)

Who’s legally responsible: all the RealYBOP “experts”, or Prause, or maybe Daniel Burgess?

Relevant excerpts from the Rhodes complaint:

—————————-

On March 23, 2020 Alex Rhodes filed his opposition to Prause’s motion to dismiss. His court filings contain new incidents & evidence, additional victims of Prause, greater context/background: Brief – 26 pages, Declaration – 64 pages, Exhibits – 57 pages. @BrainOnPorn twitter account is named yet again. Excerpts describing these new incidents of harassment & defamation:

Another incident:

In reality, @BrainOnPorn has posted hundreds of additional tweets targeting Rhodes and Nofap: Nicole Prause, David Ley & @BrainOnPorn’s long history of harassing & defaming Alexander Rhodes of NoFap.

While Daniel Burgess is the last known owner of the RealYBOP URL (www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com), the most credible evidence points towards Nicole Prause creating and operating the RealYBOP website and Twitter account.

RealYBOP constantly engages in harassment and defamation of those who speak about porn’s negative effects (over 800 such tweets in its first year). We wonder who’s legally responsible for @BrainOnPorn‘s defamation and harassment? Is it only Nicole Prause, or only Daniel Burgess, or maybe both? Or could all of the RealYBOP “experts” be held legally and financially responsible?

This question is not trivial as Prause and the RealYBOP Twitter are now implicated in two defamation lawsuits (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes), a trademark infringement case, and a trademark squatting case. In fact, several of the RealYBOP tweets have been included in filings for the two defamation lawsuits, and in associated affidavits filed by other victims of Prause and RealYBOP Twitter (affidavit #1, affidavit #2, affidavit #3, affidavit #4, affidavit #5, affidavit #6, affidavit #7, affidavit #8, affidavit #9, affidavit #10, affidavit #11, affidavit #12, affidavit #13, affidavit #14, affidavit #15, affidavit #16).

5) Update (August, 2020): In March of 2020, Prause sought a groundless temporary restraining order (TRO) against me using fabricated “evidence” and her usual lies (falsely accusing me of stalking). In Prause’s request for the restraining order she perjured herself, saying I posted her address on YBOP and Twitter (perjury is nothing new with Prause). I filed an lawsuit against Prause for misusing the legal system (TRO) to silence and harass me. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully Wilson into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay Wilson’s attorney fees.

---

---

On to YBOP’s March, 2018 article countering Daniel Burgess’s defamation and assorted falsehoods:

Daniel Burgess defamed and harassed me on social media – regurgitating Nicole Prause’s usual set of lies and fabrications of victim-hood that she has spewed for several years. See these extensive pages for hundreds of documented incidents

• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (page 2)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 3)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 4)
• Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause: Downloadable PDF’s of Hilton lawsuit, exhibits, and sworn affidavits by 9 other Prause victims
• Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?
• Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process

Normally YBOP doesn’t engage the repetitive stream of defamation and ad hominem claptrap posted on social media. However, soon after Burgess defamed me on the YBOP Facebook page and Twitter, he set his sights on “Marriage and Family Therapists.” Because Burgess displayed his defamation before 6,000 licensed therapists and the YBOP Facebook audience, I felt it necessary to debunk his malicious comments (and his unsupported claims about the preponderance of porn research)

The eighteen replies to Burgess by therapists Staci Sprout and Forest Benedict are all that remains of Burgess’s defamatory tirade. It appears that Burgess was kicked off the “Marriage and Family Therapists” Facebook group for defaming me in this thread.

The current page contains several comments posted on a Marriage & Family Therapist Facebook by this Daniel Burgess Facebook account, followed by Gary Wilson’s responses. The Burgess comments are maroon and indented.

---

---

March, 2018: Daniel Burgess Falsehoods, Followed by Gary Wilson’s Responses

All of this is real simple: Lie and engage in ad hominem so that people won’t click on the links and see all the empirical evidence, which Burgess cannot refute. He has been trained well by Prause and Ley and their cronies, but knows nothing about the current state of the research or the neurobiology of addiction.

A comment to Daniel Burgess, on the Marriage and Family Therapists Facebook page (which contained a link to YBOP):

That was written in 1998 and we’ve come a long way since then: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/research-articles-and-abstracts

Burgess begins his diatribe:

Daniel Burgess: thank you for your reply. Dr. Klein article is more relevant now than ever before. He still practice with the top researchers in sexology. Where as you linked me to Gary Wilson’s YBOP site. Gary is not only completely unknowledgeable about the topic. He has lied repeatably, misrepresents himself, his “credentials” and stalks women on line. Gary is a fraud, even the CBC identified him as a fraud. He lists hundreds of studies on his site proclaiming how it proves addiction like cocaine. But NOT research says such a thing. The man is delusional. Propaganda at best, potentially a case of malpractice diagnosis people outside of the dsm.

GARY WILSON’S RESPONSE:

1) “GARY MISREPRESENTS HIMSELF”: I have never lied, and have never misrepresented myself. Burgess is getting his talking points from Ley & Prause, who also evade substance and engage in ad hominem and untruths. Prause regularly says that I called myself a professor, and she posts a screenshot from a defunct website, with which I never had contact, and whose hosts incorrectly called me a professor. See documentation here: Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials. (Others have mistakenly called me a psychologist, a neuroscientist, etc. That is beyond my control.) My description of myself has always been here, and has not changed – https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/about-us

2) “STALKS WOMEN ONLINE”: I have never stalked women online or offline. There is zero actual evidence for this libelous claim by Burgess or Prause, just as there is no evidence that Prause has a restraining order against me, or that she has filed police reports about me. These fabrications are addressed here, with many others:

• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (page 2)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 3)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 4)
• Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process

In reality, it is Prause who has engaged in cyber-stalking, defamation and harassment of me and many others (over 7 years running). Several sections from the above pages chronicle dozens of usernames Prause employed to post comments on porn recovery forums. She did this to harass & libel me and to argue with men who are trying to quit porn or recover from porn-induced ED. A few such examples:

• November 2013: Prause places a libelous PDF on her SPAN Lab website. Content mirrors “anonymous” comments around the Web
• December 2013: Prause’s initial tweet is about Wilson & the CBC. “RealScience” posts same false claims on same day
• January, 2015: “The Prause Chapter” described 9 months earlier by a YourBrainRebalanced.com troll is finally published
• May 2014: Dozens of Prause sock puppets post information on porn recovery forums that only Prause would know or care about
• Others – April, 2016: A Nicole Prause sock puppet edits the Belinda Luscombe Wikipedia page
• March, 2015 (ongoing): Prause and her sock puppets (including “PornHelps”) go after Gabe Deem
• June, 2016: Prause and her sock puppet PornHelps claim that respected neuroscientists are members of “anti-porn groups” and “their science is bad”
• July, 2016: Prause & sock puppet “PornHelps” attack Alexander Rhodes, falsely claiming he faked porn-induced sexual problems
• October, 2016: Prause commits perjury attempting to silence Alexander Rhodes
• January, 2017 (and earlier): Prause employs multiple user accounts (including “NotGaryWilson”) to edit Wikipedia
• March, 2018 – Libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University
• March 5, 2018 – Prause permanently banned from Quora for harassing Gary Wilson
• March 12, 2018 – Prause’s Liberos Twitter account suspended for posting Gary Wilson’s private information in violation of Twitter Rules
• May 20, 2018 – Ley & Prause falsely claim that Gary Wilson & Don Hilton gave evidence in a case by Chris Sevier
• May 30, 2018 – Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice
• July 6, 2018 “Someone” reports Gary Wilson to the Oregon Psychology Board, which dismisses the complaint as unfounded
• From 2015 through 2018 – Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted

3) LISTS OF STUDIES: Burgess ignores the peer-reviewed studies listed on that page. All the studies on YBOP are there for everyone to see. None have been mischaracterized. In my lists, all the studies contain excerpts and have links to the original papers. Burgess needs to take on their substance. Here are the lists:

1. Porn/sex addiction? This page lists 55 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 29 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All support the addiction model.
3. Signs of addiction and escalation to more extreme material? Over 55 studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms (all signs and symptoms associated with addiction).
4. An official diagnosis? The world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for porn addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”
5. Debunking the unsupported talking point that “high sexual desire” explains away porn or sex addiction: At least 25 studies falsify the claim that sex & porn addicts “just have high sexual desire”
6. Porn and sexual problems? This list contains over 40 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 7 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.
7. Porn’s effects on relationships? Over 75 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.
8. Porn use affecting emotional and mental health? Over 85 studies link porn use to poorer mental-emotional health & poorer cognitive outcomes.
9. Porn use affecting beliefs, attitudes and behaviors? Check out individual studies – over 40 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.

10. 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.

“But hasn’t porn use reduced rape rates?” No, rape rates have been rising in recent years: “Rape rates are on the rise, so ignore the pro-porn propaganda.”

11. What about the porn use and adolescents? Check out this list of over 270 adolescent studies, or these reviews of the literature: review#1, review2, review#3, review#4, review#5, review#6, review#7, review#8, review#9, review#10, review#11, review#12, review#13, review#14, review#15, review #16.From the conclusion of this 2012 review of the research – The Impact of Internet Pornography on Adolescents: A Review of the Research:

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.

4) The CBC: The CBC did no such thing. One of its producers did, however, engage in deception and misconduct. Here are our posts describing on a porn recovery site about what went on with the CBC. Notice that Nicole Prause posted (as Real Science) in that same thread (as she often posted on the recovery forum using various aliases). For example, she asked about the size of my penis. (Very professional.)

NOTE: Nicole Prause’s maiden tweet for her new Twitter account was about Gary Wilson and the CBC interview. I 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. 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”).

NOTE2: Prause has targeted me and many others over the last few years, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, colleagues from her short stint at UCLA, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity (these 2 pages provide extensive documentation of said behaviors: page 1, page 2, page 3, and page 4

5) COCAINE: Nowhere on YBOP do I say “Porn is just like cocaine.” Another lie by Burgess. Here’s the YBOP FAQ saying that porn is NOT “just like cocaine”: Does porn addiction cause irreversible damage to the brain?.

NOTE: Even though YBOP never says that cocaine and meth are “just like porn”, sexual arousal and addictive drugs share similar neurological mechanisms and hormonal changes (which differ from other universal natural rewards, such as food and water):

1. Sexual arousal and addictive drugs activate the exact same reward circuit nerve cells. In contrast, there’s only a small percentage of nerve-cell activation overlap between addictive drugs and other natural rewards such as food or water. Turning on the same nerve cells that make sexual stimulation so compelling helps explain why meth, cocaine, and heroin can be so addictive.
2. Interestingly, heroin addicts often claim that shooting up “feels like an orgasm”. Supporting their experience, ejaculation mimics the effects of heroin addiction on the same reward circuit nerve cells. Specifically, ejaculation shrinks the same dopamine producing nerve cells that shrink with chronic heroin use. This doesn’t mean sex is bad. It simply informs us that addictive drugs hijack the exact same mechanisms that urge us back into the bedroom for a romp.
3. Unlike other non-drug rewards (yummy food or sugar), but similar to drugs of abuse, sexual experience leads to a long-lasting changes in the numbers and types of reward center glutamate receptors. Glutamate is the main neurotransmitter relaying information from key brain regions to the reward center. These neuroadaptations make the reward center far more sensitive to sights, sounds, thoughts or memories associated potential sexual activity.
4. In addition, both sex and drug use lead to the accumulation of DeltaFosB, a protein that activates genes involved with addiction. The molecular changes it generates are nearly identical for both sexual conditioning and chronic use of drugs. Whether it’s sex or drugs of abuse, high levels of DeltaFosB rewire the brain to crave “IT”, whatever “IT” is. Addictive drugs not only hijack the precise nerve cells activated during sexual arousal, they co-opt the same learning mechanisms that evolved to make us desire sexual activity.
5. While far too complex to elucidate in detail, multiple temporary neurological and hormonal changes occur with orgasm that do not occur with any other natural rewards. These include decreased brain androgen receptors, increased estrogen receptors, increased hypothalamic enkephalins, and increased blood levels of oxytocin and prolactin.

Thus, familiar talking points such as this actual comment fall apart: “Well, lots of activities raise dopamine, so internet porn is no more addictive than watching sunsets or playing golf.” That’s a quote from an academic sexologist (with a very superficial understanding). Similarly, in sexologist Marty Klein’s reply to a Zimbardo & Wilson article he claimed that the brain response to watching porn is no different than watching a sunset:

“Besides, our brain responds in this same observable way when we cuddle a grandchild or enjoy a sunset.”

The Marty Klein claim was long ago tested and debunked, in a 2000 fMRI study: “Cue-induced cocaine craving: neuroanatomical specificity for drug users and drug stimuli. The study had cocaine addicts and healthy controls view films of: 1) individuals smoking crack cocaine, 2) outdoor nature scenes, and 3) explicit sexual content. The results: cocaine addicts had nearly identical brain activation patterns when viewing porn and viewing cues related to their addiction. (Incidentally, both cocaine addicts and healthy controls had the same brain activation patterns for porn.) However, for both the addicts and controls, brain activation patterns when viewing nature scenes were completely different from the patterns when viewing for porn. Goodbye silly talking point!

PS – Prause’s talking point is that masturbating to porn is no different neurologically than watching puppies play (with her unthinking followers repeat this claim as they would repeat a mantra). This unbelievable assertion should excuse Prause from ever commenting on the neuroscience related to CSB.

---

---

Daniel Burgess: Let me give just one example of Gary’s thousands of misleading, misread scientific “findings”. In the highly over used, misquoted and misunderstood “Voon” research “,Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviors” Gary recklessly reports, conflates and concules porn is like or a drugs, or rather “users react to porn cues in the same way that drug addicts react to drug cues.” ; “The long-awaited Valerie Voon study highlighted in the UK documentary “Porn on the Brain” is finally out. As expected, Cambridge University researchers found that compulsive porn users react to porn cues in the same way that drug addicts react to drug cues. Link to full study – “Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (2014)“

WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID: Here’s the link to the original YBOP write-up about the first Voon study: My statement was accurate as Voon said the same as I did in an interview about her study and in her study: Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (Voon et al., 2014)

Interview of Voon: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10962885/Love-is-the-drug-scientists-find.html

‘In many ways, they show similarities in their behaviour to patients with drug addictions. We wanted to see if these similarities were reflected in brain activity, too. ”There are clear differences in brain activity between patients who have compulsive sexual behaviour and healthy volunteers. These differences mirror those of drug addicts.”

From the Voon study:

“Drug-cue-reactivity and craving studies of nicotine, cocaine and alcohol implicate networks including the ventral striatum, dACC and amygdala [13]. In the current study, these regions were activated during viewing of sexually explicit materials across the groups with and without CSB. The observation of stronger activations of these regions in CSB versus healthy volunteer participants is similar to findings observed for substance cues in substance addictions, suggesting neurobiological similarities across the disorders.”

The second Valerie Voon CSB study summarizes the findings of the first two Cambridge University studies:

Our findings of enhanced attentional bias… suggest possible overlaps with enhanced attentional bias observed in studies of drug cues in disorders of addictions. These findings converge with recent findings of neural reactivity to sexually explicit cues in CSB subjects in a network similar to that implicated in drug-cue-reactivity studies and provide support for incentive motivation theories of addiction underlying the aberrant response to sexual cues in CSB subjects This finding dovetails with our recent observation that sexually explicit videos were associated with greater activity in a neural network similar to that observed in drug-cue-reactivity studies. Greater desire or wanting rather than liking was further associated with activity in this neural network. These studies together provide support for an incentive motivation theory of addiction underlying the aberrant response towards sexual cues in CSB.

From a 2016 review By Valerie Voon, Shane Kraus and Marc Potenza: Should Compulsive Sexual Behavior be Considered an Addiction? (Kraus et al., 2016).

With the release of DSM-5, gambling disorder was reclassified with substance use disorders. This change challenged beliefs that addiction occurred only by ingesting of mind-altering substances and has significant implications for policy, prevention and treatment strategies. Data suggest that excessive engagement in other behaviors (e.g. gaming, sex, compulsive shopping) may share clinical, genetic, neurobiological and phenomenological parallels with substance addictions……

Overlapping features exist between CSB and substance use disorders. Common neurotransmitter systems may contribute to CSB and substance use disorders, and recent neuroimaging studies highlight similarities relating to craving and attentional biases. Similar pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments may be applicable to CSB and substance addictions

As all can see, Burgess simply lied.

Also, why is Burgess obsessed only with Voon et al., 2014? Why does Daniel Burgess ignore the other 52 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) listed on YBOP’s brain studies page? (all 52 provide strong support for the addiction model as their findings mirror the neurological findings reported in substance addiction studies). Probably because Burgess is unaware that the other 52 neurological studies exist, because Prause appears to be spoon feeding him all his talking points.

---

---

Daniel Burgess: In another post Gary literally says “Porn is as addictive as meth.” and watch porn will cause you to rape. Using some random rape graph that has nothing to do with porn in any way. (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=54214.0)

GARY WILSON: The page Burgess links to was not posted by me. I have never seen that post or that website until now. Burgess’s fake “Gary Wilson” has only one bizarre post. Important to note that Burgess never links to my site – because YBOP has never said that “Porn is as addictive as meth.” Burgess is once again lying.

Who supplied him with the fake post by a fake “Gary Wilson?” Prause scours the web for anything about me. For example, two weeks ago Prause placed my Southern Oregon University employment documents (along with multiple libelous claims about them) on Quora, Twitter, and on an adult industry website. She falsely claimed I was fired. She was able to create that illusion due to redacted information in the documents. Here’s the documentation of everything that occurred, including Prause placing a libelous story on a porn industry website: Nicole Prause & David Ley libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University

The documents were removed from Quora, and Prause permanently banned. Twitter banned her for one day and gave her a warning. The porn site has since removed the libelous article. See:

• March 5, 2018 – Prause permanently banned from Quora for harassing and defaming Gary Wilson
• March 12, 2018 – Prause’s Liberos Twitter account suspended for posting Gary Wilson’s private information in violation of Twitter Rules

---

---

Daniel Burgess: Compulsive porn users craved porn (greater wanting), but did not have higher sexual desire (liking) than controls. This finding aligns perfectly with the current model of addiction, and refutes the theory that “higher sexual desire” causes compulsive porn use. Drug addicts are thought to be driven to seek their drug because they want – rather than enjoy – it. This abnormal process is known as incentive motivation, which is a hallmark of addiction disorders.” Submitted by admin on Thu, 07/10/2014 – 16:09

GARY WILSON: My description of Voon et al., 2014 was perfectly accurate. Voon said the same. From her study:

Compared to healthy volunteers, CSB subjects had greater subjective sexual desire or wanting to explicit cues and had greater liking scores to erotic cues, thus demonstrating a dissociation between wanting and liking. CSB subjects also had greater impairments of sexual arousal and erectile difficulties in intimate relationships but not with sexually explicit materials highlighting that the enhanced desire scores were specific to the explicit cues and not generalized heightened sexual desire.

Our findings focusing on CSB in the general population similarly dove tail with incentive motivation theories emphasizing aberrant wanting or motivation towards the drug or sexual cue, but not of ‘liking’ or hedonic tone [12].

The most widely accepted model of addiction is the “Incentive sensitization” model (IST). The markers for IST are greater cue-reactivity or cravings to use. There are now there are 25 neurological studies that have reported cue-reactivity or cravings (sensitization) in compulsive porn users or sex addicts – including Prause’s own Steele et al., 2013. (Note – Voon devoted a paragraph to Steele et al., 2013 saying that Prause’s findings mirrored her findings – greater cue-reactivity!)

