Nicole Prause & David Ley commit perjury in defamation lawsuit (September, 2019)

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:

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. 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”:

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:


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:

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 email my friends and associates? Why did Prause file a trademark application to obtain both YourBrainOnPorn and YourBrainOnPorn.com (my marks), knowing very well she and I would then become embroiled in legal actions, and likely meet in Federal court? Why does Prause keep mentioning me every chance she can (even after she filed the 86-page rant, which this page rebuts)?

Answer: Prause is not afraid because she is the perpetrator, not the victim. The defamation lawsuits will expose this, and so much more.


PRAUSE: b. July 3, 2013. Psychology Today editor Lybi Ma instructed Wilson and his wife Marnia Robinson to stop posting false information about me on their Psychology Today column. Wilson and Robinson posted another defamatory column, so Lybi Ma permanently cancelled their Psychology Today column due to their harassment and libel.

No evidence provided by Prause.

Reality: On March 6th, 2013 David Ley and Nicole Prause teamed up to write a Psychology Today blog post about Steele et al., 2013 called “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 (my website). Prause and Ley were targeting me. Instead, David Ley’s March, 2013 blog post was about Nicole Prause’s unpublished, still to be peer-reviewed EEG study – Steele et al., 2013.

It’s important to note that only Ley received access to Prause’s unpublished study (it was published 5 months later). The blog post linked to Wilson’s ‘Your Brain on Porn’ website, and suggested that YBOP was in favor of banning porn (untrue). I published a Psychology Today blog post responding to the content in the David Ley post. You can find the original Ley and Wilson blog posts archived here. It’s important to note that my blog post clearly states it was only responding to Ley’s description of the Prause study. A month later (April 10th) Psychology Today editors unpublished Ley’s blog post due to controversies surrounding its unsubstantiated claims and Prause’s refusal to provided her unpublished study to anyone else.

The day Steele et al., 2013 and its extensive associated press went public, Ley re-published his blog post. Ley changed the date of his blog post to July 25 2013. Later Nicole Prause would falsely accuse me of misrepresenting her study. In reality, it was Prause who misrepresented her EEG study, falsely claiming that it debunked porn/sex addiction. In the intervening years, eight peer-reviewed critiques of Prause’s EEG study have been published: all 8 agree with my 2013 critique – that Prause’s actual findings support the porn addiction model.

With Prause making numerous threats, and pressure coming from her many allies, Psychology Today did cancel our blog in November of 2013, with no reason given. Lybi Ma had actually liked our posts and Prause never provided a single example of libel in our blog post about Steele et al. That said, Lybi Ma had been telling us for 3 years that she was receiving tremendous pressure about our porn-related blog posts (many are here). In fact, our tenuous position (taking on the porn industry and pro-porn sexologists) was public knowledge. RealYBOP member (and close Prause friend), Jason Winters wrote in 2012 blog post that “Wilson and Robinson were in trouble at PT.”

At the same time that Prause was threatening me and Psychology Today, she forced Psychology Today to remove this second critique of Steele et al., 2013: Misinformed Media Touts Bogus Sex Addiction Study (2013), by Robert Weiss, LCSW & Stefanie Carnes PhD.

According to 8 peer-reviewed papers Prause misrepresented Steele et al., 2013. It was Prause who lied about her study, as the 8 peer-reviewed papers and this professor explain in a July, 2013 comment under a Prause interview. Prause tried to silence her critics, including Don Hilton, who had exposed her falsehoods.


PRAUSE: c. July 22, 2013. Gary Wilson created a Google map from his home address in Ashland, Oregon to drive to my laboratory at UCLA. I contacted police (incident #2013-047636) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). I alerted all of my staff with Wilson’s photo by email to immediately call police if they saw him. I closed the lab for two weeks, instructing my research assistants to work remotely,

No evidence provided by NP. There’s no evidence because she is lying.

I never “created a google map,” and if I had, how would Prause know? Did she hack my computer? Because that’s the only way she could have accessed a “Google map.” Prause worked at UCLA (not the CIA) and her address, office number, phone number and email were available on the UCLA website – as if anyone cares.

While Prause claims to have “closed her lab and sent her assistants home,” she provides no documentation of this alleged occurrence. We seriously question the existence of a Prause only “lab” with paid research assistants at her beckon call. In reality, her “lab” was probably only her office, located in a very large building on the UCLA campus. Her claimed “research assistants” (who were sent home for 2 weeks) are probably just grad students who may occasionally check in with Prause or other researchers (not paid staff in an actual lab).

As elsewhere, Prause provides a case number, yet fails to provide a copy of her claimed incident report. While any harasser can file a fraudulent police report, a 2017 a call to the LAPD and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a “Gary Wilson,” nor any report filed by a “Nicole Prause.” If Prause had filed a report, it was ignored by UCLA.

What happened on July 22, 2013 (the day before Prause’s fraudulent police report)? David Ley re-published his factually inaccurate blog post and I published my extensive critique of Steele et al: UCLA’s SPAN Lab Touts Empty Porn Study As Ground-Breaking (critique of Steele et al. 2013). It was my critique that caused Prause to go off the rails, harassing and defaming me on multiple fronts and with various aliases (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).

On or about July 22, not only did Prause threaten Psychology Today and lie about my critique, she:

  1. forced Psychology Today to remove another critical blog post by Rob Weiss and Stefanie Carnes (Prause subsequently defamed & harassed both on numerous occasions. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 )
  2. created several aliases to harass and defame me on YouTube and porn-recovery forums (e.g. GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud). See PDF
  3. retaliated against John A Johnson PhD for exposing her misrepresentations of Steele et al., 2013
  4. used multiple aliases to post defamatory or factually inaccurate comments on Psychology Today
  5. claimed to have filed a police report on me (there’s no evidence she did)

All in a day’s work, and designed to punish critics (hoping to inhibit further criticism) and to create a fabricated trail of victim-hood.


PRAUSE: e. July 24, 2013-August 3, 2013. Wilson posted a private photograph of me on his website that required three DMCA notices to have removed, as he kept migrating the image each time it was legally removed.

No evidence provided by NP. Prause falsehoods: 1) The picture of Prause wasn’t a private photo, as it was on a UCLA-designated website, 2) I did not migrate the image anywhere.

Here’s the reality: I wrote this Psychology Today blog post about this Nicole Prause Psychology Today interview (which contains a picture of Prause). Psychology Today required at least one picture (all of my Psychology Today articles contained pictures). Since this blog post was about Nicole Prause’s interview and her EEG study (Steele et al., 2o13), it seemed appropriate to use a picture of Prause from what purported to be a UCLA website. The picture that accompanied my Psychology Today blog post was also used with this same article on YBOP.

The photo of Prause came from what I reasonably assumed was a UCLA website – SPAN Lab – and it was apparently the photo Prause had chosen to represent herself. Everything about SPAN Lab’s website gave the impression it was owned and run by UCLA. At the bottom each SPAN Lab page was the following:

Copyright © 2007-2013 SPAN Lab, All Rights Reserved University of California, Department of Psychiatry, Los Angeles, CA 90024

Note: Prause has forbidden the “Internet WayBack Machine” from showing SPAN Lab’s archive pages, so as to conceal this fact. A screenshot of the SPAN Lab front page from August, 2013:

It is still unclear how Prause could claim copyright of a photo that was on a website that claimed its copyright was owned by UCLA. UCLA is a California state school answering to taxpayers. Presumably, its images are public. Many months later when I wrote UCLA concerning Prause’s libelous PDF, UCLA stated that SPAN Lab was Prause’s site, and not on UCLA servers(!). Why did Prause misrepresent her website as being owned by UCLA? That was the first time I learned this. Undisputed fact: Prause never contacted me to request that her picture be removed from the blog post. I knew nothing until Prause filed a DMCA request, and I found the picture missing from the article critiquing Prause’s interview and study.

So, that’s the “stolen photo’s” claim: A single picture, selected by Prause herself, from (what appeared to be) a UCLA website (but turned out to be misrepresented by Prause as a UCLA website), was used in an article about a study published and promoted by UCLA & Nicole Prause. The “porn site” was YourBrainOnPorn, a claim that is laughable, as YBOP is a porn recovery support website without X-rated content.

Addendum: In 2016, Prause falsely claimed in an AmazonAWS PDF that I migrated the picture of Prause (and the associated article) to other servers. This is completely false. The picture of Prause accompanied a single critique that appeared on two separate websites, PornStudySkeptics and YourBrainOnPorn.com. These two identical articles have remained on those two websites since July, 2013: Article 1, Article 2. In her PDF, Prause also claims that [my] ISP told [me] that they would “close his website if he did it a fourth time.” This is fabricated nonsense.

To summarize July, 2013:

  1. Dozens of comments containing false statements arrived a few days after I published Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab’s New Porn Study.
  2. Most of these comments falsely claimed that I “stole” and placed Prause’s picture on a pornographic website.
  3. Prause never contacted me about the picture.
  4. Prause filed a DMCA take down about her picture, taken from a public website labeled “copyright UCLA,” which forced the company hosting YBOP to remove the picture without first contacting me.
  5. Similar groundless comments continue to be posted to this day by Prause sockpuppets, and by Prause, on her Twitter, Quora, and Facebook accounts. The comments are often identical to the July, 2013 “anonymous” comments.

PRAUSE: d. July 30, 2013. Gary Wilson and his wife sent nearly 100-page complaint about me to UCLA. UCLA was unable to verify any of their claims and dismissed it.

No evidence provided by NP. Prause is lying.

While we wrote UCLA on July 22, 2013 concerning Prause’s harassment, threats and removal of our Psychology Today blog post, our email was only 2 pages long. More importantly, our email was factually accurate and justified (it is reproduced below).

Important to know that we emailed UCLA a few days prior to Prause employing numerous online aliases to harass and defame me (July, 2013: Prause publishes her first EEG study (Steele et al., 2013). Wilson critiques it. Prause employs multiple usernames to post lies around the Web). Note – I blacked out a section to protect the identity of another Prause victim.

NOTE: The links in the email further explain Prause’s threats & harassment, her misrepresentation of Steele’s actual findings, and her playing games with the correlation between “sexual desire” and EGG readings. In short, Prause’s carefully orchestrated PR campaign resulted in worldwide media coverage with all the headlines misleadingly claiming that sex addiction had been debunked. In TV interviews and in the UCLA press release Nicole Prause made two wholly unsupported claim about her EEG study:

  1. Subjects’ brains did not respond like other addicts.
  2. Hypersexuality (sex addiction) is best understood as “high desire.”

Neither of those findings are actually in Steele et al. 2013. In fact, the study reported the exact opposite of what Nicole Prause claimed. What Steele et al., 2013 actually stated as its “brain findings”:

“the P300 mean amplitude for the pleasant–sexual condition was more positive than the unpleasant, and pleasant–non-sexual conditions”

Translation: First, frequent porn users had greater cue-reactivity (higher EEG readings) to explicit sexual images relative to neutral pictures. This is exactly the same as what occurs when drug addicts are exposed to cues related their addiction. Second, here’s what Steele et al., 2013 actually stated as its “sexual desire findings”:

“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 this another way – individuals with more brain activation and cravings for porn preferred to masturbate to porn than have sex with a real person (Professor John Johnson’s 2 comments under Prause’s PT interview where he exposed Prause as misrepresenting Steele et al.).

Together these two Steele et al. findings indicate greater brain activity to cues (porn images), yet less reactivity to natural rewards (sex with a person). Both are hallmarks of addiction, indicating both sensitization and desensitization. Eight peer-reviewed papers subsequently exposed expose the truth: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013.

Aside from the many unsupported claims in the press, it’s disturbing that Prause’s 2013 EGG study passed peer-review, as it suffered from serious methodological flaws: 1) subjects were heterogeneous (males, females, non-heterosexuals); 2) subjects were not screened for mental disorders or addictions; 3) study had no control group for comparison; 4) questionnaires were not validated for porn use or porn addiction.

More about Prause’s brief UCLA stint. While Prause claims that she was compelled to leave a dream job at UCLA to pursue “groundbreaking research,” certain facts cannot be denied:

  1. Prause harassed and defamed UCLA colleague Rory Reid. See: December, 2014: Prause employs an alias (“TellTheTruth”) to disparage & defame UCLA colleague Rory Reid PhD on porn-recovery forum YBR. Concurrently, UCLA decides not to renew Prause’s contract.
  2. UCLA did not renew her contract.
  3. Rory Reid remains a researcher at UCLA.
  4. Prause hasn’t been employed by any other university since her fleeting employment at UCLA.

While there was no doubt that “TellTheTruth” (alias mentioned in above link) was Prause (who else would be posting about Rory Reid?), absolute proof arrived 20 months later when Prause posted the exact same content and exact same documents on her AmazonAWS website using her own name. All documented in this section: September 2016: Prause attacks and libels former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid PhD. 2 years earlier “TellTheTruth” posted the exact same claims & documents on a porn recovery site frequented by Prause’s many sock puppets.

I urge the court to investigate the actual events surrounding Prause’s departure from UCLA, her harassment of Rory Reid, and any legal threats made by Prause towards UCLA.


PRAUSE: f. July 30, 2013. I filed a cyberstalking report with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding Gary Wilson. See Exhibit 1(M).

No evidence other than a screenshot of a CD!

As explained in previous sections Prause stated numerous times that she had filed an FBI report on me (for what crime she never divulges). In late October, 2018 I filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming me. She had not. See this section: November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims, or download this PDF of the FOIA request revealing that Nicole Prause lied about the FBI report.

In response to Prause’s false and illegal assertions (and as suggested by the FBI), I filed an FBI report about Nicole Prause (December, 2018)

Prause also stated that she reported Alexander Rhodes to the FBI for various fabricated infractions. Believing this to be false, Rhodes’s filed an FOIA with the FBI and discovered that Prause was indeed lying. See full story: December, 2018: FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes (Note: Alex Rhodes’s has filed a defamation lawsuit against Prause).


PRAUSE: g. October 18, 2013. Gary Wilson and his wife Marnia Robinson sent another complaint to UCLA claiming that I fabricated my data and was harassing them. The university found this complaint was false and responded to Wilson and his wife Robinson that was the case on November 8, 2013.

No evidence provided by NP. Once again, Prause has the letter in question, yet won’t cough it up because it will expose her as lying. Two lies by Prause:

  1. Our email to UCLA was sent on December 2, 2013.
  2. We never said that Prause “fabricated her data” (though she did misrepresent the findings of Steele et al., 2013).

We emailed UCLA after Prause engaged in numerous online incidents of defamation and harassment, and placed a PDF on her SPAN lab website libeling me. See details here: November, 2013: Prause places a libelous PDF on her SPAN Lab website. Content mirrors “anonymous” comments around the Web.

Back story: In November 2013, Nicole Prause placed a PDF on her SPAN Lab website attacking Gary Wilson (screenshot below). It contained several instances of libel. The PDF’s contents are very similar to hundreds of other comments that were posted by various usernames. Posts were written by GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud and other sock puppets, apparently Prause’s. If there was ever any doubt as to who was actually behind these comments, the PDF puts an end to it. Its URL was – http://www.span-lab.com/WilsonIsAFraud.pdf.

How did I discover the above PDF? My Internet browser was redirected to the PDF when I visited the SPAN lab website (misrepresenting itself as a UCLA website). Knowing my IP address, Prause made a habit of redirecting my Internet browser to other URLs, such as porn sites or pictures of mutilated penises. This started before the PDF appeared, and continued after the PDF was removed. Also, two PDFs containing material nearly identical to Prause’s libelous PDF were uploaded onto DocStoc a few days after I published his critique of Prause’s 2013 EEG study:

I contacted UCLA to report the PDF’s defamatory statements, believing SPAN Lab was a UCLA website (at the time, SPAN Lab’s copyright was wrongly designated, by Prause, as “UCLA” and its address was within a UCLA building).

I did not hear from UCLA, so I sent a short follow-up email pointing out that the PDF remained on SPAN Lab’s website.

On March 4, 2014, UCLA acknowledged the existence of the PDF, and its subsequent removal in a letter. The CYA reply by UCLA:

UCLA’s March 2014 reply was the first indication that the SPAN Lab was really a Prause owned and maintained site. UCLA’s “bafflement” as to who might have uploaded the libelous PDF is a brilliant ass-covering response by a public institution faced with a litigious, vindictive, and soon-to-be ex-employee. Note: The SPAN Lab website was never migrated to UCLA servers.

In September, 2o14 (6 months after the above UCLA reply) we heard through the grapevine that UCLA had decided not to renew Nicole Prause’s contract. A few months later Prause (as TellTheTruth) attacked UCLA colleague Rory Reid on the porn recovery site YourBrainRebalanced. The Prause alias posted 4 comments urging readers to report Rory Reid to California authorities. Question: What part did Prause’s bizarre attacks on her UCLA colleagues play in UCLA not renewing her contract?


PRAUSE: h. December 2L 2013. Gary Wilson and his wife Marnia Robinson sent yet another complaint to UCLA with false claims. UCLA also dismissed these false claims on March 4, 2014 after repeated contact by Wilson demanding “answers”.

No evidence provided by NP. See preceding sections.

As with our initial July 2013 letter, Prause fails to provide a copy of our December, 2013 letter. She knows doing so would expose her as perjuring herself.


PRAUSE: i. December 16, 2013. I filed a cyberstalking report with the FBI regarding Gary Wilson due to his increasing violations of my no-contact request and harassment with UCLA. See Exhibit 1(M).

No evidence provided by NP. Only a 2019 picture of someone holding a CD. Already debunked in a preceding section. As explained in previous sections:

  1. I am not subject to any “no contact order.” Only courts and regulatory bodies issue “orders,” as that word is commonly understood, and only then after giving both parties the chance to be heard. This has never occurred, although I would have welcomed it.
  2. Prause initiated the only email contact with me that ever occurred – as documented in the very first section of the Prause page.
  3. An FOIA request to 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).
  4. As for initiating “contact,” Prause has mentioned me hundreds of times on social media. Her many aliases have also directly “contacted,” harassed and defamed me on multiple platforms.

PRAUSE: j. February 3, 2014, Gary Wilson appeared on white supremacist show Gnostic Media on DailyStormer (https://dailystormer.name/gnostic-media-podcast-aninterview- with-gary-wilson-this-is-your-brain-on-porn/)

More lies by Prause (the link is dead). Gnostic Media is not a “white-supremacist” or antisemitic podcast, and its host Jan Irvin is not a white supremacist or antisemitic. To the contrary, Jan Irvin was a regular guest on the Joe Rogan experience, and has been recently attacked for being a “shill for the Jews.” Regardless of Jan Irvin’s beliefs in 2014, or his current beliefs, Irvin and I discussed only the effects of internet pornography. A link to the 2014 podcast: https://logosmedia.com/2014/01/.

It’s true that that 2014 Jan Irvin (Gnostic Media) interview was posted on the now-defunct Daily Stormer website, but so were countless other articles, videos, and podcasts that had nothing to do race, religion, or white supremacy. Importantly, anyone (including those endeavoring to fuel a smear campaign) could have posted Irvin’s podcast on The Daily Stormer, and then mischaracterized it – just as anyone can post anything on Reddit or Quora.

Important to note: because Jan Irvin is not a white supremacist or antisemitic, none of his other podcasts ever made it on to the Daily Stormer website. We have long suspected that Prause herself may have posted my podcasts on white-supremacist forums (even though my podcasts have nothing to with race or politics and the hosts are not white supremacists).

Note: The entire original Daily Stormer site was taken down (along with the Jan Irvin podcast I did). But as soon as its successor site appeared, my podcast was mysteriously re-posted, and news of its presence was tweeted by Prause’s biggest fans and an account that regularly joins her in cyberstalking me: @sexualsocialist.

It was @sexualsocialist who also magically discovered the Mormon porn URLs on the Wayback Machine and who was the first to tweet a screenshot of the UK YBOP trademark, spinning that it proved I was a paid porn activist.

It was clear that Prause created the above screenshot as @sexualsocialist would not know about its existence, and the YourBrainOnPorn UK trademark was provided to Prause’s lawyers in my trademark infringement case. Moreover, Prause has been falsely claiming for over 3 years that I am paid by The Reward Foundation. It’s no coincidence that PornHub, Prause’s regular account and David Ley all liked the defamatory tweet (PornHub’s was the first Twitter account to tweet about RealYBOp’s new Twitter account and website when it appeared):

Since @sexualsocialist “found it” RealYBOP & Prause have tweeted this screenshot dozens of times.