Neurosceince-based studies reporting findings consistent with IST model of addiction:

1. Watching Pornographic Pictures on the Internet: Role of Sexual Arousal Ratings and Psychological-Psychiatric Symptoms for Using Internet Sex Sites Excessively (2011)
2. Sexual Desire, not Hypersexuality, is Related to Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images (2013)
3. Cybersex addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not real-life sexual contacts makes the difference (2013)
4. Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (2014)
5. Cybersex addiction in heterosexual female users of internet pornography can be explained by gratification hypothesis (2014)
6. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations on Factors Contributing to Cybersex Addiction From a Cognitive Behavioral View (Laier et al., 2014)
7. Enhanced Attentional Bias towards Sexually Explicit Cues in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (2014)
8. Novelty, Conditioning and Attentional Bias to Sexual Rewards (2015)
9. Neural Substrates of Sexual Desire in Individuals with Problematic Hypersexual Behavior (2015)
10. Implicit associations in cybersex addiction: Adaption of an Implicit Association Test with pornographic pictures. (2015)
11. Symptoms of cybersex addiction can be linked to both approaching and avoiding pornographic stimuli: results from an analog sample of regular cybersex users (2015)
12. Getting stuck with pornography? Overuse or neglect of cybersex cues in a multitasking situation is related to symptoms of cybersex addiction (2015)
13. Sexual Excitability and Dysfunctional Coping Determine Cybersex Addiction in Homosexual Males (2015)
14. The Role of Neuroinflammation in the Pathophysiology of Hypersexual Disorder (2016)
15. Compulsive sexual behavior: Prefrontal and limbic volume and interactions (2016)
16. Ventral striatum activity when watching preferred pornographic pictures is correlated with symptoms of Internet pornography addiction (2016)
17. Altered Appetitive Conditioning and Neural Connectivity in Subjects With Compulsive Sexual Behavior (2016)
18. Compulsivity across the pathological misuse of drug and non-drug rewards (2016)
19. Subjective Craving for Pornography and Associative Learning Predict Tendencies Towards Cybersex Addiction in a Sample of Regular Cybersex Users (2016)
20. Exploring the Relationship between Sexual Compulsivity and Attentional Bias to Sex-Related Words in a Cohort of Sexually Active Individuals (2016)
21. Can Pornography be Addictive? An fMRI Study of Men Seeking Treatment for Problematic Pornography Use (2017)
22. Predictors for (Problematic) Use of Internet Sexually Explicit Material: Role of Trait Sexual Motivation and Implicit Approach Tendencies Towards Sexually Explicit Material (2017)
23. Tendencies toward Internet-pornography-use disorder: Differences in men and women regarding attentional biases to pornographic stimuli (2018)
24. Facets of impulsivity and related aspects differentiate among recreational and unregulated use of Internet pornography (2019)
25. Approach bias for erotic stimuli in heterosexual male college students who use pornography (2019)
26. Sexual cues alter working memory performance and brain processing in men with compulsive sexual behavior (2020)
27. Subjective reward value of visual sexual stimuli is coded in human striatum and orbitofrontal cortex (2020)
28. The Neurosciences of Health Communication: An fNIRS Analysis of Prefrontal Cortex and Porn Consumption in Young Women for the Development of Prevention Health Programs (2020)

As for Voon’s study countering high desire, her subjects scored lower on the ASEX, and 11 of them had trouble being aroused without watching porn. I said this because Prause falsely claimed that her 2013 EEG study supported higher desire: Sexual Desire, not Hypersexuality, is Related to Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images (Steele et al., 2013). In reality, Steele et al., 2013 claim to have found only on ea single statistically significant correlation among all the data gathered:

“Larger P300 amplitude differences to pleasant sexual stimuli, relative to neutral stimuli, was negatively related to measures of sexual desire, but not related to measures of hypersexuality.”

Translation: Negatively means lower desire. Individuals with greater cue-reactivity to porn had lower desire to have sex with a partner (but not lower desire to masturbate). To put another way – individuals with more brain activation and cravings for porn would rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a real person. Shockingly, study spokesperson Nicole 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). Eight peer-reviewed papers explain the truth: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013. Also see an extensive YBOP critique.

Note: List of over 25 studies falsifying the claim that sex & porn addicts “just have high sexual desire”

---

---

Daniel Burgess The actual research says this in its conclusion; “These findings suggest overlaps in networks underlying disorders of pathological consumption of drugs and natural rewards. While this study may suggest overlaps with substance-use disorders, further clinical studies are required to determine whether CSB should be categorized as an impulse-control disorder, within an obsessive-compulsive spectrum or as a behavioural addiction.”

GARY WILSON: That’s what cautious scientists do (unlike Prause with her unsupported claims, such as her claim that she “debunked the porn addiction model” with a single flawed study). But that does not negate Valerie Voon’s findings in 2014, or her future conclusions. Important to note that 36 neurological studies have since been published, including 4 more by Valerie Voon. All report findings that mirror those seen in substance addition studies.

In 2017, Voon co-authored this commentary in Lancet, Is excessive sexual behaviour an addictive disorder? (Potenza et al., 2017). Here’s what Voon now says, demonstrating her current belief that CSB fits the addiction model:

Research into the neurobiology of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder has generated findings relating to attentional biases, incentive salience attributions, and brain-based cue reactivity that suggest substantial similarities with addictions. Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder is being proposed as an impulse-control disorder in ICD-11, consistent with a proposed view that craving, continued engagement despite adverse consequences, compulsive engagement, and diminished control represent core features of impulse-control disorders. This view might have been appropriate for some DSM-IV impulse-control disorders, specifically pathological gambling. However, these elements have long been considered central to addictions, and in the transition from DSM-IV to DSM-5, the category of Impulse Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified was restructured, with pathological gambling renamed and reclassified as an addictive disorder. At present, the ICD-11 beta draft site lists the impulse-control disorders, and includes compulsive sexual behaviour disorder, pyromania, kleptomania, and intermittent explosive disorder.

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.

---

---

Daniel Burgess Furthermore Voon, the lead researcher is troubled by the interpretation, “Voon is quick to caution against using her studies to leap to conclusions about the addictiveness of sex or porn. “Much more research is required,” she explains.”

GARY WILSON: Voon’s 2014 comments have nothing to do with me; she’s just saying more studies need to be done. And many more studies have been published since July 2014. Here are 53 additional neuroscience-based studies, 29 reviews/commentaries: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-scan-studies-porn-users.

Burgess should keep up to speed, as Voon has published 4 more neurological studies and 3 reviews/commentaries. All support the addiction model. Voon’s neuroscience studies:

1. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-11-online-porn-sex-addicts-desire.html
2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23447/full
3. http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00154/abstract
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143289/

From Valerie Voon’s most recent 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.

---

---

Daniel Burgess “Nicole Prause (and trained researcher and scientist) at the University of California, Los Angeles, used electroencephalography (EEG) to measure the brain waves of people presented with sexual images and found something different. She observed that volunteers who believed they had a problem with porn reacted to the pictures with low levels of excitement in the brain, unlike other addicts faced with triggering cues. “These people may be having problems, but of some other type,” says Prause. “Addiction is not a good way of understanding it.” https://www.1843magazine.com/…/can-you-really-be...

GARY WILSON: Burgess is citing an article, which cites Prause et al., 2015. Prause claimed she “debunked porn addiction” with a solitary flawed paper. 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. Prause claims these results “debunk porn addiction.”

What legitimate scientist would claim that their lone study has debunked a well established field of study? 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 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. They were bored (habituated or desensitized), which is consistent with addiction. See this extensive YBOP critique. Nine peer-reviewed papers agree that this study actually found desensitization/habituation in frequent porn users: YBOP critique of “Modulation of Late Positive Potentials by Sexual Images in Problem Users and Controls Inconsistent with ‘Porn Addiction’ (Prause et al., 2015)”

Ten peer-reviewed papers agree with YBOP’s assessment of Prause et al., 2015. Each link goes to relevant excerpts and a link to original paper.

1. Decreased LPP for sexual images in problematic pornography users may be consistent with addiction models. Everything depends on the model (Commentary on Prause, 2015)
2. Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update (2015)
3. Neurobiology of Compulsive Sexual Behavior: Emerging Science (2016)
4. Should compulsive sexual behavior be considered an addiction? (2016)
5. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016)
6. Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use? (2017)
7. Neurocognitive mechanisms in compulsive sexual behavior disorder (2018)
8. Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review (2019)
9. The Initiation and Development of Cybersex Addiction: Individual Vulnerability, Reinforcement Mechanism and Neural Mechanism (2019)
10. Do Varying Levels of Exposure to Pornography and Violence Have an Effect on Non-Conscious Emotion in Men (2020)

Excerpts from Mateusz Gola’s critique of Prause et al., 2015 (Decreased LPP for sexual images in problematic pornography users may be consistent with addiction models. Everything depends on the model: Commentary on Prause, 2015).

The conclusion presented in the study’s title “Modulation of late positive potentials by sexual images in problem users and controls inconsistent with “porn addiction” is ungrounded with respect to IST [the accepted model of addiction]…

Unfortunately, the bold title of Prause et al. (2015) has already had an impact on mass media, thus popularizing a scientifically unjustified conclusion. Due to the social and political importance of the topic of the effects of pornography consumption, researchers should draw future conclusions with greater caution…

As Gola and others mentioned in their peer-reviewed critiques, Prause et al., 2015 suffered from fatal flaws (as did Steele at al., 2013), such as:

1) As with Prause’s 2013 EEG study (Steele et al.), the subjects in this study were males, females and possibly “non-heterosexuals”. All evidence suggests Prause used the same subjects for her current study and her 2013 study: the number of females are identical (13) and the total numbers very close (52 vs. 55). If so, this current study also included 7 “non-heterosexuals”. This matters, because it violates standard procedure for addiction studies, in which researchers select homogeneous subjects in terms of age, gender, orientation, even similar IQ’s (plus a homogeneous control group) in order to avoid distortions caused by such differences. This is especially critical for studies like this one, which measured arousal to sexual images, as research confirms that men and women have significantly different brain responses to sexual images or films (Studies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). This flaw alone calls into question both of Prause’s EEG studies.

2) Prause’s subjects were not pre-screened. Valid addiction brain studies screen out individuals with pre-existing conditions (depression, OCD, other addictions, etc.). This is the only way responsible researchers can draw conclusions about addiction. See the Cambridge University studies for an example of proper screening and methodology.

3) The two questionnaires Prause relied upon in both EEG studies to assess “porn addiction” are not validated to screen for internet porn use / addiction.

4) No one knows which, if any, of Prause’s subjects were actually porn addicts. This is why there are often quotation marks around “porn addicts” in our descriptions of these 3 studies. The subjects were recruited from Pocatello, Idaho via online advertisements requesting people who were “experiencing problems regulating their viewing of sexual images.” Pocatello, Idaho is over 50% Mormon, so many of the subjects may feel that any amount of porn use is a serious problem. In a 2013 interview Nicole Prause admits that a number of her subjects experienced only minor problems (which means they were not porn addicts – and her study can prove nothing about porn addiction):

“This study only included people who reported problems, ranging from relatively minor to overwhelming problems, controlling their viewing of visual sexual stimuli.”

You can’t debunk porn addiction if you are not assessing actual addicts. Even Prause’s findings did not align with the IST model, 24 other studies on CSB subjects report 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, 21, 22, 23, 24.

---

---

Daniel Burgess: What is Garys response to Nicole, a respected scientist? Essentially, “Prause is pro-porn”.

GARY WILSON: My response to Prause’s work are critiques where I cite peer-reviewed papers critiquing Prause, and PhD’s critiquing her claims. In all the following links I link to the both the original papers, and the excerpts analyzing Prause’s papers and claims. I challenge Burgess to avoid cheap ad hominem attacks and address the specific content of my critiques and the associated peer-reviewed critiques to which I link.

1) My critique, along with 9 peer-reviewed papers critiquing Prause et al., 2015 – YBOP critique of “Modulation of Late Positive Potentials by Sexual Images in Problem Users and Controls Inconsistent with ‘Porn Addiction’ (Prause et al., 2015)”

2) My critique, along with 8 peer-reviewed papers critiquing Steele et al., 2013 – YBOP analysis – A critique of “Steele et al., 2013″: actual findings support the porn addiction model.

YBOP critiques of papers and lay articles where Prause was one of the authors:

1. Debunking “Why Are We Still So Worried About Wat­­ching Porn?”, by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause (2018)
2. Critique of: Letter to the editor “Prause et al. (2015) the latest falsification of addiction predictions“ (2016), Nicole Prause, Vaughn R. Steele, Cameron Staley, Dean Sabatinelli, Greg Hajcake
3. The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Review of the ‘Pornography Addiction’ Model (2014), David Ley, Nicole Prause & Peter Finn (Ley et al., 2014)
4. Analysis of “Data do not support sex as addictive” (Prause et al., 2017)
5. Critique of Nicole Prause’s “Porn Is for Masturbation” (2019)
6. Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016)
7. Propagandists misrepresent peer-reviewed papers and ICD-11 search features to fuel false claim that WHO’s ICD-11 “rejected porn addiction and sex addiction” (2018)”

Burgess has yet to address a single word in any of the above critiques.

As for Prause, she is a former academic (contract not renewed in late 2014/early 2015) with a long history of harassing and defaming authors, researchers, therapists, reporters, men in recovery, Journal editors, multiple organizations, 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 (far right) on the red carpet of the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony. (According to Wikipedia the XRCO Awards are given by the American X-Rated Critics Organization annually to people working in adult entertainment and it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry members.^[1]). It also appears that Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through another porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. The FSC-obtained subjects were allegedly used in her hired-gun study on the heavily tainted and very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme (now being investigated by the FBI). Prause has also made unsupported claims about the results of her studies and her study’s methodologies. For much more documentation, see: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

---

---

Daniel Burgess: But always revert to pseudoscience, ad hominem and yet have NOTHING to show for it, what is Gary’s success rate of eliminating porn use?

GARY WILSON: He has given zero examples of either pseudoscience or ad hominem by me. This is a typical tactic – accuse those of what you are actually doing. Propaganda at its finest.

Gary’s “success rate of eliminating porn use“?

What the hell is Burgess talking about?

---

---

Daniel Burgess: Anyway, one can spend years going through the thousands of posts from Gary and pointing out every flaw.

GARY WILSON: Please do. As others can see, Burgess mischaracterized the Valerie Voon study, while I described it accurately. Burgess also lied about what I said on YBOP (that meth and cocaine are “the same as porn”). Notice that Burgess never links to YBOP and never provides an excerpt from YBOP.

---

---

Daniel Burgess: Even BYU researchers are finding this is something other then “addiction”: Religious Conflict Makes Porn Bad for Relationships
https://www.psychologytoday.com/…/religious-conflict…

GARY WILSON: They did not find “something other than addiction”. Here’s my analysis and what the study actually found: Critique of: “Damaged Goods: Perception of Pornography Addiction as a Mediator Between Religiosity and Relationship Anxiety Surrounding Pornography Use“ (Leonhardt, Willoughby, & Young-Petersen, 2017)

Here are the authors of the study saying that David Ley’s Psychology Today post misrepresented their study – http://www.unskewed.org/thinking-in-black-and-white-a-response-to-the-claim-that-religiosity-cause-the-harms-of-pornography/

Two recent studies by Joshua Grubbs report that believing you are “porn addict” is unrelated to religiosity. See this article for descriptions and links to the full studies: Religious People Use Less Porn and Are No More Likely to Believe They Are Addicted (2017).

---

---

Daniel Burgess And yet, more evidence against sexual addiction: “Brain Imaging of Human Sexual Response: Recent Developments and Future Directions” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711964/

GARY WILSON: The citation is not a study, its a narrative review of “the latest developments in the experimental brain study of human sexuality“. Nothing in the paper asserts that porn or sex addiction do not exist. An excerpt from the paper pertaining to CSB, which counters Burgess’s calims surrounding the paper:

Neuroscientific interest in the sexual wanting domain is increasingly narrowing down on sexual desire extremes. Several studies using visual sexual stimulation have shown that (perceived) hypersexual behavior (aka compulsive sexual behavior, sexual addiction, or problematic pornography use) is correlated with alterations in neural activation patterns [25–32] and regional brain volume [33•, 34], particularly in areas of the sexual wanting network [14•]. Increased activity to sexual cues has been demonstrated in the VS [25, 27] and also in the amygdala in hypersexual men [25, 27, 28], which is suggestive of sexual cue sensitization. This is sometimes taken to support the addiction theory of hypersexuality [35]. Other studies, however, showed negative correlations between sexual cue-induced brain activity and hypersexual symptom severity, suggesting the involvement of different phenomena that are seemingly incompatible with addiction, like response extinction or emotional downregulation [26, 28–30, 34]. These data may not be mutually exclusive. For instance, men with hypersexuality may be both sensitized to sexual cues or contingencies (a feature of addiction) and more easily lose interest or self-regulate if there is no possibility to advance the sexual response (as a learned adaptation). Indeed, in a paradigm with repeated exposure of cues predicting the presentation of a pornographic picture or a monetary reward, cue-induced activity in the ACC decreased faster with repeated exposure in men with hypersexuality—but only for the sexual cues [26].

(Note this paper did not review all the neurological studies on CSB subjects.)

On the other hand, we do have 29 actual reviews and commentaries, all of which lend support to the addiction model. The list of with links to original papers, and excerpts: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-scan-studies-porn-users. Reproduced below:

1) Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update (Love et al., 2015). A thorough review of the neuroscience literature related to Internet addiction sub-types, with special focus on internet porn addiction. The review also critiques two headline-grabbing EEG studies by teams headed by Nicole Prause (who falsely claims the findings cast doubt on porn addiction). Excerpts:

Many recognize that several behaviors potentially affecting the reward circuitry in human brains lead to a loss of control and other symptoms of addiction in at least some individuals. Regarding Internet addiction, neuroscientific research supports the assumption that underlying neural processes are similar to substance addiction… Within this review, we give a summary of the concepts proposed underlying addiction and give an overview about neuroscientific studies on Internet addiction and Internet gaming disorder. Moreover, we reviewed available neuroscientific literature on Internet pornography addiction and connect the results to the addiction model. The review leads to the conclusion that Internet pornography addiction fits into the addiction framework and shares similar basic mechanisms with substance addiction.

2) Sex Addiction as a Disease: Evidence for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Response to Critics (Phillips et al., 2015), which provides a chart that takes on specific criticisms of porn/sex addiction, offering citations that counter them. Excerpts:

As seen throughout this article, the common criticisms of sex as a legitimate addiction do not hold up when compared to the movement within the clinical and scientific communities over the past few decades. There is ample scientific evidence and support for sex as well as other behaviors to be accepted as addiction. This support is coming from multiple fields of practice and offers incredible hope to truly embrace change as we better understand the problem. Decades of research and developments in the field of addiction medicine and neuroscience reveal the underlying brain mechanisms involved in addiction. Scientists have identified common pathways affected by addictive behavior as well as differences between the brains of addicted and non-addicted individuals, revealing common elements of addiction, regardless of the substance or behavior. However, there remains a gap between the scientific advances and the understanding by the general public, public policy, and treatment advances.