The truth: I am, in fact, a far left liberal and the very antithesis of a white supremacist. I abhor, and condemn, such views. I spent my adolescence living in a predominantly black neighborhood and two of my close relatives are married to African Americans. For my account of the truth, listen to this interview: Porn Science and Science Deniers (Interview with Wilson).

A second truth: For over 3 years Prause and David Ley (and colleagues) have been waging a disgusting smear campaign to falsely paint Alex Rhodes and me as white supremacists or anti-Semites. One of the reasons Alex Rhodes is now suing Prause for defamation is that she falsely accused Alex of being a supporter of white supremacists and anti-Semites. On the following pages I have documented Ley and Prause’s revolting history of posting fabricated evidence to connect me, Alex, Gabe Deem and other targets, to white supremacy and antisemitism. These extensive sections contain over 100 instances of Prause, Ley, RealYBOP and their Twitter cronies cyberstalking Gabe, Alex and me with false accusation of being white supremacists/Nazis.

  1. Ongoing – David Ley & Nicole Prause’s ongoing attempts to smear YBOP/Gary Wilson & Nofap/Alexander Rhodes by claiming links with neo-Nazi sympathizers
  2. October, 2018: Ley & Prause devise an article purporting to connect Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes and Gabe Deem to white supremacists/fascists (Prause attacks Rhodes & Nofap in the comments section)
  3. June, 2019: David Ley and Prause (as RealYBOP Twitter & “sciencearousal”) continue their campaign to connect porn recovery forums to white supremacists/Nazis
  4. August, 2019: In the wake of two mass shootings (El Paso & Dayton), Nicole Prause & David Ley try to connect Gary Wilson, YBOP and Nofap/Alexander Rhodes to white nationalism & Nazi’s
  5. November, 2018: Prause resumes her unprovoked, libelous attacks on NoFap.com & Alexander Rhodes
  6. Here we go again: In the wake of two mass shootings (El Paso & Dayton), Nicole Prause, @BrainOnPorn & David Ley and try to connect Gary Wilson, YBOP and Nofap to white nationalists & Nazis

Rather than painting me as a white supremacist, Prause’s numerous libelous claims that I am a white supremacist (using only fabricated “non-evidence)” expose her and David Ley as serial cyberstalkers, harassers and smear campaigners.


PRAUSE: k. September 24, 2015. Following further escalation of unwanted contact, I filed a protective order against Gary Wilson in Oregon. The Oregon courts stated that it needed to be filed in Los Angeles. I was concerned that Wilson would use that appearance to discover my home address, and declined to move the filing to Los Angeles.

No evidence provided by NP. As with nearly every other claim by Prause, she cannot provide documents that should be in her possession – such as a “protective order” filed in Oregon. Funny how the Oregon courts never informed me of this supposed order. Prause was “concerned,” because she would have to provide evidence of my stalking her when she has none.

As explained in the introduction, Prause initiated all contact with me and has since been defaming and harassing me online using her own accounts as well as over 100 aliases.


PRAUSE: l. October 15, 2015. I hired an attorney, Jed White, JD, to send a cease and desist letter to Gary Wilson and his wife Marnia Robinson to stop their defamation and to stop contacting me. See Cease and Desist Correspondence, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(N).

Context: Prause has a history of sending spurious cease and desist (C&D) letters to people who question her unsupported assertions. She claims to have sent (at least) seven such letters, which she has repeatedly, maliciously mischaracterized on social media as “no contact orders.” Only courts and regulatory bodies issue “orders,” as that word is commonly understood, and only then after giving both parties the chance to be heard. Prause’s C&D letters to anyone who questions her come from her lawyer, not a judge, and seem expressly intended to stifle criticism and honest debate. She then uses them to send to journalists and producers as “fact” to discourage them from hosting or quoting her critics.

Worse, on the basis of merely sending these unsubstantiated letters, Prause insists she has the legal right to prevent anyone who has received such a letter from defending against, or replying to, her demeaning online statements about them or others – even if they simply wish to supply evidence that counters her untrue statements. When those letter-recipients try to speak out, she publicly and falsely accuses them of “violating no contact orders” and of “harassment.” The clear, and clearly false, implication of her statements is to suggest these people are acting illegally. Her aggressive tactics and knowingly false accusations appear calculated to bully and intimidate her detractors into silence.

A number of the C&D letters Prause has posted online or sent are reproduced here: 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.). Prause placed links to three of her C&D letters on her Amazon AWS pages (C&D 1, C&D 2, C&D 3), presumably so that she could easily link to them in tweets, on Facebook, in correspondence to producers and journalists, and in the comment sections under online articles. To repeat: we are not aware of Prause ever acting on any of the aggressive, albeit empty, threats in these letters. We believe they are intimidation tactics, pure and simple.

Finally, the recipients of the various C&D letters report that Prause’s lists of wrongdoings were manufactured lies. Anyone can pay an internet-based lawyer, or any lawyer of questionable ethics, to write spurious C&D letters.

If all these people are defaming her, why doesn’t Prause sue for defamation? Because she is fabricating it all. Prause also lies about sending (some) C&D letters, as thoroughly documented in this section: November, 2016: Prause falsely claims to have sent cease & desist letters to the 4 panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast (Donald Hilton, Stefanie Carnes, Alexandra Katehakis, Jackie Pack).

On to her lies about me and my unanswered rebuttal. On October 15, 2015, I received a cease and desist letter from a lawyer representing Nicole Prause. A year later Prause published her cease and desist letter on AmazonAWS, and linked to it under a petition to Psychology Today (the petition asked Psychology Today to reconsider its editorial policy). Prause commented under the petition multiple times saying that members of two organizations (IITAP & SASH) were all “openly sexist and assaultive to scientists.” In a strange disconnect, the main evidence Prause supplied for this blanket statement was the cease and desist letter sent only to me, reproduced below. I am not a member of SASH or IITAP.

All four claims in the above cease & desist letter are empty. Gary Wilson wrote the following letter asking both Prause and her lawyer to provide evidence to support their allegations. Wilson’s letter in full:

In the intervening 4.5 years neither Prause nor her lawyer has responded. Neither has provided any evidence to support Prause’s allegations – because the allegations are false.

It’s clear that Prause’s motivation was threefold:

  1. to intimidate me so that I might remove my critiques of Prause’s studies,
  2. to create a letter she could show her allies as “proof positive” that I was harassing her (even though it is proof of nothing and fabricated),
  3. to produce an “official letter” to show journalists and producers, so as to discourage them from contacting me.

PRAUSE: m. October 27, 2015. Gary Wilson contacted the UCLA Office of Intellectual Property requesting information about my company’s participation in their startup program.

No evidence provided by NP. Prause is lying. I did not do this. Prause was long gone from UCLA by then. I have no reason to think she was ever in UCLA’s startup program. And whether she was or wasn’t, why should she care who seeks information about it? As with nearly every other claim by Prause, she cannot provide documents that should be in her possession – such as emails from me to the UCLA Office of Intellectual Property. This is because they do not exist.


PRAUSE: n. March 2016. Someone tried to gain entry to my home, asking where my unit was using my name, but they were stopped by the management company.

No evidence provided by NP. If “they” were stopped by the management company, there should be a record of the incident and description of the individual. Where’s the documentation?

Various friends and relatives are prepared to testify under oath that they fear for my safety. They are concerned that Prause might track me down, maybe try to kill me (I’m not kidding). This is how completely unhinged Prause appears to observers.


PRAUSE: o. March 10, 2016. 1 ordered and installed security hardware for my home due to Wilson’s continued harassment and fear that he had physically located my home.

No evidence provided by NP. Fabricated victim-hood. I can’t recall being in Los Angeles since before I heard of Nicole Prause (March, 2013), and I have never stated an intention to visit Los Angeles.

Again, various friends and relatives are prepared to testify under oath that they fear for my safety. They are concerned that Prause might track me down, maybe try to kill me. This is how completely unhinged Prause appears to observers.


PRAUSE: p. April 5, 2016. 1 required security at a public talk at a Jewish center in San Francisco from fear Gary Wilson would try to attend or send white supremacists to attack the center.

No evidence provided by NP. Prause and David Ley’s disgusting smear campaign to paint me, Alex Rhodes, Gabe Deem and others as white supremacists is addressed elsewhere on this page (Ley is now being paid by the porn industry). This revolting lie, in part, led to Alex Rhodes suing Prause for defamation. Prause has gone so far as to say that Jews who are anti-porn are antisemitic!

As explained ad nauseum, I have never stated an intention to attend any presentation by Prause. Quite the opposite, as I find her actions and misrepresentation of the research off-putting. Prause made this same fraudulent claim and placed her “supporting documents” on her AmazonAWS website. I addressed this ludicrous claim long ago in this section of the Prause page: October, 2016: Prause had co-presenter Susan Stiritz “warn campus police” that Gary Wilson might fly 2000 miles to listen to Prause say porn addiction isn’t real.

Again, various friends and relatives are prepared to testify under oath that they fear for my safety, given Prause’s vicious and irrational actions. They are concerned that Prause might track me down and try to kill me. This is how completely unhinged Prause appears to observers.


PRAUSE: q April 12, 2016. Gary Wilson and Marnia Robinson contacted UCLA after they knew I no longer worked there, demanding that UCLA investigate me, demanding that UCLA publicly denounce me, claiming UCLA was being naïve and making additional false claims. UCLA also found no grounds for these

No evidence provided by NP. Prause is lying. We did not contact UCLA in 2016 (or in 2015). Yet another example of Prause possessing any emails in question, yet mysteriously unable to provide the court with said emails.

Our last email to UCLA occurred on March 10, 2014 and was in response to UCLA’s March 4, 2014 ass-covering reply produced in above section:

That’s the last time we wrote UCLA.


PRAUSE: r. August 9, 2016. 1 required security from Gary Wilson at a talk for the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists.

No evidence provided by NP. More fabricated victim-hood. I have never stated an intention to attend any presentation by Prause. Quite the opposite, as I find her actions unconscionable and her propaganda nauseating. Once again, we have Prause making claims she cannot back up.


PRAUSE: s. October 4, 2016. Gary Wilson joked on Twitter about physically stalking me.

No evidence provided by NP. I have never stalked anyone, including Prause. As explained in the intro, I can’ remember being in Los Angeles since I first heard of Prause’s existence (March, 2013). Once again, Prause should be able to provide a screenshot of my supposed tweet, but cannot. If Prause doesn’t want to be the butt of jokes then I suggest she refrain from falsely accusing me of things I did not do.