3) Cybersex Addiction (Brand & Laier, 2015). Excerpts:

Many individuals use cybersex applications, particularly Internet pornography. Some individuals experience a loss of control over their cybersex use and report that they cannot regulate their cybersex use even if they experienced negative consequences. In recent articles, cybersex addiction is considered a specific type of Internet addiction. Some current studies investigated parallels between cybersex addiction and other behavioral addictions, such as Internet Gaming Disorder. Cue-reactivity and craving are considered to play a major role in cybersex addiction. Also, neurocognitive mechanisms of development and maintenance of cybersex addiction primarily involve impairments in decision making and executive functions. Neuroimaging studies support the assumption of meaningful commonalities between cybersex addiction and other behavioral addictions as well as substance dependency.

4) Neurobiology of Compulsive Sexual Behavior: Emerging Science (Kraus et al., 2016). Excerpts:

Although not included in DSM-5, compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) can be diagnosed in ICD-10 as an impulse control disorder. However, debate exists about CSB’s classification. Additional research is needed to understand how neurobiological features relate to clinically relevant measures like treatment outcomes for CSB. Classifying CSB as a ‘behavioral addiction’ would have significant implications for policy, prevention and treatment efforts….. Given some similarities between CSB and drug addictions, interventions effective for addictions may hold promise for CSB, thus providing insight into future research directions to investigate this possibility directly.

5) Should Compulsive Sexual Behavior be Considered an Addiction? (Kraus et al., 2016). Excerpts:

With the release of DSM-5, gambling disorder was reclassified with substance use disorders. This change challenged beliefs that addiction occurred only by ingesting of mind-altering substances and has significant implications for policy, prevention and treatment strategies. Data suggest that excessive engagement in other behaviors (e.g. gaming, sex, compulsive shopping) may share clinical, genetic, neurobiological and phenomenological parallels with substance addictions.

Another area needing more research involves considering how technological changes may be influencing human sexual behaviors. Given that data suggest that sexual behaviors are facilitated through Internet and smartphone applications, additional research should consider how digital technologies relate to CSB (e.g. compulsive masturbation to Internet pornography or sex chatrooms) and engagement in risky sexual behaviors (e.g. condomless sex, multiple sexual partners on one occasion).

Overlapping features exist between CSB and substance use disorders. Common neurotransmitter systems may contribute to CSB and substance use disorders, and recent neuroimaging studies highlight similarities relating to craving and attentional biases. Similar pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments may be applicable to CSB and substance addictions.

6) Neurobiological Basis of Hypersexuality (Kuhn & Gallinat, 2016). Excerpts:

Behavioral addictions and in particular hypersexuality should remind us of the fact that addictive behavior actually relies on our natural survival system. Sex is an essential component in survival of species since it is the pathway for reproduction. Therefore it is extremely important that sex is considered pleasurable and has primal rewarding properties, and although it may turn into an addiction at which point sex may be pursued in a dangerous and counterproductive way, the neural basis for addiction might actually serve very important purposes in primal goal pursuit of individuals…. Taken together, the evidence seems to imply that alterations in the frontal lobe, amygdala, hippocampus, hypothalamus, septum, and brain regions that process reward play a prominent role in the emergence of hypersexuality. Genetic studies and neuropharmacological treatment approaches point at an involvement of the dopaminergic system.

7) Compulsive Sexual Behaviour as a Behavioural Addiction: The Impact of the Internet and Other Issues (Griffiths, 2016). Excerpts:

I have carried out empirical research into many different behavioural addictions (gambling, video-gaming, internet use, exercise, sex, work, etc.) and have argued that some types of problematic sexual behaviour can be classed as sex addiction, depending upon the definition of addiction used….

Whether problematic sexual behaviour is described as compulsive sexual behavior (CSB), sex addiction and/or hypersexual disorder, there are thousands of psychological therapists around the world who treat such disorders. Consequently, clinical evidence from those who help and treat such individuals should be given greater credence by the psychiatric community….

Arguably the most important development in the field of CSB and sex addiction is how the internet is changing and facilitating CSB. This was not mentioned until the concluding paragraph, yet research into online sex addiction (while comprising a small empirical base) has existed since the late 1990s, including sample sizes of up to almost 10 000 individuals. In fact, there have been recent reviews of empirical data concerning online sex addiction and treatment. These have outlined the many specific features of the internet that may facilitate and stimulate addictive tendencies in relation to sexual behaviour (accessibility, affordability, anonymity, convenience, escape, disinhibition, etc.).

8) Searching for Clarity in Muddy Water: Future Considerations for Classifying Compulsive Sexual Behavior as An Addiction (Kraus et al., 2016). Excerpts:

We recently considered evidence for classifying compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) as a non-substance (behavioral) addiction. Our review found that CSB shared clinical, neurobiological and phenomenological parallels with substance-use disorders….

Although the American Psychiatric Association rejected hypersexual disorder from DSM-5, a diagnosis of CSB (excessive sex drive) can be made using ICD-10. CSB is also being considered by ICD-11, although its ultimate inclusion is not certain. Future research should continue to build knowledge and strengthen a framework for better understanding CSB and translating this information into improved policy, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment efforts to minimize the negative impacts of CSB.

9) Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review With Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016). An extensive review of the literature related to porn-induced sexual problems. Involving 7 US Navy doctors and Gary Wilson, 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 doctors provide 3 clinical reports of men who developed porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. A second 2016 paper by Gary Wilson discusses the importance of studying the effects of porn by having subjects abstain from porn use: Eliminate Chronic Internet Pornography Use to Reveal Its Effects (2016). Excerpts:

Traditional factors that once explained men’s sexual difficulties appear insufficient to account for the sharp rise in erectile dysfunction, delayed ejaculation, decreased sexual satisfaction, and diminished libido during partnered sex in men under 40. This review (1) considers data from multiple domains, e.g., clinical, biological (addiction/urology), psychological (sexual conditioning), sociological; and (2) presents a series of clinical reports, all with the aim of proposing a possible direction for future research of this phenomenon. Alterations to the brain’s motivational system are explored as a possible etiology underlying pornography-related sexual dysfunctions. This review also considers evidence that Internet pornography’s unique properties (limitless novelty, potential for easy escalation to more extreme material, video format, etc.) may be potent enough to condition sexual arousal to aspects of Internet pornography use that do not readily transition to real-life partners, such that sex with desired partners may not register as meeting expectations and arousal declines. Clinical reports suggest that terminating Internet pornography use is sometimes sufficient to reverse negative effects, underscoring the need for extensive investigation using methodologies that have subjects remove the variable of Internet pornography use.

3.4. Neuroadaptations Related to Internet Pornography-Induced Sexual Difficulties: We hypothesize that pornography-induced sexual difficulties involve both hyperactivity and hypoactivity in the brain’s motivational system [72, 129] and neural correlates of each, or both, have been identified in recent studies on Internet pornography users [31, 48, 52, 53, 54, 86, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134].

10) Integrating Psychological and Neurobiological Considerations Regarding The Development and Maintenance of Specific Internet-Use Disorders: An Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution model (Brand et al., 2016). A review of the mechanisms underlying the development and maintenance of specific Internet-use disorders, including “Internet-pornography-viewing disorder”. The authors suggest that pornography addiction (and cybersex addiction) be classified as internet use disorders and placed with other behavioral addictions under substance-use disorders as addictive behaviors. Excerpts:

Although the DSM-5 focuses on Internet gaming, a meaningful number of authors indicate that treatment-seeking individuals may also use other Internet applications or sites addictively….

From the current state of research, we suggest to include Internet-use disorders in the upcoming ICD-11. It is important to note that beyond Internet-gaming disorder, other types of applications are also used problematically. One approach could involve the introduction of a general term of Internet-use disorder, which could then be specified considering the first-choice application that is used (for example Internet-gaming disorder, Internet-gambling disorder, Internet-pornography-use disorder, Internet-communication disorder, and Internet-shopping disorder).

11) The Neurobiology of Sexual Addiction: Chapter from Neurobiology of Addictions, Oxford Press (Hilton et al., 2016) – Excerpts:

We review the neurobiological basis for addiction, including natural or process addiction, and then discuss how this relates to our current understanding of sexuality as a natural reward that can become functionally “unmanageable” in an individual’s life….

It is clear that the current definition and understanding of addiction has changed based with the infusion of knowledge regarding how the brain learns and desires. Whereas sexual addiction was formerly defined based solely on behavioral criteria, it is now seen also through the lens of neuromodulation. Those who will not or cannot understand these concepts may continue to cling to a more neurologically naïve perspective, but those who are able to comprehend the behavior in the context of the biology, this new paradigm provides an integrative and functional definition of sexual addiction which informs both the scientist and the clinician.

12) Neuroscientific Approaches to Online Pornography Addiction (Stark & Klucken, 2017) – Excerpts:

The availability of pornographic material has substantially increased with the development of the Internet. As a result of this, men ask for treatment more often because their pornography consumption intensity is out of control; i.e., they are not able to stop or reduce their problematic behavior although they are faced with negative consequences…. In the last two decades, several studies with neuroscientific approaches, especially functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), were conducted to explore the neural correlates of watching pornography under experimental conditions and the neural correlates of excessive pornography use. Given previous results, excessive pornography consumption can be connected to already known neurobiological mechanisms underlying the development of substance-related addictions.

Finally, we summarized the studies, which investigated the correlates of excessive pornography consumption on a neural level. Despite a lack of longitudinal studies, it is plausible that the observed characteristics in men with sexual addiction are the results not the causes of excessive pornography consumption. Most of the studies report stronger cue reactivity in the reward circuit toward sexual material in excessive pornography users than in control subjects, which mirrors the findings of substance-related addictions. The results concerning a reduced prefrontal-striatal-connectivity in subjects with pornography addiction can be interpreted as a sign of an impaired cognitive control over the addictive behavior.

13) Is excessive sexual behaviour an addictive disorder? (Potenza et al., 2017) – Excerpts:

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (operationalised as hypersexual disorder) was considered for inclusion in DSM-5 but ultimately excluded, despite the generation of formal criteria and field trial testing. This exclusion has hindered prevention, research, and treatment efforts, and left clinicians without a formal diagnosis for compulsive sexual behaviour disorder.

Research into the neurobiology of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder has generated findings relating to attentional biases, incentive salience attributions, and brain-based cue reactivity that suggest substantial similarities with addictions. Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder is being proposed as an impulse-control disorder in ICD-11, consistent with a proposed view that craving, continued engagement despite adverse consequences, compulsive engagement, and diminished control represent core features of impulse-control disorders. This view might have been appropriate for some DSM-IV impulse-control disorders, specifically pathological gambling. However, these elements have long been considered central to addictions, and in the transition from DSM-IV to DSM-5, the category of Impulse Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified was restructured, with pathological gambling renamed and reclassified as an addictive disorder. At present, the ICD-11 beta draft site lists the impulse-control disorders, and includes compulsive sexual behaviour disorder, pyromania, kleptomania, and intermittent explosive disorder.

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.

14) Neurobiology of Pornography Addiction – A clinical review (De Sousa & Lodha, 2017) – Excerpts:

The review first looks at the basic neurobiology of addiction with the basic reward circuit and structures involved generally in any addiction. The focus then shifts to pornography addiction and studies done on the neurobiology of the condition are reviewed. The role of dopamine in pornography addiction is reviewed along with the role of certain brain structures as seen on MRI studies. fMRI studies involving visual sexual stimuli have been used widely to study the neuroscience behind pornography usage and the findings from these studies are highlighted. The effect of pornography addiction on higher order cognitive functions and executive function is also stressed.

In total, 59 articles were identified which included reviews, mini reviews and original research papers on the issues of pornography usage, addiction and neurobiology. The research papers reviewed here were centered on those that elucidated a neurobiological basis for pornography addiction. We included studies that had decent sample size and sound methodology with appropriate statistical analysis. There were some studies with fewer participants, case series, case reports and qualitative studies that were also analyzed for this paper. Both the authors reviewed all the papers and the most relevant ones were chosen for this review. This was further supplemented with the personal clinical experience of both the authors who work regularly with patients where pornography addiction and viewing is a distressing symptom. The authors also have psychotherapeutic experience with these patients that have added value to the neurobiological understanding.

15) The Proof of the Pudding Is in the Tasting: Data Are Needed to Test Models and Hypotheses Related to Compulsive Sexual Behaviors (Gola & Potenza, 2018) – Excerpts:

As described elsewhere (Kraus, Voon, & Potenza, 2016a), there is an increasing number of publications on CSB, reaching over 11,400 in 2015. Nonetheless, fundamental questions on the conceptualization of CSB remain unanswered (Potenza, Gola, Voon, Kor, & Kraus, 2017). It would be relevant to consider how the DSM and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) operate with respect to definition and classification processes. In doing so, we think it is relevant to focus on gambling disorder (also known as pathological gambling) and how it was considered in DSM-IV and DSM-5 (as well as in ICD-10 and the forthcoming ICD-11). In DSM-IV, pathological gambling was categorized as an “Impulse-Control Disorder Not Elsewhere Classified.” In DSM-5, it was reclassified as a “Substance-Related and Addictive Disorder.”…. A similar approach should be applied to CSB, which is currently being considered for inclusion as an impulse-control disorder in ICD-11 (Grant et al., 2014; Kraus et al., 2018)….

Among the domains that may suggest similarities between CSB and addictive disorders are neuroimaging studies, with several recent studies omitted by Walton et al. (2017). Initial studies often examined CSB with respect to models of addiction (reviewed in Gola, Wordecha, Marchewka, & Sescousse, 2016b; Kraus, Voon, & Potenza, 2016b). A prominent model—the incentive salience theory (Robinson & Berridge, 1993)—states that in individuals with addictions, cues associated with substances of abuse may acquire strong incentive values and evoke craving. Such reactions may relate to activations of brain regions implicated in reward processing, including the ventral striatum. Tasks assessing cue reactivity and reward processing may be modified to investigate the specificity of cues (e.g., monetary versus erotic) to specific groups (Sescousse, Barbalat, Domenech, & Dreher, 2013), and we have recently applied this task to study a clinical sample (Gola et al., 2017). We found that individuals seeking treatment for problematic pornography use and masturbation, when compared to matched (by age, gender, income, religiosity, amount of sexual contacts with partners, sexual arousability) healthy control subjects, showed increased ventral striatal reactivity for cues of erotic rewards, but not for associated rewards and not for monetary cues and rewards. This pattern of brain reactivity is in line with the incentive salience theory and suggests that a key feature of CSB may involve cue reactivity or craving induced by initially neutral cues associated with sexual activity and sexual stimuli. Additional data suggest that other brain circuits and mechanisms may be involved in CSB, and these may include anterior cingulate, hippocampus and amygdala (Banca et al., 2016; Klucken, Wehrum-Osinsky, Schweckendiek, Kruse, & Stark, 2016; Voon et al., 2014). Among these, we have hypothesized that the extended amygdala circuit that relates to high reactivity for threats and anxiety may be particularly clinically relevant (Gola, Miyakoshi, & Sescousse, 2015; Gola & Potenza, 2016) based on observation that some CSB individuals present with high levels of anxiety (Gola et al., 2017) and CSB symptoms may be reduced together with pharmacological reduction in anxiety (Gola & Potenza, 2016)…

16) Promoting educational, classification, treatment, and policy initiatives Commentary on: Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder in the ICD-11 (Kraus et al., 2018) – The world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for porn addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.” Excerpts:

For many individuals who experience persistent patterns of difficulty or failures in controlling intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges that result in sexual behavior associated with marked distress or impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, it is very important to be able to name and identify their problem. It is also important that care providers (i.e., clinicians and counselors) from whom individuals may seek help are familiar with CSBs. During our studies involving over 3,000 subjects seeking treatment for CSB, we have frequently heard that individuals suffering from CSB encounter multiple barriers during their seeking of help or in contact with clinicians (Dhuffar & Griffiths, 2016). Patients report that clinicians may avoid the topic, state that such problems do not exist, or suggest that one has a high sexual drive, and should accept it instead of treating (despite that for these individuals, the CSBs may feel ego-dystonic and lead to multiple negative consequences). We believe that well-defined criteria for CSB disorder will promote educational efforts including development of training programs on how to assess and treat individuals with symptoms of CSB disorder. We hope that such programs will become a part of clinical training for psychologists, psychiatrists, and other providers of mental health care services, as well as other care providers including primary care providers, such as generalist physicians.

Basic questions on how best to conceptualize CSB disorder and provide effective treatments should be addressed. The current proposal of classifying CSB disorder as an impulse-control disorder is controversial as alternate models have been proposed (Kor, Fogel, Reid, & Potenza, 2013). There are data suggesting that CSB shares many features with addictions (Kraus et al., 2016), including recent data indicating increased reactivity of reward-related brain regions in response to cues associated with erotic stimuli (Brand, Snagowski, Laier, & Maderwald, 2016; Gola, Wordecha, Marchewka, & Sescousse, 2016; Gola et al., 2017; Klucken, Wehrum-Osinsky, Schweckendiek, Kruse, & Stark, 2016; Voon et al., 2014). Furthermore, preliminary data suggest that naltrexone, a medication with indications for alcohol- and opioid-use disorders, may be helpful for treating CSBs (Kraus, Meshberg-Cohen, Martino, Quinones, & Potenza, 2015; Raymond, Grant, & Coleman, 2010). With respect to CSB disorder’s proposed classification as an impulse-control disorder, there are data suggesting that individuals seeking treatment for one form of CSB disorder, problematic pornography use, do not differ in terms of impulsivity from the general population. They are instead presented with increased anxiety (Gola, Miyakoshi, & Sescousse, 2015; Gola et al., 2017), and pharmacological treatment targeting anxiety symptoms may be helpful in reducing some CSB symptoms (Gola & Potenza, 2016). While it may not yet be possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding classification, more data seem to support classification as an addictive disorder when compared to an impulse-control disorder (Kraus et al., 2016), and more research is needed to examine relationships with other psychiatric conditions (Potenza et al., 2017).

17) Compulsive Sexual Behavior in Humans and Preclinical Models (2018) – Excerpts:

Compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) is widely regarded as a “behavioral addiction,” and is a major threat to quality of life and both physical and mental health. However, CSB has been slow to be recognized clinically as a diagnosable disorder. CSB is co-morbid with affective disorders as well as substance use disorders, and recent neuroimaging studies have demonstrated shared or overlapping neural pathologies disorders, especially in brain regions controlling motivational salience and inhibitory control. Clinical neuroimaging studies are reviewed that have identified structural and/or function changes in prefrontal cortex, amygdala, striatum, and thalamus in individuals suffering from CSB. A preclinical model to study the neural underpinnings of CSB in male rats is discussed consisting of a conditioned aversion procedure to examine seeking of sexual behavior despite known negative consequences.

Because CSB shares characteristics with other compulsive disorders, namely, drug addiction, comparisons of findings in CSB, and drug-addicted subjects, may be valuable to identify common neural pathologies mediating comorbidity of these disorders. Indeed, many studies have shown similar patterns of neural activity and connectivity within limbic structures that are involved in both CSB and chronic drug use [87–89].

In conclusion, this review summarized the behavioral and neuroimaging studies on human CSB and comorbidity with other disorders, including substance abuse. Together, these studies indicate that CSB is associated with functional alterations in dorsal anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex, amygdala, striatum, and thalamus, in addition to decreased connectivity between amygdala and prefrontal cortex. Moreover, a preclinical model for CSB in male rats was described, including new evidence of neural alterations in mPFC and OFC that are correlated with loss of inhibitory control of sexual behavior. This preclinical model offers a unique opportunity to test key hypotheses to identify predispositions and underlying causes of CSB and comorbidity with other disorders.