PRAUSE: t. December 2016. Gary Wilson and Stefanie Carnes sent identical complaints to the California Board of Psychology against my professional license making false allegations already reviewed and dismissed by UCLA. The Board of Psychology has informed my attorney and I that there are no negative findings. No patients were ever involved. The board concluded the complaints were low priority. Wilson continues to regularly post publicly that I am “under investigation by the state of California” without admitting he filed the fraudulent complaints himself in an obvious abuse of state resources.

No evidence provided by NP. Prause has a copy of my complaint, yet fails to provide it to the court.

First, I never publicly stated that Prause was under investigation by California until after she publicly stated in a June, 2018, factually inaccurate hit-piece, that I had filed a complaint (in October, 2016). Prause falsely stated that the California Psychology Board complaint had terminated, which I knew to be untrue:

In my comment (which was edited by admins) under the factually inaccurate hit-piece, I corrected Prause’s falsehood:

The story surrounding Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted” is a long, convoluted, and nearly unbelievable: Prause created aliases to harass my publisher, the US Navy, a Scottish charity, and inserted fake information into Wikipedia. She also lied to COPE, harassed and defamed publisher MDPI and its officers, and numerous researchers who published at any of the 100 MDPI journals. In an unprecedented move MDPI published 2 press releases about Nicole Prause shockingly unprofessional behavior:

Second, I have no idea what Stefanie Carnes filed with California, but I know it was not “identical” to my complaint. I sent California the entire contents (as of October, 2016) of the 2 main pages chronicling Prause’s long history of defamation and harassment:

I seriously doubt that Stefanie Carnes merely sent the contents of the above two pages to the California Psychology Board as her complaint.


PRAUSE: u. June 12, 2017. A Gary Wilson follower posts that I should be raped.

No evidence provided by NP.

I have no “followers.” I run YourBrainOnPorn.com. It has no forum and doesn’t allow anyone to comment. Once again, if Prause possessed a screenshot of a so-called Gary Wilson “follower” threatening to rape her, she would have supplied it to the court.

Prause is lying, just as she lied about Alex Rhodes and Fight The New Drug telling their “followers” to rape her. Prause makes these libelous assertions, yet has never provided any evidence. These sections expose Prause’s false rape allegations:

After Prause filed her current lie-filled Motion to Dismiss, Alexander Rhodes (founder of reddit/nofap and NoFap.com) filed a defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause. See the court docket. See this page for three primary court documents filed by Rhodes: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos.

As Diana Davison revealed in the comments section under her 6-minute expose’ Prause failed to provide one iota of evidence to support her claims:

———————————

———————————

All you need to know: Prause cut off communications with investigative journalist Davison when asked for any evidence to support her claims.


PRAUSE: v. September 1, 2017. Gary Wilson appeared on white supremacist show Stefan Molyneux (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhqx7yctQVk) and extensively promotes this show on his Twitter @YourBrainOnPorn,

More lies by Prause. Where are the links to my Twitter account’s tweets purportedly extensively promoting the Molyneux podcast? They don’t exist. Unlike Prause, I haven’t deleted my tweets, so they should be easy to find. Nor is the Molyneux interview promoted on my website YBOP, as it has never been placed on the front page. It was just another podcast.

Prause and David Ley’s disgusting attempt connect me, Alexander Rhodes and Gabe Deem to white supremacy and antisemitism was addressed in a previous section, and in this section of my Prause page #2: David Ley & Nicole Prause’s ongoing attempts to smear YBOP/Gary Wilson & Nofap/Alexander Rhodes by claiming links with neo-Nazi sympathizers.

NOTE: I have no idea what Molyneux’s politics are. Nor did I know when he asked to interview me years ago. At that time, I investigated him and couldn’t find anything indicating his views on race. As you can hear in our interview below, we talked about porn’s effects, not politics. I have done dozens of interviews and podcasts. How am I supposed to find every lame idea expressed by a potential interviewer (or what an interviewer might say after our interview)?

Since then, trademark infringing RealYBOP Twitter (apparently managed by Prause and Daniel Burgess) and several members of RealYBOP, have been spreading Molyneux’s podcast interview with me via social media and private emails, claiming that Molyneux is a white supremacist and that my appearance on his show means I’m a white supremacist. Let’s be very clear: my harassers and cyberstalkers, Nicole Prause and David Ley, are the ones who initiated this disgusting smear campaign about me years ago. They are the ones who, with the aid of their colleagues, are promoting it. Whatever Molyneux’s views, it is, of course, absurd to suggest that his views are mine without any evidence whatsoever. Is Joe Rogan now a white supremacist because he regularly invited Stefan Molyneux onto his podcast?

Unlike me, Joe Rogan was well aware of Molyneux’s views. I, in contrast, was only a guest on Molyneux’s podcast, there to discuss internet porn (and nothing else).

The truth: I am, in fact, a far left liberal and the very antithesis of a white supremacist. I abhor, and condemn, such views. I spent my adolescence living in a predominantly black neighborhood and two of my close relatives are married to African Americans. For my account of the truth, listen to this interview: Porn Science and Science Deniers (Interview with Wilson).

Several supporters wonder why I haven’t removed this interview from the backwaters of my 13,000 page website. The answer: because my harassers Nicole Prause and RealYBOP on Twitter have falsely claimed numerous times that “Gary Wilson is trying to hide the Molyneux podcast.” In fact, I am neither hiding nor promoting it. It was just another podcast – out of the dozens I have done. It doesn’t discuss racial politics at all, and I want listeners to be able to hear it and judge the truth for themselves.

Please note that labeling others (and then attempting to establish “guilt by association”) is a favorite tactic of those who can’t take on the substance of the porn debate. Have a look at these sections of a page documenting some of the many related attacks I and others have been subjected to:

Next, an excerpt from this scathing expose’ of serial false accuser, harasser, cyber-stalker Nicole Prause (the person behind the false accusations of white supremacy)Alex Rhodes of Porn Addiction Support Group ‘No Fap’ Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation (By Megan Fox, of PJ Media). It’s related to Prause’s fabrications that I, Alex, and anyone who suggests porn might cause problems, is a white supremacist:

Perhaps most illustrative of Prause’s character in this saga is her charge that Rhodes is a Nazi and white-supremacist, as detailed in the lawsuit. This should not surprise anyone who has been paying attention since 2016. The minute an SJW disagrees with someone, that person becomes a Nazi. Rhodes’s crime? He allowed political commentator Gavin McInnes to interview him while he was still working for Vice. And since Prause found out that Rhodes spoke to McInnes one time and didn’t throw a drink in his face, she has been accusing him of supporting the Proud Boys (who got in a lot of trouble for street brawling with Antifa). It’s still a stretch, in my opinion, to call the Proud Boys anything but a male drinking club, but Rhodes actually has disavowed the Proud Boys as an “extremist group” on several occasions. He was never a member, nor a supporter. No Fap has never been political and is dedicated to providing addiction help to anyone who needs it. This does not stop Prause from continuing to link him to “white supremacists” through the weak association of one interview with McInnes, who isn’t a white supremacist either.

The lawsuit should be interesting to watch as it opens up statements on Twitter to legal scrutiny. Will Prause be held accountable for publishing false claims on social media?

Investigative journalist Diana Davison also questioned Prause and Ley’s fabrications in her Post Millennial expose’ on Nicole Prause. In her article, Davison debunks the Prause talking point that Rhodes is connected to Proud Boys and thus a white supremacist (which was repeated in VICE’s hit-piece featuring Ley, Prause, and two Porn industry executives):

In a recent Vice article, Prause is quoted saying “”Alexander Rhodes and NoFap’s lawsuit has no merit nor do his libelous and unfounded assertions regarding me, my character, or my business,” adding that Rhodes is “entitled to his opinions, however he is not entitled to spread complete falsehoods about me to profit himself and silence speech.”

The author of the same Vice article then goes on to call NoFap’s principles “slippery,” and attempts to link Rhodes to white supremacists by citing an April 2016 interview with Gavin McInnes, founder of the Proud Boys, despite that group being founded many months later. Ironically, McInnes was a co-founder of Vice and thus has a much stronger connection to their own publication than to Alexander Rhodes or NoFap.

It’s highly likely that Prause fed VICE the easily disproven “link” between Alex Rhodes and the Proud Boys. As explained in Rhodes’s defamation suit complaint against Prause, her false allegations that Rhodes “works with the Proud Boys” is one of the reasons she is being sued:

Defendants published and re-published the False Statements of and concerning Plaintiff Rhodes on the Internet, and other mediums, asserting and creating the false impression that, among other things, Plaintiff Rhodes stalks women, makes rape threats, is a misogynist, works with the extremist group “Proud Boys”, and is in violation of no-contact/restraining orders. Further, Defendants published and republished allegations that NoFap supports the extremist/hate group “Proud Boys”, promotes misogyny, promotes rape threats, and generally is a hate group.


PRAUSE: w. January 18, 2018. Gary Wilson was ejected from a scientific conference, the annual conference of the European Society for Sexual Medicine, by their attorney prior to the conference start when they discovered his true background. He was not giving a keynote address as he claimed. I had just given an actual keynote address at this conference, so Wilson knew I was attending. I had no control over their decision to eject him.

No evidence provided by NP. Multiple instances of Prause perjuring herself.

Context: In the fall of 2017, the Scientific Chairs of the World Meeting on Sexual Medicine, organized by the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) and the European Society for Sexual Medicine (ESSM), invited me to give a keynote address at their combined conference in Lisbon, Portugal. Unlike sexology conferences, the speakers and attendees at this one are primarily medically oriented urologists. The conference committee wanted me to present about porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. I was, after all, the second author on the highly cited “Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports” and had given a very popular TEDx talk, “The Great Porn Experiment,” which touched on porn-induced ED. A screenshot of the formal invitation:

Addressing Prause’s falsehoods claim by claim:

PRAUSE: “He was not giving a keynote address as he claimed.”

Contrary to this lie, I was invited European Society for Sexual Medicine to give a keynote address (they sought me out; I did not ask to speak at the 2018 conference). Vivian Gies, of the ISSM Executive Office, sent four emails attempting to invite me to Portugal to give a Keynote lecture (the emails ended up in a spam folder and were later discovered). Below is a screenshot of last two of ISSM’s four emails attempting to invite me:

It was ultimately decided that the talk would be entitled, “Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunctions.” It would be modeled on my July, 2017, Mexico City presentation to urologists. Screenshot of the keynote lecture as it originally appeared (before Prause lied to ISSM, which resulted in my talk’s cancellation): https://issmessm2018.org/

PRAUSE: “I had just given an actual keynote address at this conference, so Wilson knew I was attending.”

Prause’s fabricated narrative is that I knew she was attending, so I therefore contacted the ISSM, asking for a speaking gig. Not true, as the ISSM contacted me. Prause neither attended nor was scheduled to speak. Screenshot of the very first email from the ISSM on July 7, 2017 inviting me to speak (email temporarily went to a spam folder):

PRAUSE: “Gary Wilson was ejected from a scientific conference, the annual conference of the European Society for Sexual Medicine, by their attorney prior to the conference start when they discovered his true background.”

First, I was not ejected from the conference, but my keynote address was mysteriously canceled on January 12, 2018 (“due to program issues”):

Far from being “ejected,” I was thoroughly compensated for the “program-issues” cancellation. In fact, the ISSM went beyond the usual compensation and paid for plane flights and hotel for both my wife and me. Countering Prause’s lie that I was “ejected from the conference,” even after the canceled talk, I was invited to attend the conference, free of charge (and asked if I wanted a room in the conference hotel):

In relation to Prause’s assertions about the committee discovering my true background, it’s important to point out that I had initially informed the organizing committee that I did not have a PhD or MD. The committee assured me this was not a problem, and insisted I present. Here’s the email confirming this account:

PRAUSE: ” I had no control over their decision to eject him.”

Cleverly worded to obfuscate the fact it was most likelyh Prause herself who contacted ISSM organizers and fed them a bunch lies (perhaps via her close friend Jim Pfaus), which resulted in my talked being cancelled. Twelve days later (January 24, 2018) Prause informs David Ley that Gary Wilson was “removed for an actual good reason from a conference.” (She’s the only one who seems to “know” this.)

A double lie by Prause:

  1. I was not removed for “an actual good reason.” Prause no doubt lied to ISSM supplying her fake “evidence.”
  2. Prause’s claim that I posted on Quora more “than a hundred times in the last month” is also false. In my 4 years on Quora, I only posted 122 times. Between the time that I received the email from the ISSM committee (1-12-2018), and Prause’s Facebook comment above (1-24-18), I posted exactly zero times on Quora. PDF of Quora posts during this period. See my my entire timeline of Quora posts.

When you are a pathological liar, you can apparently lie about anything. Speaking of Quora, five weeks after her Facebook comment, Prause was permanently banned from Quora for harassing me.


PRAUSE: x. March 7., 2018. Gary Wilson is banned from the Quora platform because he created a second fake account to stalk my own account. This was a violation of their terms of service.

No evidence provided by NP. Quite the opposite is true: Prause was permanently banned from Quora for posting my employment records and harassing me.

The story: On March 3rd 2018, Nicole Prause posted a defamatory article on Quora: https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-about-your-brain-on-porn-movement/answer/Nicole-Prause. In her hit-piece, Prause posted redacted copies of my employment records and knowingly, falsely stated that Southern Oregon University had fired me. On March 3rd & 4th Prause posted ten more demeaning and untruthful comments about me and my work, all containing a link to her defamatory piece:

  1. https://www.quora.com/How-legitimate-is-yourbrainonporn-Is-PIED-really-a-thing/answer/Nicole-Prause
  2. https://www.quora.com/How-it-will-affect-my-future-if-I-masturbate-every-day/answer/James-Ali-5/comment/55887335
  3. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-really-such-a-thing-as-porn-addiction/answer/Tanner-Edmonds-1/comment/55887156
  4. https://www.quora.com/If-youve-told-your-spouse-over-and-over-that-you-arent-happy-with-the-level-of-physical-contact-youre-getting-and-things-dont-improve-could-you-be-blamed-for-having-an-affair-What-else-can-you-do/answer/Michael-Wells-12/comment/55887111
  5. https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-concentrate-on-my-Passion-while-I-am-addicted-to-Sex-Masturbation/answers/1564714/comment/55878336
  6. https://www.quora.com/A-girl-will-accept-my-proposal-if-I-stop-watching-porn-should-I-do-that-Well-porn-is-not-a-bad-thing/answer/James-Hinds/comment/55878261
  7. https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-I-stop-watching-porn/answer/Roy-Pavel-Drakov/comment/55878221
  8. https://www.quora.com/Habits-What-are-good-ways-to-keep-yourself-from-wanking/answer/Andrei-Rocnea/comment/55878094
  9. https://www.quora.com/If-masturbating-daily-is-good-for-health-then-whats-the-purpose-behind-the-%E2%80%98no-fap%E2%80%99-movement/answer/James-Ali-5/comment/55795714
  10. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-normal-if-my-boyfriend-doesnt-look-at-me-when-Im-naked-but-watches-hot-girls-on-Instagram-all-the-time/answer/Gwen-Sawchuk/comment/55795634

I reported Prause to both Quora and Twitter for violation of terms of service and harassment. Both acted upon my complaints, removing my employment document and Prause’s false interpretation of it. Confirmation of Quora acting on my complaint (not the first violation for harassing me):

As a result, Quora permanently bans Nicole Prause for harassment:

This PDF contains all 19 Prause Quora comments disparaging and defaming Gary Wilson (including 10 comments in a 24-hr period, which led to Quora banning Prause).

Banning didn’t stop Prause. The following fake Quora accounts, used to defame me, are likely Prause sockpuppet accounts:

In addition to the permanent Quora ban, on March 12, 2018 Prause’s Twitter account was suspended for posting my private information in violation of Twitter rules. I reported Prause’s violation. Twitter’s reply:

Prause’s Twitter account was suspended for a day.

Note: Earlier, in October of 2015: Prause’s original Twitter account was permanently suspended for harassment. She had violated Twitter’s rules by (twice) posting the personal information of one of the authors of this paper “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015), which had critiqued her two dubious EGG studies.


PRAUSE: April 22, 2018. Wilson appeared uninvited to a Behavioral Addictions meeting in Cologne, Germany, scaring a number of scientists in attendance who discussed security concerns regarding his presence.

No evidence provided by NP. This is pure fiction. Yes, I traveled to Germany to attend the 2018 5th International Conference on Behavioral Addictions, for which I had registered months earlier. No one was “frightened.” As for “being invited,” anyone can register to attend an ICBA conference. They feature experts on behavioral addictions from all over the world, and my website features much research by experts who present at the ICBA.

As discussed elsewhere, Prause reported me to the LAPD for attending a German conference, falsely claiming she wanted to attend (but didn’t dare because she was supposedly frightened of me). The untrue part is that Prause had any intention of attending the ICBA conference in Germany. Prause has never attended, or presented, 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.

Reality: At the conference, I had several great discussions numerous researchers in the behavioral addiction field, including a few who served on the WHO’s ICD-11 work group that proposed “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” (so those suffering from problematic porn use could be formally diagnosed). In a few discussions, Prause’s name came up. No one seemed to imply she had been victimized in any way. Rather, several researchers commented on her obsessive and unhinged comments on the ICD-11, which were later publicly described as “antagonistic” in a WHO peer-reviewed paper. See this section for Prause’s actual comments and the WHO’s account – May, 2019: The World Health Organization publishes a paper describing Nicole Prause’s numerous ICD-11 comments (“antagonistic comments, such as accusations of a conflict of interest or incompetence”).


PRAUSE: Finally, Hilton has sent the lawsuit documents to Gary Wilson before they were publicly available for all three filings, which Wilson did post on both his website (www.yourbrainonporn.com) and his wife’s website (www.pornstudycritiques.com), never with my response. Wilson further submitted Hilton’s statement to Google Scholar, which would result in Hilton’s statement to the court being emailed to thousands of scientists.

No evidence provided by NP. Another instance of Prause perjuring herself.

Don Hilton did not send his “lawsuit documents” to me. All court documents were available online via PACER, at this link – https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/28807982/Hilton_v_Prause_et_al

Nor did I submit “Hilton’s statement to Google Scholar.” I didn’t even know one could submit links to Google Scholar (if this is in fact true). That said, I do hope that researchers read the documents, follow the links, and discover the truth about Nicole Prause. She has been skewing the field with her harassment, scare tactics, defamation, and falsehoods for way too long. There needs to be a full investigation into her behind-the-scenes activities at academic journals, governing boards and media outlets. Just for starters.


PRAUSE: z. April 25, 2018 I reported these escalations to physical stalking to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) report # 180809436 and the FBI. See Exhibit 1(M).

No evidence other than a screenshot of a CD! Seven years of claimed police and FBI reports and no law enforcement agency has bothered to contact me. Prause is either lying about her many reports or the law enforcement agencies think she is a lunatic.

FBI report: As explained in previous sections and introduction, Prause stated numerous times that she had filed an FBI report on me (for what crime she never divulges). In late October, 2018 I filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming me. She had not. See this section: November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims, or download this PDF of the FOIA request revealing that Nicole Prause lied about the FBI report. In response to Prause’s false and illegal assertions (and as suggested by the FBI), I filed an FBI report on Nicole Prause (December, 2018). Prause also stated that she reported Alexander Rhodes to the FBI for various fabricated infractions. Believing this to be false, Rhodes’s filed an FOIA with the FBI and discovered that Prause was indeed lying. Full story: December, 2018: FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes (Note: Alex Rhodes’s has filed a defamation lawsuit against Prause.)

LAPD report # 180809436: As chronicled in the introduction, here’s the 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 can’t remember having 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 made 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. It didn’t (dare) report any actual crime. Instead, Prause had reported me to the LAPD for attending a German conference that Prause falsely claimed she wanted to attend (but didn’t dare because she was frightened of me).

Note that I did not learn of this malicious police report from the police. I learned of it a year later, when college journalists (and misinformed Prause devotees) publicly reproduced it online in the university newspaper. It has since been removed by University of Wisconsin authorities.

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”).

As described here in the introduction, Diana Davison became the first journalist to investigate Prause’s claims of victim-hood. Over the week of their communications, Prause was unable to provide any evidence other than her silly LAPD report (above) 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.

Diana Davison explained in the comment section that Prause failed to provide any evidence of being stalked, cyberstalked or harassed.