18) Sexual Dysfunctions in the Internet Era (2018) – Excerpt:

Low sexual desire, reduced satisfaction in sexual intercourse, and erectile dysfunction (ED) are increasingly common in young population. In an Italian study from 2013, up to 25% of subjects suffering from ED were under the age of 40 [1], and in a similar study published in 2014, more than half of Canadian sexually experienced men between the age of 16 and 21 suffered from some kind of sexual disorder [2]. At the same time, prevalence of unhealthy lifestyles associated with organic ED has not changed significantly or has decreased in the last decades, suggesting that psychogenic ED is on the rise [3]. The DSM-IV-TR defines some behaviors with hedonic qualities, such as gambling, shopping, sexual behaviors, Internet use, and video game use, as “impulse control disorders not elsewhere classified”—although these are often described as behavioral addictions [4]. Recent investigation has suggested the role of behavioral addiction in sexual dysfunctions: alterations in neurobiological pathways involved in sexual response might be a consequence of repeated, supernormal stimuli of various origins.

Among behavioral addictions, problematic Internet use and online pornography consumption are often cited as possible risk factors for sexual dysfunction, often with no definite boundary between the two phenomena. Online users are attracted to Internet pornography because of its anonymity, affordability, and accessibility, and in many cases its usage could lead users through a cybersex addiction: in these cases, users are more likely to forget the “evolutionary” role of sex, finding more excitement in self-selected sexually explicit material than in intercourse.

In literature, researchers are discordant about positive and negative function of online pornography. From the negative perspective, it represents the principal cause of compulsive masturbatory behavior, cybersex addiction, and even erectile dysfunction.

19) Neurocognitive mechanisms in compulsive sexual behavior disorder (2018) – Excerpts:

To date, most neuroimaging research on compulsive sexual behavior has provided evidence of overlapping mechanisms underlying compulsive sexual behavior and non-sexual addictions. Compulsive sexual behavior is associated with altered functioning in brain regions and networks implicated in sensitization, habituation, impulse dyscontrol, and reward processing in patterns like substance, gambling, and gaming addictions. Key brain regions linked to CSB features include the frontal and temporal cortices, amygdala, and striatum, including the nucleus accumbens.

CSBD has been included in the current version of theICD-11 as an impulse-control disorder [39]. As described by the WHO, ‘Impulse-control disorders are characterized by the repeated failure to resist an impulse, drive, or urge to perform an act that is rewarding to the person, at least in the short-term, despite consequences such as longer-term harm either to the individual or to others, marked distress about the behaviour pattern, or significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning’ [39]. Current findings raise important questions regarding the classification of CSBD. Many disorders characterized by impaired impulse-control are classified elsewhere in the ICD-11 (for example, gambling, gaming, and substance-use disorders are classified as being addictive disorders) [123].

20) A Current Understanding of the Behavioral Neuroscience of Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder and Problematic Pornography Use (2018) – Excerpts:

Recent neurobiological studies have revealed that compulsive sexual behaviors are associated with altered processing of sexual material and differences in brain structure and function.

The findings summarized in our overview suggest relevant similarities with behavioral and substance-related addictions, which share many abnormalities found for CSBD (as reviewed in [127]). Although beyond the scope of the present report, substance and behavioral addictions are characterized by altered cue reactivity indexed by subjective, behavioral, and neurobiological measures (overviews and reviews: [128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133]; alcohol: [134, 135]; cocaine: [136, 137]; tobacco: [138, 139]; gambling: [140, 141]; gaming: [142, 143]). Results concerning resting-state functional connectivity show similarities between CSBD and other addictions [144, 145].

Although few neurobiological studies of CSBD have been conducted to date, existing data suggest neurobiological abnormalities share communalities with other additions such as substance use and gambling disorders. Thus, existing data suggest that its classification may be better suited as a behavioral addiction rather than an impulse-control disorder.

21) Ventral Striatal Reactivity in Compulsive Sexual Behaviors (2018) – Excerpts:

Compulsive Sexual Behaviors (CSB) are a reason to seek treatment. Given this reality, the number of studies on CSB has increased substantially in the last decade and the World Health Organization (WHO) included CSB in its proposal for the upcoming ICD-11…… From our point of view, it is worth investigating whether CSB can be distinguished into two subtypes characterized by: (1) dominant interpersonal sexual behaviors, and (2) dominant solitary sexual behaviors and pornography watching (48, 49).

The amount of available studies on CSB (and sub-clinical populations of frequent pornography users) is constantly increasing. Among currently available studies, we were able to find nine publications (Table 1) which utilized functional magnetic resonance imaging. Only four of these (36–39) directly investigated processing of erotic cues and/or rewards and reported findings related to ventral striatum activations. Three studies indicate increased ventral striatal reactivity for erotic stimuli (36–39) or cues predicting such stimuli (36–39). These findings are consistent with Incentive Salience Theory (IST) (28), one of the most prominent frameworks describing brain functioning in addiction. The only support for another theoretical framework which predicts hypoactivation of the ventral striatum in addiction, RDS theory (29, 30), comes partially from one study (37), where individuals with CSB presented lower ventral striatal activation for exciting stimuli when compared to controls.

22) Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review (2019)– Excerpts:

In the last few years, there has been a wave of articles related to behavioral addictions; some of them have a focus on online pornography addiction. However, despite all efforts, we are still unable to profile when engaging in this behavior becomes pathological. Common problems include: sample bias, the search for diagnostic instrumentals, opposing approximations to the matter, and the fact that this entity may be encompassed inside a greater pathology (i.e., sex addiction) that may present itself with very diverse symptomatology. Behavioral addictions form a largely unexplored field of study, and usually exhibit a problematic consumption model: loss of control, impairment, and risky use. Hypersexual disorder fits this model and may be composed of several sexual behaviors, like problematic use of online pornography (POPU). Online pornography use is on the rise, with a potential for addiction considering the “triple A” influence (accessibility, affordability, anonymity). This problematic use might have adverse effects in sexual development and sexual functioning, especially among the young population.

As far as we know, a number of recent studies support this entity as an addiction with important clinical manifestations such as sexual dysfunction and psychosexual dissatisfaction. Most of the existing work is based off on similar research done on substance addicts, based on the hypothesis of online pornography as a ‘supranormal stimulus’ akin to an actual substance that, through continued consumption, can spark an addictive disorder. However, concepts like tolerance and abstinence are not yet clearly established enough to merit the labeling of addiction, and thus constitute a crucial part of future research. For the moment, a diagnostic entity encompassing out of control sexual behavior has been included in the ICD-11 due to its current clinical relevance, and it will surely be of use to address patients with these symptoms that ask clinicians for help.

23) Occurrence and development of online porn addiction: individual susceptibility factors, strengthening mechanisms and neural mechanisms (2019) – Excerpts:

Initiation and development of cybersex addiction have two stages with classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Firstly, individuals use cybersex occasionally out of entertainment and curiosity. On this stage, use of internet devices is paired with sexual arousal and The results in classical conditioning, further leads to sensitization of cybersex-related cues which trigger intense craving. Individual vulnerabilities also facilitate sensitization of cybersex-related cues. On the second stage, individuals make use of cybersex frequently to satisfy their sexual desires or During this process, cybersex-related cognitive bias like positive expectation of cybersex and coping mechanism like using it to deal with negative emotions are positively reinforced, those personal traits associated with cybersex addiction such as narcissism, sexual sensation seeking, sexual excitability, dysfunction use of sex are also positively reinforced, while common personality disorders like nervousness, low self-esteem and psychopathologies like depression, anxiety are negatively reinforced. Executive function deficits occur due to long-term cybersex use. Interaction of executive function deficits and intense craving promotes development and maintenance Of cybersex addiction. Researches using electrophysiological and brain imaging tools mainly to study cybersex addiction found that cybersex addicts may develop more and more robust craving for cybersex when facing cybersex-related cues, but they feel less and less pleasant when using it. Studies provide evidence for intense craving triggered by cybersex-related cues and impaired executive function. In conclusion, people who are vulnerable to cybersex addiction can’t stop cybersex use out of more and more intense craving for cybersex and impaired executive function, but they feel less and less satisfied when using it, and search for more and more original pornographic materials online at the cost of plenty of time and money. Once they reduce cybersex use or just quit it, they would suffer from a series of adverse effects like depression, anxiety, erection dysfunction, lack of sexual arousal.

24) Theories, prevention, and treatment of pornography-use disorder (2019) – Excerpts:

Compulsive sexual behavior disorder, including problematic pornography use, has been included in the ICD-11 as impulse control disorder. The diagnostic criteria for this disorder, however, are very similar to the criteria for disorders due to addictive behaviors, for example repetitive sexual activities becoming a central focus of the personʼs life, unsuccessful efforts to significantly reduce repetitive sexual behaviors and continued repetitive sexual behaviors despite experiencing negative consequences (WHO, 2019). Many researchers and clinicians also argue that problematic pornography use can be considered a behavioral addiction.

Cue-reactivity and craving in combination with reduced inhibitory control, implicit cognitions (e.g. approach tendencies) and experiencing gratification and compensation linked to pornography use have been demonstrated in individuals with symptoms of pornography-use disorder. Neuroscientific studies confirm the involvement of addiction-related brain circuits, including the ventral striatum and other parts of fronto-striatal loops, in the development and maintenance of problematic pornography use. Case reports and proof-of-concept studies suggest the efficacy of pharmacological interventions, for example the opioid antagonist naltrexone, for treating individuals with pornography-use disorder and compulsive sexual behavior disorder.

Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence suggest that the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms involved in addictive disorders are also valid for pornography-use disorder.

25) Self-perceived Problematic Pornography Use: An Integrative Model from a Research Domain Criteria and Ecological Perspective (2019) – Excerpts

Self-perceived problematic pornography use seems to be related to multiple units of analysis and different systems in the organism. Based on the findings within the RDoC paradigm described above, it is possible to create a cohesive model in which different units of analysis impact each other (Fig. 1). It appears that elevated levels of dopamine, present in the natural activation of the reward system related to sexual activity and orgasm, interfere with the regulation of the VTA-NAc system in people who report SPPPU. This dysregulation leads to greater activation of the reward system and increased conditioning related to the use of pornography, fostering approach behavior to pornographic material due to the increase in dopamine in the nucleus accumbens.

Continued exposure to immediate and easily available pornographic material seems to create an imbalance in the mesolimbic dopaminergic system. This excess dopamine activates GABA output pathways, producing dynorphin as a byproduct, which inhibits dopamine neurons. When dopamine decreases, acetylcholine is released and can generate an aversive state (Hoebel et al. 2007), creating the negative reward system found in the second stage of addiction models. This imbalance is also correlated to the shift from approach to avoidance behavior, seen in people who report problematic pornography use…. These changes in internal and behavioral mechanisms among people with SPPPU are similar to those observed in people with substance addictions, and map into models of addiction (Love et al. 2015).

26) Cybersex addiction: an overview of the development and treatment of a newly emerging disorder (2020) – Excerpts:

Cybersex addiction is a non-substance related addiction that involves online sexual activity on the internet. Nowadays, various kinds of things related to sex or pornography are easily accessible through internet media. In Indonesia, sexuality is usually assumed taboo but most young people have been exposed to pornography. It can lead to an addiction with many negative effects on users, such as relationships, money, and psychiatric problems like major depression and anxiety disorders.

27) Which Conditions Should Be Considered as Disorders in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) Designation of “Other Specified Disorders Due to Addictive Behaviors”? (2020) – A review by addiction experts concludes that pornography-use disorder is a condition that ought to be diagnosed with the ICD-11 category “other specified disorders due to addictive behaviors”. In other words, compulsive porn use looks like other recognized addictions. Excerpts:

How did I become the target of Nicole Prause? Below the official YBOP press release, I provide details to help readers understand my legal victory and Prause’s 7-year ‘reign of terror’ that led to it. Spoiler alert: She brought this all on herself.

~~~

PRESS RELEASE:

Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause’s Efforts to Silence Him

Vocal porn researcher’s attempted restraining order denied as frivolous; must pay substantial attorney fees in a SLAPP ruling.

• Download press release
• Download court order

ASHLAND, OREGON: August 16, 2020: Best-selling author and public health advocate Gary Wilson has won a legal victory against sexology researcher and pornography proponent Nicole Prause. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against Wilson constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully Wilson into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay Wilson’s attorney fees.

Wilson is the author of the best selling book Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction, presenter of the immensely popular TEDx talk “The Great Porn Experiment,” (13+ million views) and host of the website www.YourBrainOnPorn.com, a clearinghouse for the latest research, media, and self-reports on pornography’s effects and harms. Wilson has long critiqued Prause’s published research and public statements about pornography use.

“It is ironic that the porn industry cloaks itself in First Amendment protections while porn proponents like Nicole Prause attempt to limit and silence criticism about the well-documented risks of porn’s harm to its users and to the public,” Wilson said after the Court ruling. “This is another important victory over the defamation and harassment endured by advocates who dare to speak publicly about porn’s harms.“

The legal victory comes on the heels of a complaint against UK-based SCRAM Media for publishing a story falsely claiming that Prause had received “death threats” as the consequence of a crowdfunding campaign by NoFap host, Alex Rhodes. According to a UK press release, the SCRAM story falsely stated that NoFap and Rhodes affiliated themselves with right-wing extremists (including anti-Semites); incited extremists to harass Prause; conducted a crowdfund that led to Prause being stalked; and filed a frivolous lawsuit in US Federal Court in order to stymie Prause’s academic research. When presented with evidence disproving those claims, SCRAM retracted the article, paid Rhodes substantial damages and legal costs, and apologized publicly, before shutting down entirely.

Prause is being sued in two unrelated federal civil lawsuits accusing her of making knowingly false and damaging statements about people who have raised concerns about internet porn: Donald L. Hilton, Jr. v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, Case No. 5: 19-CV-00755-OLG; and Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366. In those cases, the plaintiffs allege Prause made untrue, defamatory statements accusing them of stalking, sexual harassment, and antisemitism, and claiming they were under investigation by law enforcement and professional licensing bodies. In each case, numerous men and women have come forward with sworn statements that Prause has also targeted them: affidavit #1, affidavit #2, affidavit #3, affidavit #4, affidavit #5, affidavit #6, affidavit #7, affidavit #8, affidavit #9, affidavit #10, affidavit #11, affidavit #12, affidavit #13, affidavit #14, affidavit #15, affidavit #16.

EMAIL: [email protected]

---

Details related to Prause’s attempted restraining order and my successful SLAPP suit

When I say an entire book could be filled with Prause’s egregious actions I am not exaggerating. While only the tip of the Prause iceberg, the 3 main pages documenting Prause egregious actions (page 1, page 2, page 3) fill over 1,500 pages when copied and pasted into a Word document. Suffice it to say, we can only touch on a few relevant highlights – just enough so the reader can understand the primary reason why Prause has been so hell-bent on taking down YBOP.

Never heard of Prause until David Ley and she published a March, 2013 Psychology Today blog post targeting me and my website (YBOP)

Before March 6th, 2013 I had never heard of Nicole Prause. On that fateful day, David Ley and Nicole Prause teamed up to write a Psychology Today blog post targeting me and and my website “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” Its oh-so-catchy title is misleading as it had nothing to do with Your Brain on Porn or the neuroscience presented here. Instead, the Ley/Prause blog limited itself to a deceitful portrayal of Prause’s then unpublished EEG study – Steele et al., 2013. Ley’s blog post appeared 5 months before Prause’s EEG study was formally published. Ley & Prause’s blog linked to my website and suggested that I was in favor of banning porn (untrue).

Prause’s carefully orchestrated PR campaign resulted in worldwide media coverage with all the headlines claiming that sex addiction had been debunked(!). A few days later I posted a short Psychology Today blog post raising questions about the content of the David Ley post (the original blog posts are archived here).

Prause has yet to refute a single word of my March, 2013 Psychology Today post, or the critique I wrote in July after her EEG study finally was published. Nor has Prause refuted a single word of the 8 peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al. which expose the Ley/Prause blog post as fiction and Prause’s EEG results as actually consistent with the addiction model.

On April 10, 2013 a petulant Prause initiated contact, then accused my wife and me of stalking her

On April 10th, Prause initiated her only contact with me in 2 emails and a comment under my Psychology Today response. Simultaneously, she contacted Psychology Today editors, who forwarded her second email. The following 2 emails are from the end of our brief exchange (screenshots of Prause & Wilson’s entire email exchange):

As you can see, Prause is accusing my wife and me of stalking her, although all I did was respond to two emails she sent my way. This was the starting point for Prause’s fabricated, never-ending “stalking” claims.

Three months later, immediately after I published my critique of Steele et al., 2013, Prause initiated her public “Gary Wilson is a stalker” campaign. She created numerous aliases to defame and harass me, including two YouTube channels: GaryWilson Stalker and GaryWilson IsAFraud. A screenshot of my YouTube inbox from July 26, 2013 reveals Prause’s obsessive cyberstalking:

Below is just one example of dozens posted during this period. As usual Prause’s aliases accuse Gary Wilson of “stalking a female scientist”:

As it turns out, I was not the only one to be honored with her false stalking accusations. Over the next several years Prause falsely accused numerous individuals and organizations of stalking, sexual harasFexamplsment, and sending death or rape threats.

In this way, Prause carefully crafted a mythology of her victim-hood, although she was the perpetrator bent on destroying others’ lives. While Prause had defamed Alex Rhodes and Don Hilton for years, both drew the line at her false accusations of stalking and sexual harassment. Two Federal defamation suits against Prause followed – Donald Hilton, MD and Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes.

The intensity of Prause’s defamation and cyberstalking grows exponentially, forcing me to create a record

During her brief time at UCLA Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to harass and defame me on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass and defame). That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (she appears to have packed up her desk around January, 2015).

Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause added two media managers/promoters/branding experts from Media 2×3 to her company’s tiny stable of “Collaborators.” At this same time, Prause began openly flaunting her cozy relationship with many in the porn industry.

Examples include Prause’s (1) direct social-media support for the FSC, AVN, XBIZ, xHamster and PornHub, (2) accepting “assistance” from Free Speech Coalition (and immediately attacking Prop 60), (3) the Free Speech Coalition allegedly providing subjects for a Prause study she claims will “debunk” porn addiction, and (4) attending porn industry awards (XRCO, AVN-sponsored events).

In 2016, in her boldest move up to that point, Prause created the “PornHelps” website & social media accounts to serve the porn industry. (Within a few days of this tweet and a Psychology Today comment exposing Prause as “PornHelps,” the @pornhelps Twitter and PornHelps website vanished without a trace.)

As a darling of the porn industry, Prause began putting her name to falsehoods, and openly cyber-harassing multiple individuals and organizations on social media and elsewhere. At the time, I was the primary target of Prause’s hundreds of social media comments along with behind-the-scenes email campaigns.

Within a short time she targeted others, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, a former UCLA colleague, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, NoFap.com, RebootNation, YourBrainRebalanced, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity (See – Numerous Victims of Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process).

While spending her waking hours harassing and defaming, Prause cleverly continued to cultivate – with zero verifiable evidence – the myth that she was “the victim” of most anyone who dared to disagree with her assertions surrounding porn’s effects or the current state of porn research. To counter the ongoing harassment and false claims, I was compelled to document Prause’s tweets, posts and activities on the following pages. This was done for her victims’ protection, and crucial for any future legal actions. (Additional incidents have occurred that we are not at liberty to divulge – as Prause’s victims fear further retribution, and no doubt still others occurred that we will never know.)

• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 2)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 3)

These 3 pages exposing the truth were the bane of Prause’s existence, as they crack the illusion of her carefully curated public image as a courageous victim of stalking, rape, and now, death threats. What’s next?

Prause multi-pronged campaign to remove the damning evidence of her harassment, defamation and cyberstalking

Prause explored multiple avenues in her determination to have the above pages removed (or YBOP shut down) in order to bury evidence of her egregious behavior.

For example, in 2018, Prause filed 3 bogus, and unsuccessful, DMCA take-downs with YBOP’s webhost, seeking to have screenshots of her own defamatory tweets removed. 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 the pages chronicling her harassment and defamation removed or gutted. All 3 attempts were rebuffed as tweets are not copyrighted material.

When the baseless DMCAs failed, Prause attempted to shut down YBOP by filing a trademark application to obtain my URL (yourbrainonporn.com) and my trademark (Your Brain On Porn). With control of the URL, she could have shut down my entire site. A screenshot of Prause’s USPTO application (January 29, 2019):

Prause’s trademark application forced me into expensive legal battles with her (8-page cease & desist letter to Nicole Prause – May 1, 2019). Only when it was time to proceed in Federal court did she drop her trademark application (October, 2019).

In April of 2019, Prause launched a trademark infringing site (realyourbrainonporn.com). The imposter site employed many tactics calculated to confuse the public. For example, the new site attempted to trick visitors, with the center of each page declaring “Welcome to the REAL Your Brain On Porn,” while the tab falsely proclaimed “Your Brain On Porn.”

To advertise the illegitimate site, Prause also created a Twitter account, YouTube channel, Facebook page, all employing the words “Your Brain On Porn.” Tweets of the URL feature “Your Brain On Porn” and “YBOP” in the first line, confusing those who discover it in error. In a further attempt to confuse the public, the press release announcing the infringing site falsely claims to originate from my hometown – Ashland, Oregon. Prause, as manager of RealYBOP Twitter, regularly engages in defamation and harassment of me, Alexander Rhodes, Gabe Deem, NCOSE, Laila Mickelwait, Gail Dines, and anyone else who speaks out about porn’s harms. The legal battles continue.

In a startling “coincidence,” Prause’s legal counsel for the trademark disputes is Wayne B. Giampietro, one of the primary lawyers defending Backpage.com. Backpage was shut down by the federal government “for its willful facilitation of human trafficking and prostitution.” (See this USA Today article: 93-count indictment on sex trafficking charges revealed against Backpage founders).

Prause enters the California “Safe At Home Program” under false pretenses to trick the California attorney general’s office into helping her try to take down YBOP’s “Prause pages”

Within weeks of dropping her malicious trademark application, Prause entered the California “Safe At Home Program” under false pretenses, misusing it to harass her victims and trick the California Attorney General into a fraudulent attempt to remove YBOP’s Prause pages.

On November 19, 2019 Prause turned to threatening YBOP’s webhost Linode with a bogus cease & desist letter, again signed by sex-industry lawyer Wayne Giampietro. Misusing the California “Safe At Home Program”, Prause’s Cease & Desist letter falsely claimed her address is on YBOP (it wasn’t). Linode never informed me about Prause’s unfounded C&D letter because they had no reason to act on it (Prause provided no URLs or screenshots). Instead, the C&D was forwarded to me from the owner of a YouTube channel whom Prause had successfully silenced with empty legal threats based on false assertions that YBOP (to which he linked) contained her home address.Rebuffed by Linode, Prause tried a second C&D, this time directly enlisting the California Attorney General to assist her under false pretenses (January 29, 2020). Once again, Linode confirmed that YBOP had not published Prause’s address (as before, Prause failed to provide any URLs of pages containing her address).

When Prause doubled down, I exposed her lies with this article. She responded by calling the Ashland Police department here in OR and filing for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Los Angeles Superior Court

When the California AG couldn’t locate her address on YBOP, Prause resorted to badgering my local police (Ashland, Oregon) to take action against me (February 12, 2020). The officer determined that Prause’s assertions did not allege a crime (in any case, her home address was not on YBOP) and that this was a civil disagreement. He declined to act.

On the same day, Prause then publicly announced she was seeking a restraining order against me, and did so ex parte (without having to notify me, so no service):

You can always tell when Prause is lying, as she cannot provide a screenshot or link that remotely supports her claims. Prause’s earlier tweets expose her as lying. In fact, she herself publicly boasted that no one has ever posted her home address because she has posted only fake addresses on the internet:

The above is nothing less than Prause gleefully admitting she lied to the California Attorney General that she was “unsafe,” and attempting to bolster her malicious restraining order.

The judge denied the February 13th temporary restraining order (TRO) as it lacked evidence that I was a threat, and set a hearing for a regular restraining order on March 6, 2020. Perpetuating her faux victim-hood, Prause falsely claims the judge felt I needed to address my stalking:

I did not attend a mediation. It was optional and I declined.

Once again, I was forced to hire lawyers to deal with Prause’s misuse of the legal system. To everyone’s surprise, the second judge, instead of dismissing the entire matter, continued the hearing until March 25, 2020. Then COVID-19 hit.

Prause fabricates “evidence,” which included doxxing and defaming my son

In Prause’s request for the restraining order she perjured herself, saying I posted her address on YBOP and Twitter (perjury is nothing new with Prause). In the tallest of tales, Prause claimed I was dangerous because my adult son and I were “gun enthusiasts” who had “nothing to lose.”

She purported to “prove” this by including an old photo of my son (taller man) and a young man of Asian decent posing with guns. Prause claimed the shorter, 20-something young man was me! Prause deliberately mislead the court.

The above is one of three pictures of my son Prause inserted into her lie-filled restraining order request. Prause searched through my son’s private Facebook to locate any picture she could misrepresent.

The truth: Neither I nor my son own guns. The above picture is from 2014, and was taken at the weapons locker by a Sacramento sheriff’s deputy (for the 2 young men to use as a meme generator). It was a joke. As explained in his affidavit (below) my son had spent several months working with the California Department of Justice, building new IT technology to assist the Gang Suppression Unit with their duties. As my son stated in his sworn affidavit, the other person was an intern at the tech company.

This gross misrepresentation, acquired via cyberstalking my son, is a perfect example of how Nicole Prause fabricates her so-called “evidence.”

Prause provides no verifiable evidence to support her other claim: that I posted her address on YBOP

Prause’s other main assertion is that I placed her home address on YBOP. Not so. Her home address has never been on YBOP. Did Prause’s TRO contain a screenshot or a URL to support this assertion? No. Only an email from a Liberos board member (Prause’s company), and collaborator on Prause’s controversial Orgasmic Meditation studies, Greg Siegle:

Why can’t Siegle or Prause provide a screenshot or URL to support their assertion? Because both are lying. It never ceases to amaze me how Prause hypnotizes her buddies to lie for her.

Unlike Siegle and Prause I have hard evidence. I submitted this email from my web host confirming that Prause failed to provide any actionable requests (i.e. URLs of pages allegedly containing her address). Put simply, Prause lied in her TRO: Her home address was never on YBOP.

The rest of her claims were equally unfounded.

She claimed that I have a second Twitter account that actively reveals her home address, and that her home address and pictures are on my website. As usual, she provided no screenshots or URLs to support her allegations. That’s because both claims are false, although images of many of her tweets (some with her smiling face) are indeed on YBOP, as that is how I document her ongoing malicious activity. I assume members of the public may be interested in evidence that points to her potential bias and close ties to the porn industry. Her tweets are public. Below, I provide PDFs of documents filed in my opposition to Prause’s initial Restraining Order request:

1. Gary Wilson’s 89-page response to Nicole Prause’s baseless TRO
2. Linode email confirming Prause lied about her address being on YBOP
3. Gary Wilson son’s declaration (redacted)

With the lies in her original TRO exposed, Prause’s July 2020 declaration places all its eggs into the “Germany basket”

With the “evidence” in her original TRO exposed as fabrications, Prause’s July 2020 declaration (prepared for the August 6th hearing) spun a new tale surrounding my 2018 trip to Germany to attend the 5th International Conference on Behavioral Addictions (ICBA). Prause committed perjury in her TRO declaration, falsely claiming she was a scheduled presenter for the ICBA, and that I traveled to Germany solely to “confront her.” Nonsense, and yet much of Prause’s opposition to my anti-SLAPP now hinged on this single assertion.

Here is one of 5 excerpts from her July declaration referring to my trip to Germany:

The sentence following her Germany claim is very telling: “Whether that is true or not.” Let me help: It’s not true. Important to note that my Germany trip was “the basis of Prause’s current request for relief.” If any part of Prause’s Germany story is debunked, her entire case falls apart like Humpty-Dumpty. Again, this carefully worded suggestion is the only “evidence” Prause’s lawyer dared to supply:

Subsequently, Prause has encountered several incidents where she believed she was being surveilled at home or work by an unidentified man. Whether that is true or not, the basis of Prause’s current request for relief is the manifestation of the ongoing feud into the threat of physical confrontation.

I knew this was bunkum so I asked ICBA organizers to confirm that Prause was never asked to present and was never registered for the conference. Their letter confirming that Prause perjured herself:

Caught in yet another lie.

Just for the record, Prause has never attended or been invited to present at an ICBA conference. Prause doesn’t believe in behavioral addictions. Throughout her entire career Prause has waged a war against the concept of behavioral addiction, especially sex and porn addiction.

Prause brought this legal outcome upon herself (even her lawyer tried to quit because she attempted to force him to behave unethically)

Anyone can file a restraining order without even paying a filing fee. In other words, it was a very cost-effective way to attempt to add credibility to the smear campaign that she and her chums have been pursuing. I believe it was, in part, an attempt to suppress my speech as she hoped I’d be unable to defend myself. She had initially told the judge I was indigent (“had nothing to lose”) in her TRO request. She may have assumed I was indigent because, despite having abundant good cause, I had never filed a defamation suit against her. I didn’t want to waste my time.

I believe her restraining order attempt was also an attempt to discredit me as a witness in the two defamation suits others have filed against Prause. It failed, and has now further discredited her instead. What goes around….

The initial judge denied Prause a temporary restraining order in February, 2020, when she filed it without notice to me. This was a loud signal to her that she had a weak case. Denial of the TRO meant that Prause had to inform me about the restraining order, and it was set for an initial hearing, which led to a second hearing, as Prause still had not served me properly.

For the next 3 months, Prause could have dropped the restraining order with no repercussions to herself, and I would have been stuck with my attorney fees without much recourse. In June, partly to avoid being in Prause’s presence at the hearing scheduled for July, and partly in response to being unjustly accused of having threatened by her in order to suppress my voice, I filed an anti-SLAPP motion to have the restraining order dropped. At that point, she could only go forward. Court documents filed in my anti-SLAPP motion:

• Gary Wilson’s Anti-SLAPP – Notice of Motion to Strike Restraining Order (May 14, 2020)
• Staci Sprout declaration for Gary Wilson
• Alex Rhodes declaration for Gary Wilson

I filed my motion in part because Prause had begun slapping baseless small claims court ‘defamation’ suits on people, which require defendants to be served in CA. I was confident that she would serve me with one of her nuisance small claims court suits if I came to CA to testify for the restraining order hearing.

As it turns out, the judge combined the two matters, and both Prause and I were able to participate remotely (due to Covid 19). This spared me from going anywhere near her, thankfully. Perhaps its evident that, far from physically threatening her, I’ve been assiduously avoiding her presence. My August 5th, court filings responding to Prause’s July 29 declaration:

• Gary Wilson’s declaration (August 5, 2020)
• Gary Wilson’s point by point reply to Nicole Prause (August 5, 2020)
• Gary Wilson’s evidentiary objections: almost all were sustained (August 5, 2020)

Shortly before the August 6 hearing, her own attorney tried unsuccessfully to withdraw from representing her. One of his reasons, according to his Declaration, was that she was attempting to force him to behave unethically, that is, to do something he could not do in good faith. We know from his filing seeking a continuance that she had tried to make him submit a lot of inadmissible “evidence” (likely in the form of letters from her friends, and unsupported accusations), so we suspect he was referring to this.

Her attorney also asked to withdraw because she was apparently threatening him with suit because he wouldn’t do her bidding. He stated that communications with Prause had irretrievably broken down. This occurred after he filed her reply to my anti-SLAPP motion (and there was no further legal work to be done short of the hearing itself).

The judge decided not to delay the hearing, and Prause was represented by the firm’s of-counsel attorney, who did an excellent job on her behalf – although he had little to work with by the time all the evidentiary objections were dealt with.

Prior to the hearing, Prause went on Twitter to announce that she had a “protective order” against me, inciting her devoted followers to cyber-stalk me:

Yet another lie of astonishing proportions. And not one that most judges would take kindly to.

Incidentally, in order to grant my anti-SLAPP motion, the judge had to find that her restraining order was unlikely to succeed on its merits, and that it was, in fact, an attempt to suppress my rights to speak out on a matter of public interest.

The bottom line is that Prause brought the anti-SLAPP motion loss upon herself by filing, and then not dropping, her baseless restraining order against me. She clinched it by threatening her own attorney and by announcing prematurely that she had won. Once again, she was the perpetrator not the victim.

The legal system is not social media, and the fabricated “evidence” and false accusations that she and her cronies disperse in the court of public opinion do not fly in real courts. This is why SCRAM lost when it printed her lies, and it does not bode well for her chances in either of the two defamation suits against her.

Link to abstract of above paper