Davison makes fun of Prause’s ludicrous police report where I was supposedly wearing a sleeping bag and armed with a long sleeve sweater (note that Prause’s report never claimed I was seen in LA or that I was stalking her).

When asked to provide any other evidence, Prause ceased communications with Davison.

I request that the court demand from Prause all her supposed reports claimed to have been filed on me, Alex Rhodes and others. If Prause has indeed filed a police or FBI report on me I will report her to California authorities for filing a false police report.


PRAUSE: aa. August 31, 2018. I required security from Gary Wilson at a talk for the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality where I would be debating Dr. Marc Potenza regarding sex addiction.

No evidence provided by NP. For the tenth time or so, I have never had, or expressed, an intention to attend any presentation by Prause. Quite the opposite, as I find her actions and misrepresentation of the research shocking. More fake victim-hood from a pathological liar.


PRAUSE: bb. February 19, 2019. Gary Wilson and his wife Marnia Robinson contacted the National Organization of Rare Diseases (NORD) requesting that my competitive grant from them, which had nothing to do with pornography, be rescinded. NORD requested my assistance in getting Wilson and Robinson to stop harassing them, as the pair continued to email NORD over and over.

No evidence provided by NP. Prause is perjuring herself. Neither I nor my wife have ever contacted NORD, nor have we ever been contacted by NORD. If Prause had any documentation she would provide it. She doesn’t, because she is lying.

Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process

Nicole Prause has shown a consistent and troubling pattern of (1) filing groundless, malicious complaints and lawsuits, and (2) threatening or publicly claiming she has filed such actions when she has not done so. (Three main pages documenting Prause’s behaviors: 1, 2, 3.)

Below is a partial list of such complaints and false claims. (Out of fear of reprisal we have been asked to omit additional individuals and organizations.) Also, Prause regularly claims “whistleblower status” to keep her activities under the radar. So, there are likely other, non-public complaints in addition to those listed here.

The baseless administrative complaints Prause actually lodged were generally dismissed as nuisance filings. However, a few led to time-consuming investigations that were ultimately dismissed or produced little in the way of substantive results. (PDF Documenting Prause’s Malicious Reporting Pattern & Malicious Use of Process).

Malicious Reporting

Staci Sprout LICSW – (see this page by Staci Sprout: Bullying, harassment and defamation from unexpected sources as a sex addiction recovery activist)

  • Reported to Washington State’s Department of Health, twice.
  • Reported to National Association of Social Workers.
  • In 2020, Prause also filed a groundless small claims suit in California against Staci Sprout. Dismissed by judge due to lack of jurisdiction.
  • PDF of Staci Sprout’s affidavit filed in Rhodes v Prause recounting events.

Fight the New Drug – Reported to Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services on the theory that sharing first-hand stories of porn recovery constituted the abuse of minors. DCFC took no action.

Rory Reid PhD – Prause’s former colleague at UCLA. Appears to have been reported to UCLA (and perhaps to the California Psychology Board). Prause’s attacks on him began concurrently with UCLA’s decision not to renew her contract, bringing her academic career to an end.

Linda Hatch PhD – (July, 2019: Linda Hatch, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.)

Bradley Green PhD – (July, 2019: Bradley Green, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.)

  • Reported to University of Southern Mississippi (No action)
  • Reported to journal where one of his papers appeared (Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity) Journal publisher investigated and took no further action

Jason Carroll PhD – Reported to Brigham Young University because Prause didn’t like research results (No action)

Geoff Goodman PhD – Reported to Long Island University for “harassment” (No action)

The Reward Foundation ­

Alexander Rhodes of Nofap

Gabe Deem, founder of RebootNation:

Exodus Cry – (July, 2019: Laila Haddad affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.)

John Adler MD – Prause reported Professor Adler to Stanford University for “harassment” (No action)

CUREUS journal – Prause reported the journal to PubMed Central, trying to have it delisted and thus discredited (No action)

Don Hilton, MD – Reported to the university where he mentors neurosurgery students, the Texas Medical Board, and academic journals with unfounded claims that he faked his credentials (No action)

Keren Landman, MD – Prause asked VICE magazine to terminate expert Dr. Landman for writing an article recommending use of condoms in porn in support of Proposition 60. Unbelievable.

Most of the 7 physicians who co-authored Park et al., 2016 – Prause reported them to their state medical boards for simply being on the paper (more about Prause’s unrelenting malice related to the paper, which disagreed with her views: Prause’s (failed) efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted) (No action)

Gary Wilson, who co-authored that same paper

MDPI – The parent company of the journal that published the review Wilson co-authored with Navy physicians (documentation: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted).

  • Prause reported the journal to COPE (journal ethics review board) (Superficial action, but paper has not been retracted.)
  • And to PubMed Central (No action)
  • And to the FTC (No action)

Note: In 2019 MDPI posted two official statements related to the unethical behavior of Nicole Prause (such actions appear to be without precedent):

D.J. Burr – Prause reported Burr to Washington State’s Department of Health. (No action)

Prause has also repeatedly, publicly urged members of the public, via social media, to report professionals and professional organizations to psychology boards, to the FTC, and to the Attorney General. Sections of Prause page with documentation:

Diana Davison – Prause threatened journalist Diana Davison and The Post Millennial by means of a spurious cease & desist letter threatening legal action because they published a factual expose’ that was not flattering to Prause. (No action)

Malicious Use of Process

After years of malicious administrative reporting, spurious cease & desist letters, and misuse of law enforcement personnel, Prause, in 2019, began abusing the court system (and the targets of her wrath) with malicious legal proceedings (and continued threats of legal proceedings) in order to silence anyone who calls attention to her bias or activity.

As recounted above, she filed an invalid small claims court suit against therapist Sprout, and a baseless restraining order against Wilson.

In addition, to suppress criticism of herself, Prause has threatened some five Twitter accounts with groundless small claims court lawsuits – and filed a suit against one of them, which she did not pursue. In this way, she continues to silence people’s right to free speech about her activities and apparent bias.

1) Tom Jackson (@LivingThoreau) – November, 2019

Prause publicly demanded $10,000 not to file suit, and then filed it. Jackson deleted his Twitter account. Prause did not appear at the trial and the case was dropped. The suit served its purpose of silencing Jackson, who had backed up his opinions with indisputable photographic evidence of Prause attending porn industry events. Details – https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#Jackson

2) Mark Schuenemann (@Kurall_Creator) – November, 2019

Again, Prause demanded $10,000 or she would sue. But didn’t. Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#Mark

3) December, 2019: @samosirmatthew Matthew

Prause threatened to sue him for saying she sounded like a “Foundation funded propagandist.” Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#Matthew

4) January, 2020: TranshumanAI

Prause informed this guy he was being sued after he publicized some facts about her. He deleted his tweet and changed his Twitter account name. Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#AI

5) March, 2020: “anonymous”

This person (who has asked to remain anonymous) called out Prause on her well documented ties to the porn industry. Prause went after their job and threatened a suit. The person made their account private. Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#anon


PRAUSE: cc. Feb 22, 2019. Gary Wilson tells reported Chad Sokol with Donald Hilton that I am involved in the pornography industry and attended the AVN awards.

No evidence provided by NP. Everything associated with the Sokol email and Prause lying about attending the XRCO were fully addressed in this earlier section. Once again, here’s the PDF of Gary Wilson’s email to Don Hilton, MD. The following was forwarded to reporter Chad Sokol:

Thu 2/21/2019 4:32 PM

Hi Don,

Here are the 4 main pages that were created to counter the ongoing harassment and false claims made by former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause as part of an ongoing “astroturf” campaign to persuade people that anyone who disagrees with her conclusions deserves to be reviled:

Prause has harassed and defamed at least four of the speakers in the February 23 conference: Don Hilton, Gail Dines, Clay Olsen and Stefanie Carnes. One can search the table of contents for each name or organization (i.e. Fight The New Drug, IITAP): Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others. For example, Prause has defamed you on multiple occasions, as documented in these sections of the “Prause pages”:

  1. December 2013: Prause posts on YourBrainRebalanced & asks Gary Wilson about the size of his penis (kicking off Prause’s campaign of calling Wilson, and many others, misogynists)
  2. Fall 2014: Documentation of Prause lying to film producers about Gary Wilson and Donald L. Hilton Jr., MD
  3. Others – Prause falsely accuses Donald Hilton, MD
  4. Others – November, 2016: Prause falsely claims to have sent cease & desist letters to panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast
  5. May 20, 2018: Ley & Prause falsely claim that Gary Wilson & Don Hilton gave evidence in a case by Chris Sevier

Anyone investigating this should know that Dr. Prause has not been employed by any university for 4 years. Her contract with UCLA was not renewed. 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.” Their job is to place articles in the press featuring Prause, and find her speaking engagements in pro-porn and mainstream venues. Odd behavior for a supposedly impartial scientist.

Since I was Prause’s primary target (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.

After years of sitting on the evidence, Prause’s unilateral aggression had 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 felt compelled to examine her possible motives. So we created this extensive page, which is just the tip pf the Prause iceberg: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

Clearly Prause, who lives in LA, enjoys a cozy relationship with the pornography industry. See 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]).

Moreover, it appears that Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through the most prominent porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. FSC-obtained subjects were allegedly used for a study she was hired to bolster the commercial interests of the heavily tainted, but apparently lucrative, “Orgasmic Meditation” company. See this Twitter exchange between Prause and adult performer Ruby the Big Rubousky, who is vice president of the Adult Performers Actors Guild (Prause has since deleted this thread).


In addition, the FSC (which has spent millions on lawsuits that benefit the porn industry) offered Prause assistance with respect to her so-called “bullies.”

The real bully here was Prause, who had her Twitter account permanently banned for harassment and cyber-stalking. Instead of revealing the facts, Prause fabricated a tall-tale that John Adler MD (Stanford) somehow got her kicked off Twitter. Adler had nothing to with this. Prause immediately emailed the FSC to accept their “help” with her imaginary bullies. Prause then promptly begins to discuss with another industry account why condoms in porn are a bad idea (the porn industry’s position):

Many more examples of Prause supporting the porn industry’s agenda and having close relationships with performers, producers, the AVN and the FSC, are this page: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?).

As for Prause attending the AVN convention, Prause clearly indicated that she would be at there in 2019.

Trolling PornHarms (NCOSE), 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 is she would like to pick up her t-shirt at the AVN awards (we must therefore assume that Prause will be attending).

Avalon tells Prause to have a good time at The Adult Video Awards (called the Oscars of the porn industry).