As men who have quit porn and recovered from sexual dysfunctions (during partnered sex) demonstrate, porn-induced ED appears to be primarily due to conditioning their sexual response to online porn rather than real partners. Their difficulties are not due to “hypersexuality.” In fact, men who report the problem are–just as this 2020 paper suggests–sometimes “hypersexuals” and sometimes not.

There are two ways the men figure out that porn use caused their difficulties:

1. Testing whether they can get erections and ejaculate without using porn. If they can’t, but can get aroused when using porn, then they have likely conditioned their arousal to porn. See PIED test video for a fuller explanation. Consider this test from “Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports.”
   

   One simple test healthcare providers might employ is to ask, “whether the patient can achieve and sustain a satisfactory erection (and climax as desired) when masturbating without using Internet pornography”. If he cannot, but can easily achieve these goals with Internet pornography, then his sexual dysfunction may be associated with its use.

2. Eliminating internet porn for a time and seeing improvements in their sexual response, as multiple case studies and other papers have reported. (More below)

For more on porn conditioning watch this video by a recovered man.

The new 2020 paper: it can tell us nothing about porn-induced sexual problems

A carefully organized press campaign was created to “interpret” this paper for propaganda purposes just as it became publicly available. Predictably, given that most of this study’s authors are members of a blatantly pro-porn website (that infringes on the trademark of my site, and tweets and curates cherry-picked research that props us the porn industry’s interests), the related propaganda proclaimed that PIED was disproved.

In response to this orchestrated campaign, a neuroscientist tweeted, observing that the propagandists were employing, “the same fallacy as saying Pavlov’s dog is still able to salivate (to the sound of bells!), therefore there is no conditioning effect.” Why would he say this? Because the researchers hadn’t properly tested for the hypothesis that porn use can condition sexual response–and not just in “hypersexuals.” Yet the propagandists act as if they had.

Thus, although porn shills like David Ley claim this paper provides evidence against porn-induced sexual dysfunction (PIED), it actually tells us nothing about it.

To begin, PIED is the inability to achieve erection with a partner. (In some men, the reduced pleasure response behind this conditioning grows so severe that they eventually notice impaired response even when using porn, but that is uncommon.)

The fact is that men with PIED can usually achieve an erection with porn. After all, their arousal is conditioned to porn! They can “salivate to a bell,” but they may also be so conditioned to porn that they have difficulty with partnered sex, or even getting erections without porn. The researchers didn’t check for the latter conditions.

In any case, this study didn’t assess PIED. It only assessed sexual response while viewing porn. And all of the subjects (MSM, or men who have sex with men) were porn consumers – although the researchers didn’t share the measure they used to determine this in their write-up.

The point is that both subjects and controls had already had the opportunity to condition their sexual response to porn. Neither subjects nor controls were asked to eliminate its use to see if their sexual function improved (the most reliable way to determine if PIED conditioning is at work).

Incidentally, all of the subjects and controls had rather low sexual response. Consider this paper: Erectile Dysfunction and Premature Ejaculation in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies (2019). It reported that men who have sex with men have higher rates of erectile dysfunction, porn use and porn addiction (CSBD).

While it is interesting that there wasn’t a significant difference between “hypersexuals” and others, this result does not negate the potential of porn use to condition sexual response in porn consumers.

Although these authors deny it, PIED is a “thing.” Seven peer-reviewed papers have so far demonstrated that when patients eliminated digital porn use, chronic sexual dysfunctions healed. There are some 32 additional studies linking porn use to sexual problems or low arousal during partnered sex. Studies with excerpts.

It is concerning, but not surprising, that Dr. Ley and others would misrepresent PIED and twist irrelevant findings into unsupported propaganda. He is being compensated by the porn industry to assure porn users that its consumption is harmless.

The new paper does not “replicate” a 2007 experiment

Porn industry shill and co-author of this paper Prause and her sidekick Ley mistakenly claim that this new paper is the same as experiments described in 2007 in a book chapter by Bancroft and Janssen (also a co-author of this new paper). “The Psychophysiology of Sex., Chapter: The Dual-Control Model: The role of sexual inhibition & excitation in sexual arousal and behavior.” Publisher: Indiana University Press, Editor: Erick Janssen, pp.197-222. Link to chapter

Yet this new paper is not the same as the earlier experiments, and here are some of the differences:

Difference#1 – The 2007 study interviewed the men who couldn’t get aroused by porn to assess the likely cause.

First, unlike the new 2020 study, the 2007 researchers interviewed the 50% of young men (average age 29) who mysteriously weren’t becoming aroused by test porn in the lab, and hypothesized that increasing exposure to porn was the likely cause. The scientists explained that the men frequented bars where porn had become omnipresent. Excerpt from the 2007 study:

When we applied this design (with the two types of sexual film, distraction and performance demand) to this new sample, however, we encountered another unanticipated, yet intriguing, phenomenon. Twelve men, or almost 50% of the first 25 subjects (mean age = 29 years), did not respond to the sexual stimuli (i.e., penile rigidity of less than 5% to the noncoercive film clips; 8 men had 0% rigidity). This is, to our knowledge, one of the few psychophysiological studies in which men participated who were recruited from the community–in our case, from bath houses, STD clinics, bars, and so on.

In some of these venues, sexual stimuli (including video screens) are omnipresent, and this, in combination with comments from participants about the lack of more interesting, specialized (“niche”), or more extreme or “kinky” stimuli, made us consider the possibility that the unusually high rate of nonresponders could be related to high levels of exposure to and experience with sexually explicit materials.

Difference #2 – the 2007 study determined porn use was cause!

The researchers also noted that, “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 increased need for novelty, variation.”

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.

Difference#3 -2007 study added a 2nd experiment based on porn-induced low arousal.

The researchers even added a second experiment to take into account porn-induced low arousal. The second experiment included newer, longer, more varied clips, and allowed subjects to choose clips themselves. Still many didn’t respond!

We redesigned the study and decided to eliminate the distraction and performance demand manipulations and to include newer, more varied clips, as well as some longer film clips. Also, instead of presenting subjects with a set of preselected (“researcher-selected”) videos only, we let them choose two clips themselves from a set of 10, of which 10-second previews were shown and that included a wider range of sexual behaviors (e.g., group sex, interracial sex, S & M, etc.). We recruited an additional 51 subjects and found that with the improved design still 20 men, or approximately 25%, did not respond well to the sexual video clips (penile rigidity of less than 10% in response to the long self-selected film).

The 2007 experiments assessed “low responders” individually, and reported that: “the analyses suggested that as the number of erotic films seen within the past year increased a participant was more likely to be classified as a low responder.”

Difference#4 – 2007 study did not assess hypersexuality

The 2007 experiments did not assess hypersexuality. The 2020 study did, and compared a hypersexuality group to controls. (Yet there was no individual assessment of contributing factors to ED, as in 2007). That said, the 2020 hypersexual group had less genital response to porn than control group:

The authors then “controlled” for somewhat arbitrary factors – so as to artificially equalize the responses of the two groups and conclude that the groups did not respond differently from each other. Again predictable, given their pro-porn sympathies.

So, beware of porn shills shrieking untruths. Consider the source, and look carefully at the underlying findings. As is so often the case, the propaganda about this paper does not mirror its actual, inconclusive content.

Introduction

In 2013 former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause began openly harassing, libeling and cyberstalking Gary Wilson. (Prause has not been employed by an academic institution since January, 2015.) Within a short time she also began targeting others, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, a former UCLA colleague, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, NoFap.com, RebootNation, YourBrainRebalanced, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity (See – Numerous Victims of Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process).

While spending her waking hours harassing others, Prause cleverly cultivated – with zero verifiable evidence – a myth that she was “the victim” of most anyone who dared to disagree with her assertions surrounding porn’s effects or the current state of porn research. To counter the ongoing harassment and false claims, YBOP was compelled to document some of Prause’s activities. Consider the following pages. (Additional incidents have occurred that we are not at liberty to divulge – as Prause’s victims fear further retribution.)

• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 2)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 3)
• Nicole Prause & David Ley libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University
• Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted
• Article by University of Wisconsin student newspaper (The Racquet) posts false police report by Nicole Prause (March, 2019)
• Aggressive Trademark Infringement Waged by Porn Addiction Deniers (www.realyourbrainonporn.com)
• RealYourBrainOnPorn tweets: Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause & pro-porn allies create a biased website and social media accounts to support the porn industry agenda (beginning in April, 2019)
• Nicole Prause, David Ley & @BrainOnPorn’s long history of harassing & defaming Alexander Rhodes of NoFap
• Nicole Prause & David Ley commit perjury in Don Hilton defamation lawsuit.

In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts. That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015).

Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause added two media managers/promoters from Media 2×3 to her company’s tiny stable of “Collaborators.” (Media 2×3 president Jess Ponce describes himself as a Hollywood media coach and personal branding expert.) Their job is to place articles in the press featuring Prause, and find her speaking engagements in pro-porn and mainstream venues. Odd tactics for a supposedly impartial scientist.

Prause began to put her name to falsehoods, openly cyber-harassing multiple individuals and organizations on social media and elsewhere. Since Prause’s primary target was Gary Wilson (hundreds of social media comments along with behind the scenes email campaigns), it became necessary to monitor and document Prause’s tweets and posts. This was done for her victims’ protection, and crucial for any future legal actions, which resulted in this extensive page documenting he close relationships with many in the porn industry: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry? Note: within months of that page going live, Prause became embroiled in two defamation lawsuits (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes), a trademark infringement case, and a trademark squatting case.

Exposing Prause claims of victim-hood as the “Big Lie”: She is the perpetrator, not the victim.

1) Gary Wilson “physically stalked” Prause in Los Angeles.

Reality: I haven’t been in Los Angeles in years. Prause provides no documentation for this claim, which she initiated in April, 2013 (see below), and began publicizing in July, 2013 (a few days after I critiqued her EEG study). The only police report made public by Prause (April, 2018) says nothing about me stalking her; it didn’t report any crime. Instead, Prause me reported to the LAPD for attending a German conference, which Prause falsely claimed she wanted to attend (screenshot). It’s true that I traveled to Germany and attended the 2018 5th International Conference on Behavioral Addictions, which ran from April 23-25 (note that Prause filed her police report on April 25th), and features experts on behavioral addictions from all over the world.

The untrue part is Prause’s claim that she ever had any intention of attending the ICBA conference in Germany. Prause has never attended or been invited to present at an ICBA conference. Prause doesn’t believe in behavioral addictions. Throughout her entire career, Prause has waged a war against the concept of behavioral addiction, especially sex and porn addiction. Prause thus filed a false police report.

Important to note that her false accusations of stalking began almost as soon as our paths crossed. In fact, she accused my wife and myself of stalking in an April, 2013 email exchange that occurred a few weeks after I published a response to David Ley’s Psychology Today blog post where Prause and he targeted my website: “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” Ley’s blog was about Nicole Prause’s unpublished, yet to be peer-reviewed EEG study (this was the first I had heard of Prause).

Prause initiated her only contact with me in 2 emails and a comment under my Psychology Today response. Simultaneously, she contacted Psychology Today editors, who forwarded her second email. The following 2 emails are from the end of our brief exchange (screenshots of Prause & Wilson’s entire email exchange):

As you can see, Prause is accusing us of stalking her, although all I did was respond to two emails she sent my way. This is where Prause’s fabricated “stalking” claims began.

Prause initiated her first public “Gary Wilson is a stalker” campaign 3 months later, immediately after I published my critique of Steele et al., 2013, which suggested that she had misrepresented Steele’s actual findings. Prause created numerous aliases to defame me, including this YouTube channel, GaryWilson Stalker. A screenshot of my YouTube inbox from July 26, 2013 reveals Prause’s incessant cyberstalking (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame):

Question: Did I drive 800 miles to Los Angeles on the same day I published my detailed critique to hover around UCLA, or did Prause initiate a fabricated campaign of being stalked on the day after my critique? Let’s go to trial and expose the truth.

2) Dr. Prause requires “armed guards at talks” because Gary Wilson has threatened to attend

Reality: Prause provides no documentation for this absurd claim, which was addressed in this section: 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. While Prause might request armed guards (or ninja warriors), it’s only to preserve her carefully crafted fairy tale of victim-hood. This is empty propaganda by a serial defamer and harasser named in at least 3 lawsuits.

3) Dr. Prause has filed numerous “police & FBI reports” on Gary Wilson

Reality: Starting in July, 2013 (a few days after I published a careful critique of Prause’s first EEG study), various usernames began posting defamatory comments wherever my name appeared. The comments were very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that “Wilson has a police report filed on him,” “Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman,” and “Wilson stole a woman’s pictures and placed them on a porn site,” and “Wilson has been reported to LAPD (which agrees that he’s dangerous) and the UCLA campus police.”

By 2016, as Prause was no longer employed by UCLA or any other institution that could rein in her cyber-harassment, she finally began to identify Gary Wilson as the “person” she had reported to the LAPD and the UCLA campus police. I haven’t been to LA in years. It’s almost 2020, and no law enforcement agency has ever contacted me. (Any harasser can file a fake police report, or misuse the courts)

I presumed that Prause had, in fact, filed fraudulent, groundless reports (which were subsequently disregarded), but it turned out Prause was lying – again. In late 2017 a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a “Gary Wilson,” nor any report filed by a “Nicole Prause.” I created this section to report my findings: Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson.

As chronicled above, I discovered in March of 2019 that Prause had finally filed a fraudulent police report on April 25, 2018. Note that I did not learn of this empty police report from the police. I learned of it a year later, when student journalists (and misinformed Prause devotees) publicly reproduced it online in a university newspaper. It has since been removed by University of Wisconsin authorities.

Prause’s LAPD report was categorized as “cyberstalking”, not physical stalking (I’ve done neither). She didn’t (dare) report any actual crime. Instead, Prause had reported me to the LAPD for:

1. attending a German conference, which Prause falsely claimed she wanted to attend (but didn’t dare because she claimed to be frightened of me). Important to note that Prause could not have known that I was planning to attend (and she filed her police report the day after the conference was over).
2. posting screenshots of her defamatory tweets on my 2 pages chronicling her behaviors (page 1, page 2, page 3), and refusing to remove them in response to her 3 unsuccessful, fraudulent DMCA takedown attempts.

If I have been physically stalking her, why doesn’t any police report describe me as doing so? It’s simple: Prause is afraid of being arrested for knowingly filing a police report falsely accusing me of an actual crime.

Finally, starting in 2018, Prause claimed to have reported both Alex Rhodes and Gary Wilson to the FBI for unspecified misdeeds. Both Rhodes and I filed FOIA requests with the FBI to find out if Prause was telling the truth. She was not. For details see these 2 sections: (1) FBI confirmed that Prause lied about filing an FBI report on Gary Wilson, (2) FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes. The FBI encouraged me to file a report on Prause for lying about filing an FBI report: December, 2018: Gary Wilson files an FBI report on Nicole Prause. It’s conceivable that Prause filed an FBI report after October, 2018, but her 86-page rant doesn’t include an actual FBI report (just a screenshot of a CD, labeled “FBI”).

In 2019, Diana Davison became the first journalist to do an investigation into Prause’s claims of victim-hood. During their week of communications Prause was unable to provide any evidence other than Prause’s silly LAPD of me attending a German conference Prause lied about wanting to attend. Davison’s expose’ is here: The Post Millennial expose’ on Nicole Prause. Diana Davison also produced this 6-minute video about Prause’s fake victim-hood and the defamation lawsuits filed against Prause.

The Diana Davison video provided a link to the timeline of events chronicling Prause’s nearly 7-year campaign of harassment, defamation, threats, and false accusations: VSS Academic War Timeline (Prause got the timeline removed.)

Below are very revealing comments under the Diana Davison video (in response to an obsessive commenter and Prause fan):

———————————

———————————

In the same week, another investigative reporter, Megan Fox of PJ Media, produced a similar article about Nicole Prause: “Alex Rhodes of Porn Addiction Support Group ‘NoFap’ Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation.”

Proving once again that Prause is a pathological liar, media outlet ScramNews was forced to apologize & pay substantial damages for publishing Nicole Prause’s lies about Alex Rhodes & NoFap. Prause fed Scram a pack of lies, which they used in a hit-piece targeting Alex Rhodes and DonorBox (the platform hosting Rhodes’s crowdfunding). Scram printed her unsubstantiated claims of victim-hood at the hands of Alex Rhodes’ and his “followers”. Rhode’s lawsuit caused Scram to go out of business!

4) Gary Wilson has “violated a no-contact order”

Reality: No such order exists. Prause is trying to trick the public into believing that a court has formally sanctioned me, i.e., that she has obtained a restraining order or an injunction. She hasn’t. But that doesn’t stop her from publicly and falsely accusing me and other victims of her malice of “violating no contact orders” and of “harassment.” The clear, and clearly false, implication of her statements is to suggest I and others are acting illegally. Her aggressive tactics and knowingly false accusations are calculated to bully and intimidate the victims of her online cyber-harassment into fear and silence. Two defamation suits have been filed against her. Enough said.

As documented in the very first section of the Prause page, Prause initiated the only email contact with me that ever occurred. This sole email exchange took place in April, 2013 (screenshots of our entire email exchange). While claiming she has obtained a fictitious “no-contact order,” Prause has posted derogatory comments about me hundreds of times on Twitter, Facebook and Quora (page 1, page 2, page 3). In addition, Prause has employed over 100 aliases over the years to defame me and others (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). She has also employed alias email accounts to spread lies about me.

I have only responded to a handful of Prause’s defamatory online attacks, ignoring countless “contacts” from her. For example, in a single 24-hr period Prause posted 10 Quora comments about me – which resulted in her permanent suspension. In another example Prause (using RealYBOP Twitter) posted over 120 tweets about me in a 4-day period (PDF of tweets). A few examples of Prause initiating harassment and defamation followed by claiming victim-hood and ending with claims about her fictitious “no-contact orders”:

• 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)
• July, 2016: Prause falsely accuses @PornHelp.org of harassment, libel, and promoting hate
• October, 2016: Prause commits perjury attempting to silence Nofap’s Alexander Rhodes
• Ongoing – Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters (Linda Hatch, Rob Weiss, Gabe Deem, Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Alex Rhodes, etc.)

5) Gary Wilson has employed misogynistic language to denigrate Dr. Prause

Reality: Absolutely false. Prause and Ley provide only a solitary non-example. I accidentally typed “Miss” Prause in a reply to Dr. Prause asking about the size of my penis. That’s the extent of her evidence of my supposed misogyny. Not kidding.

As explained in this section, when my error occurred on December 18th, 2013 Prause had been on a cyberstalking rampage, posting her falsehoods about the shenanigans of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on forums where my name had appeared. Using fake names, Prause frequently trolls porn recovery forums citing junk science and harassing members who are attempting heal compulsive porn use and/or porn-induced ED. In her CBC comment on YourBrainRebalanced Prause (as RealScience) asks Wilson: “How small IS your penis Gary?”

A screenshot of the above, along my answer where I inadvertently wrote “Miss Prause” in response to her juvenile question about my penis, comprises the “proof” Prause uses to paint me falsely as a misogynist. Here Prause tweets a hard-to-read version of her “RealScience” comment:

Link to my full answer. Portion of my comment where I used “Miss” Prause:

Prause is certainly being sexist when she demands details about the size of my penis. Nevertheless, she has transformed my inadvertently typing “Miss” in my reply to her questions about my manhood into part of her never ending baseless campaign to paint me and others as misogynists. In this section are just a few examples of how Prause has weaponized her bizarre interest in my penis size and my response.

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 the following 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.

It accuses me, my wife, Don Hilton MD, and nofap founder Alexander Rhodes of misogyny with utterly unconvincing “evidence.” Any suggestion that I (or my wife), Hilton, or Rhodes are motivated by misogyny is fabricated, as our 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, as explained above, Prause’s only evidence of misogyny is that I accidentally once wrote “Miss Prause” in response to her childish question about my penis size. Her assertion that my wife is a misogynist is laughable. Her claim that Don Hilton MD called her a “child molester” is yet another lie, as this section fully explains.

She calls Alexander Rhodes a misogynist because he dared to say that I was not ‘physically stalking” her – yet she is the perpetrator, harassing and libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. See documentation: Gabe Deem #1, Gabe Deem #2, Alexander Rhodes #1, Alexander Rhodes #2, Alexander Rhodes #3, Noah Church, Alexander Rhodes #4, Alexander Rhodes #5, Alexander Rhodes #6, Alexander Rhodes #7, Alexander Rhodes #8, Alexander Rhodes #9, Alexander Rhodes #10, Alex Rhodes #11, Gabe Deem & Alex Rhodes together #12, Alexander Rhodes #13, Alexander Rhodes #14, Gabe Deem #4, Alexander Rhodes #15.

Put simply, anyone who exposes Prause’s falsehoods or misrepresentations of the research is automatically labeled “a misogynist,” in hopes that gullible people might believe her defamatory statements. She does this to shut down actual debate on Twitter and other social media platforms, to prevent her falsehoods from being exposed.

It’s ironic that her info-graphic contains four instances of misogyny taken from anonymous YouTube comments under her TEDx talk. In 2013, TED closed comments under Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk in response to Nicole Prause’s many hateful and defamatory comments (see this section).

I look forward to the two defamation lawsuits (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes) going to a jury trial, and to being on the stand to present evidence. I especially look forward to Prause and Ley being forced to provide actual evidence or documentation, rather than the few pieces self-generated bogus “evidence”. I look forward to their cross examination and the two harassers being exposed as the perpetrators, not the victims.

Update (August, 2020): Serial defamer & harasser Nicole Pause loses lawsuits to Gary Wilson; court rulings expose Prause the perpetrator, not the victim.

In August of 2020 court rulings fully exposed Nicole Prause as the perpetrator, not the victim. In March of 2020, Prause sought a groundless temporary restraining order (TRO) against me using fabricated “evidence” and her usual lies (falsely accusing me of stalking). In Prause’s request for the restraining order she perjured herself, saying I posted her address on YBOP and Twitter (perjury is nothing new with Prause). I filed an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Prause for misusing the legal system (TRO) to silence and harass me. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). Prause lied throughout her fraudulent TRO, providing zero verifiable evidence to support her outlandish claims that I stalked or harassed her. In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully me into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay my attorney fees.

Introduction

On May 8, 2019 Donald Hilton, MD filed a defamation per se lawsuit against Nicole Prause & Liberos LLC. On July 24, 2019 Donald Hilton amended his defamation complaint to highlight (1) a malicious Texas Board of Medical Examiners complaint, (2) false accusations that Dr. Hilton had falsified his credentials, and (3) affidavits from 9 other Prause victims of similar harassment (Gary Wilson, John Adler, MD, Alexander Rhodes, Staci Sprout, LICSW, Linda Hatch, PhD, Bradley Green, PhD, Stefanie Carnes, PhD, Geoff Goodman, PhD, Laila Haddad.)

On September 13, 2019 Prause filed 2 documents as part of a failed attempt to have Hilton’s defamation lawsuit dismissed. (She had previously filed numerous documents to dismiss Hilton’s case. These were “extras,” filed without the Court’s leave.)

• A 12-page motion to dismiss focused only on a statute that does not apply in Federal Court (where she had had the case transferred) called SLAPP. This motion does not mention me (why would it?).
• An 86-page tirade focused largely on Gary Wilson, and not at all on her actual Motion to Dismiss argument (SLAPP).

The 86-page collection of falsehoods and fairy tales contains 220 instances of “Wilson,” far more than the number of times Plaintiff Hilton’s name appears (the suit is between Hilton and Prause)! That’s right. The Hilton lawsuit has nothing to with me. Whether Gary Wilson is a saint or a serial killer has no bearing on Prause making false allegations to the Texas Medical Board, two journals, and the University of Texas San Antonio. The clear purpose of Prause’s irrelevant and defamatory 86-page rant is to create a document that may help to “legitimize” her victim-hood to the court, the public and the media.

Prause’s 86-page rant contains numerous lies by both David Ley and Prause. Both commit perjury throughout this declaration, spewing the same disproven lies that they have initiated and spread over the last 7 years. Nearly every assertion about me in the 86-page document has already been addressed and exposed as false or hopelessly misleading. See these extensive pages:

• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (page 2)
• Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 3)
• Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process
• Nicole Prause & David Ley libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University
• Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted
• Article by University of Wisconsin student newspaper (The Racquet) posts false police report by Nicole Prause (March, 2019)
• Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause) defamation/harassment of Gary Wilson: They “discover” fake porn URLs in the Internet Wayback Archive (August, 2019)
• RealYourBrainOnPorn tweets: Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause & pro-porn allies create a biased website and social media accounts to support the porn industry agenda (beginning in April, 2019)
• Nicole Prause, David Ley & @BrainOnPorn’s long history of harassing & defaming Alexander Rhodes of NoFap
• NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos

As documented, Prause has targeted others, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, colleagues from her fleeting stint at UCLA, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. There are several additional victims whom we are not at liberty to divulge – as Prause’s victims fear further retribution.

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 the above pages. Her fabricated claims about being a victim of “stalking” or misogyny from “anti-porn activists” lack one iota of objective evidence. All the evidence she provides is self-generated: a single info-graphic, a few emails from her to others describing supposed harassment, and spurious cease and desist letters containing false allegations. You will also see evidence of a number of formal complaints Prause has filed with various regulatory agencies – which have been summarily dismissed or investigated and dismissed. She seems to file these baseless complaints so she can then claim her targets are all “under investigation.”

On the other hand, Prause’s Twitter feed alone once contained hundreds of libelous and inaccurate tweets targeting me and many others (Prause has since deleted over 3,000 tweets). Put simply, Prause has created a mythology with zero verifiable evidence. Moreover, she is closely aligned with the pornography industry, as can be seen from this image of her (far right) on the red carpet of the 2016 X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony. It also appears that Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through the porn industry’s lobbying arm, the Free Speech Coalition. The allegedly FSC-supplied porn stars (screenshot) were used in Prause’s study of the heavily tainted and very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation.” While the study was originally funded to explore only the benefits of “Orgasmic Meditation,” Prause soon began crowing that her yet to be published OM study also “falsified” porn and sex addiction (even though the study had nothing to do with porn).

Conflicts of interest (COI) are nothing new for David Ley. Lawyers pay him to “debunk” sex and porn addiction; he sells two books “debunking” sex and porn addiction; and he collects speaking fees for “debunking” sex and porn addiction. In his most blatant financial conflict of interest to date, Ley is being compensated by porn industry giant xHamster to promote its website (i.e. StripChat), and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths. Ley claims to be telling xHamster customers what “medical studies truly say about porn, camming and sexuality.” Spreading the love around, Pornhub (owned by porn giant MindGeek) is one of the five back-cover endorsements listed for Ley’s 2016 book about porn “Ethical Porn for Dicks.”

In summary, Prause and Ley are very tight with the porn industry and have plenty of motivation to defame and harass anyone pointing out the possible harms of internet porn (and to commit perjury?). For much more documentation see: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

Prause’s fabrications of victim-hood exposed as groundless: she is the perpetrator, not the victim

Prause’s 86-page rant contains virtually no evidence for any of her assertions. Mostly it’s just Prause and Ley declaring “truths,” while providing zero supporting evidence. The rare instances of “evidence” usually involve irrelevant screenshots or self-generated materials (like her false 2018 police report, which was ignored by the LAPD). Since many of the Prause and Ley assertions revolve around their mythology of being victimized by “anti-porn activists,” I debunk their fabrications below (and supply additional evidence under each specific claim):

1) Gary Wilson “physically stalked” Prause in Los Angeles.

Reality: I haven’t been in Los Angeles in years. Prause provides no documentation for this claim, which she initiated in April, 2013 (see below), and began publicizing in July, 2013 (a few days after I critiqued her EEG study). The only police report made public by Prause (April, 2018) says nothing about me stalking her; it didn’t report any crime. Instead, Prause me reported to the LAPD for attending a German conference, which Prause falsely claimed she wanted to attend (screenshot). It’s true that I traveled to Germany and attended the 2018 5th International Conference on Behavioral Addictions, which ran from April 23-25 (note that Prause filed her police report on April 25th), and features experts on behavioral addictions from all over the world. The untrue part is Prause’s claim that she ever had any intention of attending the ICBA conference in Germany. Prause has never attended or been invited to present at an ICBA conference. Prause doesn’t believe in behavioral addictions. Throughout her entire career, Prause has waged a war against the concept of behavioral addiction, especially sex and porn addiction. Prause thus filed a false police report.

Important to note that her false accusations of stalking began almost as soon as our paths crossed. In fact, she accused my wife and myself of stalking in an April, 2013 email exchange that occurred a few weeks after I published a response to David Ley’s Psychology Today blog post where Prause and he targeted my website: “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” Ley’s blog was about Nicole Prause’s unpublished, yet to be peer-reviewed EEG study (this was the first I had heard of Prause).

Prause initiated her only contact with me in 2 emails and a comment under my Psychology Today response. Simultaneously, she contacted Psychology Today editors, who forwarded her second email. The following 2 emails are from the end of our brief exchange (screenshots of Prause & Wilson’s entire email exchange):

As you can see, Prause is accusing us of stalking her, although all I did was respond to two emails she sent my way. This is where Prause’s fabricated “stalking” claims began.

Prause initiated her first public “Gary Wilson is a stalker” campaign 3 months later, immediately after I published my critique of Steele et al., 2013, which suggested that she had misrepresented Steele’s actual findings. Prause created numerous aliases to defame me, including this YouTube channel, GaryWilson Stalker. A screenshot of my YouTube inbox from July 26, 2013 reveals Prause’s incessant cyberstalking (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame):

Question: Did I drive 800 miles to Los Angeles on the same day I published my detailed critique to hover around UCLA, or did Prause initiate a fabricated campaign of being stalked on the day after my critique? Let’s go to trial and expose the truth.

2) Dr. Prause requires “armed guards at talks” because Gary Wilson has threatened to attend

Reality: Prause provides no documentation for this absurd claim, which was addressed in this section: 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. While Prause might request armed guards (or ninja warriors), it’s only to preserve her carefully crafted fairy tale of victim-hood. This is empty propaganda by a serial defamer and harasser named in 3 lawsuits.

3) Dr. Prause has filed numerous “police & FBI reports” on Gary Wilson

Reality: Starting in July, 2013 (a few days after I published a careful critique of Prause’s first EEG study), various usernames began posting defamatory comments wherever my name appeared. The comments were very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that “Wilson has a police report filed on him,” “Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman,” and “Wilson stole a woman’s pictures and placed them on a porn site,” and “Wilson has been reported to LAPD (which agrees that he’s dangerous) and the UCLA campus police.”

By 2016, as Prause was no longer employed by UCLA or any other institution that could rein in her cyber-harassment, she finally began to identify Gary Wilson as the “person” she had reported to the LAPD and the UCLA campus police. I haven’t been to LA in years. It’s almost 2020, and no law enforcement agency has ever contacted me. (Any harasser can file a fake police report.)

I presumed that Prause had, in fact, filed fraudulent, groundless reports (which were subsequently disregarded), but it turned out Prause was lying – again. In late 2017 a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a “Gary Wilson,” nor any report filed by a “Nicole Prause.” I created this section to report my findings: Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson.

As chronicled above, I discovered in March of 2019 that Prause had finally filed a fraudulent police report on April 25, 2018. Note that I did not learn of this empty police report from the police. I learned of it a year later, when student journalists (and misinformed Prause devotees) publicly reproduced it online in a university newspaper. It has since been removed by University of Wisconsin authorities.

Prause’s LAPD report was categorized as “cyberstalking”, not physical stalking (I’ve done neither). She didn’t (dare) report any actual crime. Instead, Prause had reported me to the LAPD for:

1. 1. attending a German conference, which Prause falsely claimed she wanted to attend (but didn’t dare because she claimed to be frightened of me). Important to note that Prause could not have known that I was planning to attend (and she filed her police report the day after the conference was over).
   2. posting screenshots of her defamatory tweets on my 2 pages chronicling her behaviors (page 1, page 2), and refusing to remove them in response to her 3 unsuccessful, fraudulent DMCA takedown attempts.

If I have been physically stalking her, why doesn’t any police report describe me as doing so? It’s simple: Prause is afraid of being arrested for knowingly filing a police report falsely accusing me of an actual crime.

Finally, starting in 2018, Prause claimed to have reported both Alex Rhodes and Gary Wilson to the FBI for unspecified misdeeds. Both Rhodes and I filed FOIA requests with the FBI to find out if Prause was telling the truth. She was not. For details see these 2 sections: (1) FBI confirmed that Prause lied about filing an FBI report on Gary Wilson, (2) FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes. The FBI encouraged me to file a report on Prause for lying about filing an FBI report: December, 2018: Gary Wilson files an FBI report on Nicole Prause. It’s conceivable that Prause filed an FBI report after October, 2018, but her 86-page rant doesn’t include an actual FBI report (just a screenshot of a CD, labeled “FBI”).

In 2019, Diana Davison became the first journalist to do an investigation into Prause’s claims of victim-hood. During their week of communications Prause was unable to provide any evidence other than Prause’s silly LAPD of me attending a German conference Prause lied about wanting to attend. Davison’s expose’ is here: The Post Millennial expose’ on Nicole Prause. Diana Davison also produced this 6-minute video about Prause’s fake victim-hood and the defamation lawsuits filed against Prause.

The Diana Davison video provided a link to the timeline of events chronicling Prause’s nearly 7-year campaign of harassment, defamation, threats, and false accusations: VSS Academic War Timeline (Prause got the timeline removed.)

Below are very revealing comments under the Diana Davison video (in response to an obsessive commenter and Prause fan):

———————————

———————————

In the same week, another investigative reporter, Megan Fox of PJ Media, produced a similar article about Nicole Prause: “Alex Rhodes of Porn Addiction Support Group ‘NoFap’ Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation.”

4) Gary Wilson has “violated a no-contact order”

Reality: No such order exists. Prause is trying to trick the public into believing that a court has formally sanctioned me, i.e., that she has obtained a restraining order or an injunction. She hasn’t. But that doesn’t stop her from publicly and falsely accusing me and other victims of her malice of “violating no contact orders” and of “harassment.” The clear, and clearly false, implication of her statements is to suggest I and others are acting illegally. Her aggressive tactics and knowingly false accusations are calculated to bully and intimidate the victims of her online cyber-harassment into fear and silence. Two defamation suits have been filed against her. Enough said.

As documented in the very first section of the Prause page, Prause initiated the only email contact with me that ever occurred. This sole email exchange took place in April, 2013 (screenshots of our entire email exchange). While claiming she has obtained a fictitious “no-contact order,” Prause has posted derogatory comments about me hundreds of times on Twitter, Facebook and Quora (page 1, page 2). In addition, Prause has employed over 100 aliases over the years to defame me and others (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). She has also employed alias email accounts to spread lies about me.

I have only responded to a handful of Prause’s defamatory online attacks, ignoring countless “contacts” from her. For example, in a single 24-hr period Prause posted 10 Quora comments about me – which resulted in her permanent suspension. In another example Prause (using RealYBOP Twitter) posted over 120 tweets about me in a 4-day period (PDF of tweets). A few examples of Prause initiating harassment and defamation followed by claiming victim-hood and ending with claims about her fictitious “no-contact orders”:

• • 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)
  • July, 2016: Prause falsely accuses @PornHelp.org of harassment, libel, and promoting hate
  • October, 2016: Prause commits perjury attempting to silence Nofap’s Alexander Rhodes
  • Ongoing – Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters (Linda Hatch, Rob Weiss, Gabe Deem, Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Alex Rhodes, etc.)

5) Gary Wilson has employed misogynistic language to denigrate Dr. Prause

Reality: Absolutely false. Prause and Ley provide only a solitary non-example. I accidentally typed “Miss” Prause in a reply to Dr. Prause asking about the size of my penis. That’s the extent of her evidence of my supposed misogyny. Not kidding.

As explained in this section, when my error occurred on December 18th, 2013 Prause had been on a cyberstalking rampage, posting her falsehoods about the shenanigans of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on forums where my name had appeared. Using fake names, Prause frequently trolls porn recovery forums citing junk science and harassing members who are attempting heal compulsive porn use and/or porn-induced ED. In her CBC comment on YourBrainRebalanced Prause (as RealScience) asks Wilson: “How small IS your penis Gary?”

A screenshot of the above, along my answer where I inadvertently wrote “Miss Prause” in response to her juvenile question about my penis, comprises the “proof” Prause uses to paint me falsely as a misogynist. Here Prause tweets a hard-to-read version of her “RealScience” comment:

Link to my full answer. Portion of my comment where I used “Miss” Prause:

Prause is certainly being sexist when she demands details about the size of my penis. Nevertheless, she has transformed my inadvertently typing “Miss” in my reply to her questions about my manhood into part of her never ending baseless campaign to paint me and others as misogynists. In this section are just a few examples of how Prause has weaponized her bizarre interest in my penis size and my response.

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 the following 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.

It accuses me, my wife, Don Hilton MD, and nofap founder Alexander Rhodes of misogyny with utterly unconvincing “evidence.” Any suggestion that I (or my wife), Hilton, or Rhodes are motivated by misogyny is fabricated, as our 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, as explained above, Prause’s only evidence of misogyny is that I accidentally once wrote “Miss Prause” in response to her childish question about my penis size. Her assertion that my wife is a misogynist is laughable. Her claim that Don Hilton MD called her a “child molester” is yet another lie, as this section fully explains. She calls Alexander Rhodes a misogynist because he dared to say that I was not ‘physically stalking” her – yet she is the perpetrator, harassing and libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. See documentation: Gabe Deem #1, Gabe Deem #2, Alexander Rhodes #1, Alexander Rhodes #2, Alexander Rhodes #3, Noah Church, Alexander Rhodes #4, Alexander Rhodes #5, Alexander Rhodes #6, Alexander Rhodes #7, Alexander Rhodes #8, Alexander Rhodes #9, Alexander Rhodes#10, Alex Rhodes#11, Gabe Deem & Alex Rhodes together#12, Alexander Rhodes#13, Alexander Rhodes #14, Gabe Deem#4, Alexander Rhodes #15.

Put simply, anyone who exposes Prause’s falsehoods or misrepresentations of the research is automatically labeled “a misogynist,” in hopes that gullible people might believe her defamatory statements. She does this to shut down actual debate on Twitter and other social media platforms, to prevent her falsehoods from being exposed.

It’s ironic that her info-graphic contains four instances of misogyny taken from anonymous YouTube comments under her TEDx talk. In 2013, TED closed comments under Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk in response to Nicole Prause’s many hateful and defamatory comments (see this section).

Prause & Ley’s 86-page diatribe (filed in Dr. Hilton’s defamation suit against Dr. Prause) includes claims of misogyny, yet fails to provide a single documented instance of misogyny by Don Hilton or any of the 9 people who filed sworn affidavits.

I look forward to the Hilton defamation lawsuit going to a jury trial, and to being on the stand to present evidence. I especially look forward to Prause and Ley being forced to provide actual evidence or documentation, rather than the few pieces self-generated “evidence” found her 86-page defamatory rant. I look forward to their cross examination.

Below are excerpts from the 86-page diatribe that refer to me (in maroon). For each Prause or Ley assertion I point out their lies (perjury), expose their so-called evidence (or lack thereof), and provide the truth.

---

PRAUSE: “Hilton and Stalker Gary Wilson insisting to reporter Prause attended porn awards she did not attend”

In her filings Prause perjures herself on numerous occasions by claiming she has never attended a porn awards show. For example, see this image of her (far right) on the red carpet of the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony (June 22, 2016). According to Wikipedia, “The XRCO Awards are given by the American X-Rated Critics Organization annually to people working in adult entertainment and it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry members.^“[1] (Note: throughout her libelous filing Prause refers to Alexander Rhodes and me as “Stalkers.”)

Context: It’s important to know that much of Prause’s “justification” for defaming Don Hilton arises from Hilton stating that Prause attended porn-industry awards (which Prause denies). Because Prause and Ley chronically cite Hilton’s religious faith as disqualifying him from commenting on science, Hilton (the author of multiple peer-reviewed papers) felt it was necessary to point out their biases (in hopes of refocusing the debate on the research evidence). While thousands of social media postings substantiate Prause’s pro-porn biases, Hilton chose a time-saving route in his presentations: tweets of Prause attending porn industry awards or indicating she had or would attend in the future (the screenshots were obtained from this page: Evidence that Nicole Prause attends porn industry awards (XRCO, AVN)).

Chad Sokol and my email: This brings us to reporter Chad Sokol and his biased article about a February 23, 2019 conference on the harms of porn held at Gonzaga University. In his interviews with some of the presenters (such as Don Hilton) it became apparent that Sokol had already spoken with David Ley and Nicole Prause (and Prause co-author Cameron Staley). Sokol was clearly on the side of the latter and had been prepared with Prause-generated materials and talking points.

In conversations with Hilton, Sokol parroted Prause, suggesting that Hilton’s religious faith skewed his views, making him biased. If bias (not the research) was Sokol’s primary concern, Hilton wondered if Sokol might be willing to examine evidence of Prause and Ley’s biases. This resulted in Sokol receiving evidence of Prause’s pro-porn biases: this page – Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry? – and this email from me to Don Hilton (which was forwarded to Sokol, who forwarded it to Prause): Email from Gary Wilson to Donald Hilton, which was forwarded to reporter Chad Sokol (2/21/2019). The screenshots in my email reveal that Prause:

1. attended 2016 X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony (PDF: XRCO 2016)
2. stated she had attended AVN in 2015 (PDF: AVN 2015)
3. planned to attend AVN in 2019 (PDF: AVN 2019)

Prause lies about what the screenshots reveal: Throughout her filings, Prause asserts that:

1. she never attended the AVN (even though she tweeted she had and tweeted “should” and “would“)
2. the tweet of her on the 2016 XRCO red carpet (June 22, 2016) was really taken at the premier of the documentary film “After Porn Ends 2” (Untrue, as the latter premiered on March 28, 2017 – oops!)

Prause’s false account from her Motion to Dismiss:

PRAUSE: In February 2019, I received calls and emails from Chad Sokol, a reporter with the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, WA, asking me to comment on statements that Dr. Hilton had made to Sokol for a potential news article in this publication. According to Sokol, Dr. Hilton had stated that I had attended the Adult Video News Awards. Sokol also forwarded a photograph, which he stated Dr. Hilton proved I was at the Adult Industry News awards. I informed Sokol that I have never attended the Adult Video Awards. I informed Mr. Sokol that the photograph was actually taken at the premier of the documentary film “After Porn Ends 2”