Again, there are hundreds more examples on this page: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

Gary Wilson


PRAUSE: dd. April 11, 2019. Wilson emailed my colleague Dr. Michael Seto, claiming to have proof I was involved in the pornography industry.

No evidence provided by NP. Prause is perjuring herself. I have never emailed Dr. Seto. If Prause had any documentation she would provide it. See a pattern here?


PRAUSE: ee. April 19, 2019. I received a series of anti-Semitic, misogynist death threats through a forum on Psychology Today. See Psychology Today Emails, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(0).

This has nothing to do with me, or anyone else I know. Just a few random, anonymous comments, out of millions, posted under Psychology Today blog post by anonymous trolls. We don’t know who posted these comments. For all we know it could have been Prause herself who posted the comments to prop up her fabricated victim-hood, as her skill in creating aliases is quite impressive (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). I don’t say this lightly as I have first-hand knowledge of Prause fabricating similar “threats” and lying about them having come from particular individuals she wishes to smear. I will be more than happy to testify under oath about such allegations.

As explained in previous sections, Prause and David Ley have been waging a disgusting smear campaign to falsely paint Alex Rhodes, Gabe Deem and me as white supremacists or anti-Semites. One of the reasons Alex Rhodes is now suing Prause for defamation is that she falsely accused Alex of being a supporter of white supremacists and anti-Semites

Also, Prause, her apparent alias (@BrainOnPorn), and her allies continue to troll Twitter threads falsely accusing me, Gabe Deem, Alex Rhodes and others of being white supremacists or anti-Semites. We have little recourse because Prause and her allies have blocked us (I have blocked them). Below are just a few examples of Prause and @BrainOnPorn (also Prause?) relentless cyberstalking (calling us white supremacists), even while she is being sued for defamation by two parties.

This one’s about me:

About Alex Rhodes:

About Gabe Deem:

Hundreds more can be provided.


PRAUSE: a. April 22, 2019. 1filed a report with the FBI for these death threats describing Wilson’s history of appearing on white supremacist shows.

No evidence provided by NP. If Prause filed an FBI report on me why won’t she provide it? Probably because I would report her to the FBI for filing a false report.

As explained in previous sections and the introduction, Prause has publicly stated numerous times that she has filed an FBI report on me (for what imagined crime she never divulges). In late October, 2018 I filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming me. She had not. See this section: November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims, or download this PDF of the FOIA request revealing that Nicole Prause lied about the FBI report. In response to Prause’s false and illegal assertions (and as suggested by the FBI), I filed an FBI report on Nicole Prause (December, 2018).

As already explained in previous sections, Prause and David Ley have been waging a disgusting smear campaign to falsely paint Alex Rhodes and me as white supremacists or anti-Semites. One of the reasons Alex Rhodes is now suing Prause for defamation is that she falsely accused Alex as being a supporter of white supremacists and anti-Semites. On the following pages I have documented Ley and Prause’s revolting history of posting fabricated “evidence” to connect me, Alex, Gabe Deem and other targets, with white supremacy and antisemitism. These extensive sections contain over 100 instances of Prause, Ley, RealYBOP and their Twitter cronies cyberstalking Gabe, Alex and me with false accusation of being white supremacists/Nazis.

  1. Ongoing – David Ley & Nicole Prause’s ongoing attempts to smear YBOP/Gary Wilson & Nofap/Alexander Rhodes by claiming links with neo-Nazi sympathizers
  2. October, 2018: Ley & Prause devise an article purporting to connect Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes and Gabe Deem to white supremacists/fascists (Prause attacks Rhodes & Nofap in the comments section)
  3. June, 2019: David Ley and Prause (as RealYBOP Twitter & “sciencearousal”) continue their campaign to connect porn recovery forums to white supremacists/Nazis
  4. August, 2019: In the wake of two mass shootings (El Paso & Dayton), Nicole Prause & David Ley try to connect Gary Wilson, YBOP and Nofap/Alexander Rhodes to white nationalism & Nazi’s
  5. November, 2018: Prause resumes her unprovoked, libelous attacks on NoFap.com & Alexander Rhodes
  6. Here we go again: In the wake of two mass shootings (El Paso & Dayton), Nicole Prause, @BrainOnPorn & David Ley and try to connect Gary Wilson, YBOP and Nofap to white nationalists & Nazis

PRAUSE: b. April 22, 2019. Detective Perez determined that these were new causes of action and requested that I file a criminal threats complaint with LAPD. My report was assigned Incident No. 190423001757, and it remains under investigation with Gary Wilson as the only known person of interest.

No evidence provided by NP. What BS. “Known person of interest?” For what? Once again, as with nearly every other claim by Prause, she cannot provide the documents that should be in her possession – such as an alleged “incident report.”

If Prause did filed a police report on me, for any reason, she can expect to be reported to the LAPD for filing a false police report.


PRAUSE: c. May 9, 2019, I hired an attorney, Wayne Giampetro, JD, to send a cease and desist letter to Gary Wilson to stop his new defamatory claims.

The May 9, 2019 letter from former BackPage attorney Giampietro (Prause misspelled his name) was not a cease and desist letter. Instead, it was a response to a cease and desist letter sent by my trademark law firm, Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery addressing Prause’s trademark infringement (below).

A few paragraphs of Giampietro’s 3-page (reply) letter repeated Prause’s lies that my pages documenting her ongoing defamation and harassment constitute “untrue defamatory attacks upon Dr. Prause.” (Such as these two main pages:

Giampietro’s letter listed a few of the same Prause falsehoods documented on this current page. He also demanded that I immediately remove all the pages documenting Prause’s unethical and illegal behaviors, and that I refrain from adding any “similar accusations” to YBOP.

“These statements made by your client are false, defamatory and actionable. He must remove them from his web site immediately, and refrain from posting any similar accusations in the future. “

Since May 9th I’ve added several new pages related to the trademark infringement/trademark squatting and harassment/defamation by RealYBOP Twitter (an apparent Prause alias), two related to the Hilton and Rhodes defamation lawsuits, an extensive page documenting Prause’s defamation and harassment of Alex Rhodes and some 20 new sections of the Prause page #2 documenting her escalating acts of harassment and defamation. So no, Mr. Giampietro, I will not refrain from exposing your client as a serial defamer, harasser and cyberstalker. Nor will Hilton, Rhodes, or the many Prause victims who have filed sworn affidavits about her in Federal court.

Because Prause often tweets or emails her lawyers’ letters, misrepresenting her fairy tales as factual, I am forced to expose Mr. Giampietro’s falsehoods below (the typos remain). As in her 2015 cease and desist letter, Giampietro’s May 9th letter, and all subsequent letters from Giampietro, Prause provides no evidence to support her fabricated allegations of victim-hood.

Giampietro – “Finally, despite having been warned in 2015 by counsel for Dr. Prause, Mr. Wilson has continued his barrage of untrue defamatory attacks upon Dr. Prause. Apparently he has embarked upon a vendetta against Dr. Praise and others with whom she is associated. Dr. Prause name alone appears on more than 4000 pages of Wilson’s web site, and over 108,000 times with his link online.

Everything I have chronicled concerning Prause is true, and nothing Prause’s 2015 attorney (pre-Giampietro) alleged in his C&D was true. Prause is lying. First, as you can see from this search, Prause’s name appears on only 110 out of YBOP 13,000 pages – not 4,000 pages as Prause falsely asserted. The vast majority of these mentions are links to other pages containing my and other’s critiques of Prause’s many dubious papers and articles (I purposely do a lot of internal linking).

Prause is not the only researcher whose work I analyze. For example, YBOP contains critiques of multiple Josh Grubbs papers, which results in his name appearing 70 times in a YBOP search.

As for her claim that there are 108,000 mentions of “Prause” on YBOP, this lie was already debunked in this section.

Giampietro – “While a dispute regarding issues of public interest is one thing, making false and defamatory allegations against Dr. Prause is indefensible. Among the false allegations Wilson has made against Dr. Prause are: she has engaged in “obsessive, unrelenting cybcr-harassment” against Wilson”

In fact, she is engaged in “obsessive, unrelenting cyber-harassment” against me. Extensive documentation: page 1, page 2.

“she tells a porn addict to visit a prostitute (a violation of APA ethics and Calfornia law)”

Oops. Prause caught in another lie. Below is a screenshot of Prause’s original answer posted in response to this Quora question (Prause has since deleted her answer): How can I overcome masturbation and/or porn addiction? What are the best methods? Prause’s suggestion to visit a prostitute is in the last paragraph:

she is “unprofessional and unethical”

Most definitely. Also a serial defamer and harasser.

she was fired, terminated and/or reprimanded by the University of California,

Never said that she was. However, UCLA did not renew Prause’s contract (late 2014 or early 2015). This coincided with Prause harassing and defaming UCLA colleague Rory Reid (Dr. Reid is still at UCLA). I hope a court investigates the actual events surrounding Prause’s departure from UCLA, her harassment of Rory Reid, and any legal threats made by Prause towards UCLA personnel.

she falsified or utilized “bogus” data in her studies

Never said this. However, I and others have pointed out that she has a long history of intentionally mischaracterizing the actual findings of porn related research (including her own).

she has been, or is currently, funded or receiving material support from pornography organizations

she is, herself, involved in the porn industry

Never said the above. Funny how Prause has made this claim numerous times on Twitter, in cease and desist letters, and in court documents, yet she can never provide a screenshot of me saying these things.

RE: Prause’s attempt to steal my URL and trademark: Knowing she would lose a Federal lawsuit (which was about to go forward), Nicole Prause withdrew her illegal attempt to squat on my trademarks YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. On October 18, 2019 the United States Patent and Trademark Office entered a judgement against Prause (the applicant):

The legitimate YBOP, this website, stands by its brand, services and resources and is continuing to take legal steps to address the infringing and unfair activities of Nicole R. Prause and nominal URL owner Daniel Burgess.


PRAUSE: d. May 28, 2019. I called 9-1-1 because I believed the process server attempting to serve me with this lawsuit was connected to Gary Wilson. Knowing that Hilton now had my home address and could tell Gary Wilson where I lived, I gave notice to my apartment manager the same day that I would be moving.