Actually, it was not an AVN award ceremony, but rather an X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) award ceremony. Prause lied when she stated that the following photograph was “actually taken at the premier of the documentary film After Porn Ends 2.“ It is a screenshot of the June 22, 2016 tweet: X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony (notice XRCO on the backdrop):

Watch this 20-minute video of the 2016 XRCO awards (pretty racy). Prause can be seen around the 6:10 mark sitting at a table with porn star buddy Melissa Hill.

If there’s any doubt, this page on XBIZ announced the 2016 XRCO Awards Winners. There was no category for documentaries, nor for any non-porn film. Put simply, “After Porn Ends 2” would not have been up for any award even it had been released. It had not. “After Porn Ends 2” wasn’t released until nearly a year later on March 28, 2017. Check out AVN’s coverage of the “After Porn Ends 2” screening on March 23, 2017. Prause is also featured in a few photos, none of which were sent to Chad Sokol (and weren’t on YBOP at the time of the Chad Sokol email):

Prause perjured herself.

What about Prause’s claim that she never attended AVN? In a June, 2015 tweet Prause describes hearing Jeanne Silver’s (a porn star) story “at AVN” (we could assume the Adult Video News Awards):

Is Prause lying in the above tweet or lying in her affidavit?

A second tweet indicating AVN attendance: near the end of the following back and forth Prause appears, saying she plans to attend AVN. Trolling a PornHarms thread, Prause offers free t-shirts to others willing to troll with her. The t-shirts are a tasteless parody of the FTND ‘porn kills love’ t-shirts. The 3 winners are porn stars!

One of the porn stars (Avalon) is from Australia. She tells Prause that it’s too expensive to ship a t-shirt to her. Prause asks Avalon if she would like to pick up her t-shirt at “the AVN.” The only logical conclusion is that Prause will be attending AVN awards, the AVN EXPO, or both.

Avalon tells Prause to have an amazing time at the AVN.

Prause is caught in yet another falsehood. Cross-examination on this one should be illuminating.

Even though Hilton’s contention is that Prause attended porn-industry awards (XRCO), or tweeted she had attended (2015 AVN), or might attend (2019 AVN), Prause has now enlisted porn-industry allies to debunk her straw man/false claim that Hilton said she is financially supported by the porn industry (he never said that). On November, 24, 2019 she tweeted the following:

It’s fascinating that major players in the porn industry are at her beck and call. Yet, what does this have to do with Hilton’s lawsuit or his statements that Prause attended the 2016 XRCO awards? Nothing. Nevertheless, Prause obtained a rather humorous email from Bob and XRCO. Prause’s tweet (from a string of unhinged tweets threatening The Post Millennial):

The screenshot from that tweet:

Oops. Bob said Prause attended the 2016 XRCO awards (the photo sent to Chad Sokol). Prause caught herself committing perjury.

In the same thread where she lobbed threats, Prause tweeted an email from the folks at AVN:

How does the AVN email “prove” Prause never attended AVN? It says “I have no record of who may have purchased tickets to either show.”

So AVN has “no record of who purchased tickets,” and we have Prause tweeting that she heard Jeanne’s story at AVN. Does this remind you of a dog chasing its tail?

---

PRAUSE: 15. When I became aware of Hilton’s communications with journalist Chad Sokol, I learned that Hilton was working with Gary Wilson. Although Hilton claims he does not follow me on social media, it appears that Hilton obtained the photographs that from Gary Wilson. A reverse Google image search shows the exact images provided in this lawsuit were provided by Gary Wilson from his website yourbrainonporn.com. In his statement, Hilton admits that he obtained my old tweets from Wilson. Wilson also posts extensive false claims that I am in pornography. For example, Wilson falsely claims, that I write for a pornographic website hosted by Mike South, whom I actually do not know. See South Email Correspondence, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(L).

Prause simply lies when she asserts that Gary Wilson said she works in porn or has appeared in porn.

PRAUSE: “Wilson also posts extensive false claims that I am in pornography.”

No evidence provided by Prause. Exhibit L is a two-sentence irrelevant email from Chad Sokol.

I have never said that Prause is “in pornography,” and she provides no documentation that I have. For over 4 years Prause has falsely claimed that I and many others (including Hilton) have said she “works in porn.” Several of Prause’s spurious cease & desist letters make this same unsupported claim, yet she provides no examples of any person saying this: Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters (Linda Hatch, Rob Weiss, Gabe Deem, Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Alex Rhodes, etc.).

In fact, all four assertions in the following 2015 C&D letter are false (Prause provided no documentation to support these claims):

I wrote the following letter asking both Prause and her lawyer to provide evidence to support their allegations:

In the intervening 4+ years neither Prause nor the lawyer has responded. Neither has provided any evidence to support Prause’s allegations – because the allegations are fabricated. Prause’s legal filings repeat this false claim, yet provide zero examples of Hilton or me saying she works “in porn.” As for what I actually say about Prause’s very cozy relationship with the porn industry, see Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry? The page has a section addressing this particular lie: Falsely accusing others of saying the porn industry funds some of her research. Moreover, YBOP explicitly states the following:

Again, no one has claimed Prause receives direct funding from the FSC or the “porn industry.” In fact, it seems most unlikely that the FSC would make any such arrangements directly, let alone make them public, even if they existed. Nor has anyone stated that Prause is “in the porn industry” or “has, herself, appeared in pornography,” as she falsely asserted in her bogus cease and desist letters, and in her response to Don Hilton, MD’s defamation lawsuit against her.

That said, the Free Speech Coalition allegedly provided subjects for a Prause study that she claims “debunks” porn addiction. If true, this could be a form of compensation.

Second, here’s Prause assertion and related falsehoods/spin:

PRAUSE: “For example, Wilson falsely claims, that I write for a pornographic website hosted by Mike South, whom I actually do not know. See South Email Correspondence, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(L).”

Typical Prause: she is attempting to turn her cyber-stalking and defamation into victim-hood. I never said that Prause “[wrote] for a pornographic website.” I stated, factually, that Prause placed a defamatory article on Mike South’s website (March 5th, 2018). I stand by my claim. The entire story of Prause obtaining my redacted Southern Oregon University employment records, lying that I was fired, and placing my records (along with her lies) on Twitter, Quora and Mike South’s adult industry website is chronicled here: Nicole Prause & David Ley libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University.

Prause omits a few outcomes of her defamatory rampage:

1. Southern Oregon University lawyers got involved, exposing Prause as lying (PDF).
2. Prause was permanently banned from Quora for harassing and defaming Gary Wilson: This PDF contains 19 Prause Quora comments disparaging and defaming me (including 10 comments in a 24-hr period, which led to Quora banning Prause).
3. Prause’s Liberos Twitter account suspended for posting Gary Wilson’s private information in violation of Twitter Rules (Note – Prause’s original Twitter account was permanently deleted for harassment)
4. Her Mike South hit-piece was removed after I tweeted this under South’s post (original url: http://mikesouth.com/scumbags/dr-nicole-prause-destroys-yourbrainonporn-dont-fall-22064/). Mike South hit-piece on WayBack Machine.

Prause’s “evidence” is a solicited email from porn producer Mike South (it contains false information):

The first falsehood is Mike South claiming in July, 2019 that he has never heard of Prause. How can that be when he published her article and tweeted it in March of 2018?

Second falsehood (besides Prause lying about me stalking her) is Prause claiming on July 25, 2019 that I am suing her. I may do so, but I haven’t yet.

Highly unlikely: Prause (not South) claims that the Mike South article was a re-post of her libelous Quora post (the one that got her ultimately banned). She’s claiming that South magically bumped into her Quora post (yeah right). South’s article was posted soon after the Quora mods deleted my employment records and hide Prause’s defamatory post on March 5th.

In addition, the Quora post Mike South supposedly relied on was authored by “VOICE FOR REASON,” whose only Mike South post is the one about me. Moreover, the Mike South article begins with Prause-generated propaganda, not found in her Quora post.

Nicole Prause, Ph.D is an American neuroscientist researching human sexual behavior, addiction, and the physiology of sexual response, as well as a licensed psychologist. In 2013, Prause co-authored a renowned study into the neurophysiology of pornography addiction which concluded that hypersexuality might be better understood as a “non-pathological variation of high sexual desire,” rather than an addiction.

The outspoken Prause and her research have been targeted by Mormon-funded anti-porn groups.

Finally, we have David Ley crowing about (and Prause retweeting it) the Mike South article on social media (how could they both know about it, unless they collaborated with South):

I stand by my claim that Prause was involved in having her defamatory article and my redacted SOU employment records placed on Mike South’s website. In fact, Mike South promptly removed the defamatory article. Let’s see if South is willing to testify, under oath, at Hilton’s defamation trial.

---

PRAUSE: 16. “By working with Wilson and claiming that I am involved in the pornography industry, Hilton knew or should have known that I have been forced to file multiple complaints against Gary Wilson for stalking, harassment, computer intrusion, and criminal threats since 2013. These reports to law enforcement were publicly available, as Gary Wilson posted them on his website www.yourbrainonporn.com, to which Hilton contributes. Although Wilson claims that these reports do not exist and were never filed, I have obtained the reports directly from the FBI. See Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Response for Records of Reports against Gary Wilson and Alexander Rhodes, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(M). Hilton and Wilson also have written and presented together in their anti-pornography activism. Hilton’s collaboration with Wilson, who has physically stalked, cyber stalked and harassed me in the past, caused me to fear that Hilton also intended to harass me further and was supporting Gary Wilson’s escalating behaviors.”

Only evidence provided – a picture of a CD. Not kidding.

Most of the above assertions and lies are addressed in the introduction section and the next section. Since Prause rehashes these very same falsehoods repeatedly throughout her court filing (below), I’ll provide a quick refutation for each:

PRAUSE: “By working with Wilson and claiming that I am involved in the pornography industry, Hilton knew or should have known that I have been forced to file multiple complaints against Gary Wilson for stalking, harassment, computer intrusion, and criminal threats since 2013.”

Prause provides no evidence to suggest that Hilton said she is “involved in the porn industry,” because Hilton has not said this. As for claiming to have filed “multiple complaints against Gary Wilson for stalking, harassment, computer intrusion, and criminal threats,” Prause provides no documentation, only a screen of a CD (huh?):

If Prause has actual police or FBI reports why doesn’t she produce them? Simple: she is either lying about having filed the reports or she is afraid that we will report her to authorities for filing false police reports.

Prause’s supposed reports were addressed in the intro and in the next section. As stated elsewhere, I have never been contacted by any law enforcement agency, and a call in late 2017 to the Los Angeles police and the UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their systems. An FOIA request with the FBI revealed that Prause lied about reporting me (PDF of FOIA request). As a result, I followed the FBI’s advice and reported her to the FBI in December, 2018 (PDF- FBI report on Prause).

PRAUSE: “These reports to law enforcement were publicly available, as Gary Wilson posted them on his website www.yourbrainonporn.com, to which Hilton contributes.”

No evidence provided by Prause. Reports to law enforcement are not publicly available.

Prause is lying, as her claimed police and FBI reports are not publicly available. Only the person who files a police report can obtain it. As chronicled above, I discovered in March of 2019 that Prause had finally filed a fraudulent police report on April 25, 2018 (because it appeared in a student newspaper and was removed in 2 days). Her bogus report didn’t (dare) report any actual crime. Instead, Prause had reported me to the LAPD for attending a German conference, which Prause falsely claimed she had wanted to attend (but didn’t dare because she was purportedly frightened of me). If indeed I have been physically stalking Prause, why isn’t there a police report describing me as doing so? Why didn’t Prause provide copies of the alleged reports in her 86-page diatribe? It’s simple: Prause is afraid of being arrested for knowingly filing a police report falsely accusing me of an actual crime.

As for Don Hilton contributing to www.yourbrainonporn.com, he does not. While YBOP contains a few papers or blog posts by Dr. Hilton, it contains many more articles by Dr. Prause. Does this mean Prause is a YBOP contributor? Hardly.

PRAUSE: “Although Wilson claims that these reports do not exist and were never filed, I have obtained the reports directly from the FBI. See Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Response for Records of Reports against Gary Wilson and Alexander Rhodes, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(M).”

All we have is a picture of a CD (above). Why won’t Prause provide the claimed reports?

PRAUSE: “Hilton and Wilson also have written and presented together in their anti-pornography activism. Hilton’s collaboration with Wilson, who has physically stalked, cyber stalked and harassed me in the past, caused me to fear that Hilton also intended to harass me further and was supporting Gary Wilson’s escalating behaviors.”

No evidence provided by Prause.

Prause’s legal “strategy” is to fabricate victim-hood, so as to avoid discussing the merits of Hilton’s defamation claims. What is true: Hilton and I collaborated with other experts in this field to respond to two Salt Lake Tribune op-eds.

1. Op-ed: Utah students need real sex ed and ‘Fight the New Drug’ (2016)
2. Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016)

In November of 2019, Diana Davison of The Post Millennial published an investigative expose’ on Nicole Prause: “Porn wars get personal in No Nut November.” Prause failed to provide Davison with one iota of evidence to support her stalking allegations (because there is none). Very revealing comments under the Diana Davison video (in response to an obsessive commenter):

After these comments Prause harassed, defamed and threatened Diana Davison (even sending Davison and The Post Millennial a bogus cease & desist letter). [PDF].

A few Diana Davison tweets in response to Prause’s unhinged and threatening tweets:

Why does Twitter allow people who have blocked you to reply to tweets? I've got some nutter (Nicole Prause) falsely accusing me (surprise, surprise) and other people have to tell me what's going on.

— Diana Davison (@d2davison) November 25, 2019

That's some pretty bizarre kind of behaviour for a person who is a therapist.

— Diana Davison (@d2davison) November 25, 2019

It almost seems like she's… stalking me. 🤪

— Diana Davison (@d2davison) November 25, 2019

That she lied about attending the XRCO event and she's threatening to sue people who say they've seen a picture of her there. Also, falsely accusing people of stalking just for doing research and defending themselves.

— Diana Davison (@d2davison) November 25, 2019

So I've just been threatened with a bogus lawsuit for saying things that are provably true. Interesting. For the person issuing this threat: I have an LA lawyer and you'll be hearing from him if you persist in this attempt at silencing my speech.

— Diana Davison (@d2davison) November 26, 2019

To be honest, I kind of feel like I should have an affidavit of being bullied in the lawsuits now. Just got a notice that Prause had my timeline documentation removed from the website that allowed me to track her nefarious activities.

— Diana Davison (@d2davison) December 20, 2019

---

PRAUSE: 17. Wilson has a documented history of stalking me. As a result, I qualified for California’s Safe at Home Program, and solicited a no-contact order against Wilson. Wilson has filed complaints with UCLA regarding me, which UCLA investigated and rejected as false. I have also filed a cyberstalking report with the FBI against Wilson. A chronology of these events is as follows:

No evidence provided by Prause. A garbage pile of fabricated fake victim-hood by the actual perpetrator, Prause.

Again, these are unsupported claims. As exposed in the introductory section (Prause’s fabrications of victim-hood), Prause provides zero evidence to support her stalking claims. As explained in that section:

1. I have not been in LA in over a decade and I have never been contacted by any law enforcement agency (why would they?). In late 2017, a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a Gary Wilson, nor any report filed by a Nicole Prause.
2. Prause’s “no-contact order” is pure fiction: I have never initiated contact with Prause, yet Prause has contacted me hundreds of time on social media (more below).
3. FBI? An FOIA request with the FBI revealed that Prause lied about reporting me: In December of 2018 I filed an FBI report on Nicole Prause for publicly & falsely claiming she had reported me.
4. Our complaint to UCLA was factually accurate and justified (much more on UCLA below). Reality? UCLA did not renew Prause’s contract (late 2014, early 2015). This coincided with Prause harassing and defaming UCLA colleague Rory Reid (Dr. Reid is still at UCLA).

As expanded upon below (and in this section), Prause fabricated her stalking claims (and other false accusations) the day after I published my critique of her work.

I’m really looking forward to a jury trial, testifying under oath to Prause’s litany of falsehoods. Even more, I’m looking forward to Prause being cross-examined and exposed as the perpetrator, not the victim.

PRAUSE: A chronology of these events is as follows:

In each section below I expose Prause’s lies, fabrications, tall-tales and so-called “evidence” (usually no evidence). In doing so I provide documentation that reveals Prause as the harasser and stalker. While a few Prause’s claims may be technically accurate (she asked for security guards at a talk, or someone tried to break into her home), to my knowledge, they are nothing more than Prause fairy-tales of faux victim-hood.

---

PRAUSE: a. April 12, 2013. Following a barrage of emails from Gary Wilson, I instructed him to never contact me again. He has violated this no-contact order at least 50 times.

No evidence provided by Prause. No such order exist, and there was no email barrage. Prause is trying to trick the public into believing that a court has formally sanctioned me, i.e., that she has obtained a restraining order or an injunction. She hasn’t.

Reality: In April, 2013, Prause initiated contact with me via (1) two emails and (2) posting this comment under my Psychology Today blog post. This is the only direct contact I have had with Prause. The entire back and forth is documented in the very first section of the Prause page: 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). The entire “barrage” involved emails initiated by Prause and email replies by me (screenshots of our entire email exchange).

Fabricated “no-contact” orders? While claiming she has obtained a fictitious “no-contact order,” Prause has concurrently posted derogatory comments about me hundreds of times on Twitter, Facebook and Quora (page 1, page 2). In addition, Prause has employed over 100 aliases over the years to defame me and others. She has also employed alias email accounts to spread lies about me. Here I provide examples of aliases Prause has employed to harass, disparage, defame, troll (I am unable to link to the numerous other aliases, such as dozens on Psychology Today, and elsewhere):

YOUTUBE

1. GaryWilson Stalker
2. GaryWilson IsAFraud
3. RealYourBrainOnPorn
4. Truth ShallSetYouFree

TWITTER:

1. https://twitter.com/BrainOnPorn
2. https://twitter.com/CorrectingWils1
3. https://twitter.com/pornhelps

QUORA

1. https://www.quora.com/profile/Gareth-Wilson-22/log
2. https://www.quora.com/profile/Andrew-Blivens/log
3. https://www.quora.com/profile/Ale-Rellini/log

REDDIT

1. https://www.reddit.com/user/SexMythBusters
2. https://www.reddit.com/user/ReadMoreAndMore
3. https://www.reddit.com/user/HeartInternetPorn
4. https://www.reddit.com/user/FightPower
5. https://www.reddit.com/user/DallasLandia
6. https://www.reddit.com/user/CupOJoe2010
7. https://www.reddit.com/user/GaryWilsonPervert
8. https://www.reddit.com/user/GaryWilsonSteas
9. https://www.reddit.com/user/PenisAddict
10. https://www.reddit.com/user/DataScienceLA
11. https://www.reddit.com/user/AskingForProof
12. https://www.reddit.com/user/JumpinJackFlashZ0oom
13. https://www.reddit.com/user/fappygirlmore
14. https://www.reddit.com/user/locuspocuspenisless
15. https://www.reddit.com/user/ijdfgo
16. https://www.reddit.com/user/vnwpwejfb
17. https://www.reddit.com/user/alahewakbear
18. https://www.reddit.com/user/gjacwo
19. http://www.reddit.com/user/SearchingForTruthNot
20. http://www.reddit.com/user/DontDoDallas
21. http://www.reddit.com/user/HighHorseNotOn
22. http://www.reddit.com/user/SoManyMalts
23. https://www.reddit.com/user/TruthWithOut
24. https://www.reddit.com/user/RevealingAll
25. https://www.reddit.com/user/sinwvon
26. https://www.reddit.com/user/sciencearousal

WIKIPEDIA:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ScienceIsForever
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PatriotsAllTheWay
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.168.99.24
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ScienceEditor
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JupiterCrossing
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NotGaryWilson
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Neuro1973
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.194.90.6
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.91.65.30
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/130.216.57.166
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.196.154.4
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Editorf231409
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cash_cat
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TestAccount2018abc
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Suuperon
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NeuroSex
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Defender1984
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OMer1970
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.51.228.245
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/23.243.51.114
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.196.154.4
22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/130.216.57.166
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.129.129.52
24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SecondaryEd2020
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vjardin2
26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.2.36.41
27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikibhw
28. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Baseballreader899
29. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NewsYouCanUse2018
30. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sciencearousal
31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.98.39.36
32. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.15.239.239
33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Turnberry2018
34. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Etta0xtkpiq45ulaey2
35. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anemicdonalda

YOURBRAINREBALANCED.COM (several have been deleted)

1. txfba
2. toiuf (deleted, comments in this thread)
3. TrickyPaladin (deleted, comments in this thread)
4. ERT (deleted, screenshot in this section)
5. TellTheTruth
6. XX-XX
7. RealScience

OTHER SITES

1. https://disqus.com/by/pornhelps/
2. RealScientist
3. Real Science
4. Real Scientist
5. RunningBiker

But there’s more:

• Prause (who appears to manage the RealYBOP Twitter account) posted over 120 tweets about me in a 4-day period (PDF with screenshots of all 120 tweets). As of December, 2019 the recently created RealYBOP has already tweeted ~300 times about me or in my threads.
• This PDF contains 19 Prause Quora comments disparaging and defaming me (including 10 comments in a 24-hr period, which led to Quora banning Prause). PDF also contains comments by 5 Prause aliases used to harass and stalk me.
• And, we have this 80-page PDF of Psychology Today comments by Prause/Prause aliases about Gary Wilson (or under Gary Wilson).

Riddle me this: If Prause is supposedly frightened of me, why has she harassed me on Twitter (over 500 tweets), Facebook, YouTube, Quora, reddit, and Wikipedia with over 1,000 derogatory comments and posts? Why does Prause continue to post tweets in my threads? Why does she