No evidence provided by NP. More fake victim-hood by the perpetrator. As explained in the intro, I can’t recall having been in Los Angeles since I became aware of Dr. Prause (2013). Again, she began publicizing this fabrication in July, 2013 (a few days after I critiqued her EEG study). In 2019, Diana Davison became the first journalist to investigate Prause’s claims of victim-hood. During more than a week of communications with Davison, Prause was unable to provide any evidence other than Prause’s silly LAPD report that I attended a German conference, which Prause lied about wanting to attend. Davison’s expose’ : 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. Davison spent a week asking Prause for any actual evidence that she had been harassed or stalked. Prause had none:

When Davison asked Prause to provide any evidence that she was a victim, Prause ceased communications:

Davison’s single sentence summarizes this entire page.


PRAUSE: e. June 13, 2019. Wayne Giampetro, JD, sends another cease and desist letter to Gary Wilson to stop his new defamatory claims.

Yet another misspelling of her lawyer’s name. Once again, Prause misrepresents her communications as something they are not. As with Giampietro’s May 9th letter, his June 13th letter was not a cease and desist letter. It did ont contain the usual requests for me to cease doing things I have not done. Actually, Giampietro’s letter (clearly penned by Prause) was merely a snarky, factually-inaccurate reply to my lawyer’s June 11th letter, which is reproduced below (PDF of my June 11th letter to Prause).

——————–

————–


PRAUSE: f. June 21, 2019. The American Civil Liberties Union instructed Gary Wilson in a letter to stop threatening myself and a group of scientists and therapists with malicious, unfounded litigation. See ACLU Correspondence, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(P).

The letter in question from the ACLU of Southern California to my attorneys did not, if fact, accuse me of threatening anyone or of engaging in malicious, unfounded litigation. Rather, the ACLU of Southern California ignored the entire substance of the cease & desist letter sent by my attorneys to Prause demanding that she stop infringing on my trademarks and withdraw her USPTO application for them. Instead, the ACLU of Southern California inexplicably chose to cherry-pick and take issue with the following throwaway request in the 8-page, well founded C&D letter addressing trademark issues:

“[r]efrain from disparagement and defamation of YOUR BRAIN ON PORN and its principal and associates.”

The ACLU only addressed #8 in my list of 8 demands – ignoring everything else, and the primary focus of, my C&D letter, which was to:

The ACLU of Southern California claimed that this phrase was misguided, that a defamation claim would not prevail, and asked that my attorneys,

“please refrain from making unsupported and misguided demands.”

Reasonable minds may differ on whether the request to refrain from disparagement and defamation was misguided or unsupported, and you can read my response to the ACLU of Southern California below, and in this PDF: Gary Wilson letter to SoCal ACLU 6/23/19

However, the trademark-related demands in the cease & desist letter were well founded, and it is baffling that the ACLU of Southern California ignored these entirely in its carefully narrowed response. Prause has since repeatedly posted the peculiarly narrow ACLU response, in full, on social media, in some cases accompanied by an unsupported claim that the ACLU was representing her.

By creating this PR tool for Prause, which inexplicably failed to address the abundant evidence of trademark infringement, the ACLU of Southern California inexplicably threw its weight behind Prause’s effort to stifle my free speech by means of her indefensible applications for my trademarks (including a trademark for my actual URL), and her apparent management of both a website that infringes on my trademarks and a related infringing social media account. This Twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) regularly defames me and many other people with whom Prause disagrees.

June 24, 2019

Hector Villagra, Executive Director

Peter Eliasberg, Chief Counsel

ACLU of Southern California

1313 W 8th St #200

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Re: Misallocation of ACLU Resources

Dear Mr. Villagra and Mr. Eliasberg,

My name is Gary Wilson. Since November 2010, I have operated a popular website called YourBrainOnPorn.com. I am also the author of a widely-read book titled Your Brain on Porn. The website and book examine current scientific research on the effects of pornography on the human brain. Their perspective is that online pornography can foster sexual dysfunction and addiction. But, of course, the comprehensive body of research they feature speaks for itself.

Recently, a group of self-proclaimed “experts” who vigorously dispute that pornography has any harmful psychological, physiological, or neurological effects launched a website called RealYourBrainonPorn.com. The website was designed and marketed in a manner that aimed to confuse the public, particularly anyone seeking my website by name. It went so far as to issue a press release touting the launch with a dateline from my hometown of Ashland, Oregon, a particularly creepy touch given neither it nor its “experts” has any connection to Ashland.

I have no problem with people disputing and debating the research my website highlights, or the opinions I and others express there. I do, however, take issue with people using confusingly similar marks to misappropriate the value of intellectual property I’ve spent years developing. That is why my attorneys sent a cease and desist letter to those who appear to be behind RealYourBrainonPorn.com on May 1, 2019 (the “C&D”). A copy of the C&D is included with this letter (its attachments available on request).

Last week, to my great surprise, my attorneys received a letter from Mr. Eliasberg on ACLU stationary critiquing a demand made in the C&D that “RealYourBrainOnPorn” and the “experts” associated with it refrain from defaming and disparaging me and my website . Shortly thereafter, one of the most prominent persons associated with “RealBrainOnPorn” took to social media (1, 2, 3, 4) and SCRIBD touting the “involvement” of the ACLU in her “case.”

I am not a lawyer. I won’t try to respond to Mr. Eliasberg’s seemingly thorough, albeit narrowly-focused, response to the C&D. (Please be aware, though, that the same person who celebrated the ACLU’s “involvement” has made numerous defamatory statements about me personally – including that I have made “death threats” against her and have “stalked” her – none of them remotely true. That same person is also the defendant in a defamation lawsuit currently pending in Texas alleging similarly outrageous conduct.)

But, I do want to express my profound disappointment that your organization has chosen to wade into this straightforward intellectual property matter. How is my defending my trademark an affront to free speech? Would your organization throw its weight and reputation behind someone who, out of disagreement over the content of stories in The Los Angeles Times, published a (non-parody) newspaper called “The Real Los Angeles Times” which featured a confusingly similar logo and web address, issued press releases from El Segundo, and made bizarre, false allegations about Norman Pearstine?

I am a strong supporter of your public mission. Freedom of speech and expression are important to me. I operate my website largely by myself out of my own pocket. My views are not always popular. I come under intense, false, and often outrageous, personal attacks from organized interest groups (and at least several of the people publicly associated with “RealBrainOnPorn”) on a near-daily basis for what I say, advocate for, and believe.

If anything, I would have imagined the ACLU of Southern California would be an ally in protecting my right to speak out on a topic I believe to be of enormous public significance. I would never expect your organization to line up on the side of a group whose mission is to silence my voice by, among other things, attempting to confuse the public about who is speaking.

In closing, I ask that you please clarify: is the ACLU of Southern California providing legal representation to or otherwise associating itself with the so-called “RealBrainOnPorn” website and/or the “experts” who have lent their names to it? If so, which of them? If not, then what is the ACLU’s intention here? I sincerely hope it is not to spend its precious resources supporting an effort to misappropriate my intellectual property in order to stifle my right to speak.

I await your response.

Very truly yours,

Gary Wilson

cc: David Rogers, Executive Director

ACLU of Oregon

PO Box 40585

Portland, OR 97240

I have never received a reply from the ACLU clarifying its role this matter.

That said, RealYourBrainonPorn Twitter (likely managed by Prause) continues to misrepresent and weaponize the ACLU letter. Prause/RealYBOP created a press release posting it (and mischaracterizing it) on a document site:

RealYBOP has also placed the ACLU letter on its site:

In fact, being an obsessive cyberstalker, RealYBOP (apparently managed by Prause) constantly tweets the ACLU letter:

RealYBOP (Prause?) often enters threads where I have tweeted or where YBOP has been mentioned, tweeting the ACLU letter (always misrepresenting what it actually stated). RealYBOP (Prause?) often blocks Twitter accounts, then tweets under the accounts hoping the account owner won’t be expecting her malicious activity, as she did here with me and others:

RealYBOP (Prause?) often tags people I know, escalating her harassment (SASH, John Foubert, Gail Dines). In this disgusting tweet Prause commits multiple instances of defamation per se:

Here’s RYBOP (Prause?) lying in a tweet, falsely claiming that I have lost multiple lawsuits against her or RealYBOP. The truth: I have yet to file a single lawsuit, against anyone.

RealYBOP (an apparent Prause alias) often combines the ACLU letter with the WIPO decision. In these tweets I am “vicious to scientists” for attempting to defend my trademark:

Just a taste of the real cyberstalker, Prause. The legal battle for my trademark and its enforcement continues.


PRAUSE: g. July 1, 2019. 1 relocated my home again due solely to fear of Wilson’s stalking because Donald Hilton, who works with Wilson, had my home address.

No evidence provided by NP. More fake victim-hood and tall tales by serial harasser, defamer, cyberstalker, Nicole Prause.


PRAUSE: h. July 4, 2019. Wilson and Robinson receive legal service of Mr. Giampetro’s Cease and Desist letter at their home in Ashland, OR. See Service of Cease and Desist, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(Q).

Prause escalates her stalking and harassment by delivering a bogus cease and desist letter to my home at about 10:00 pm (reproduced below). As Prause did not file this letter with her misrepresentations, I provide it below.

Prause’s lawyer states that I continue to make false allegations, statements and publications, yet he fails to provide an example of a single one. Giampietro does allude to “eight new posts attacking and defaming Dr. Prause,” yet provides no links or screenshots. Standard Giampierto/Prause. Nevertheless, I assumed Prause was upset that I debunked her factually-inaccurate July 2, Daily Beast article in this series of tweets:

I was also told on July 4th, 2019 that “Dr. Prause has reached the end of her patience with Mr. Wilson”. These threats were not only unfounded, but also empty. Not only does the above Twitter thread remain, I have since added 30 new sections to Prause page #2, and Prause page #3, and these extensive pages chronicling Prause’s ever increasing defamation and cyberstalking:

Prause’s bogus cease and desist letter

We chose to disregard the above unsupported threat.


PRAUSE: I. July 18, 2019. Wilson filed a World Intellectual Property Organization complaint against me for a website that he knew I did not own, requiring me to hire an attorney again to prove that I did not own the website.

My attorneys filed a complaint requesting that WIPO conduct an administrative review of the apparent misuse of my trademark in the URL www.realyourbrainonporn.com. The complaint initially named only Nicole Prause. This made perfect sense as Prause (1) had been harassing, cyberstalking and defaming me for years, (2) was evidently behind RealYBOP Twitter account and reddit account, (3) was clearly the one who created RealYBOP’s so-called research page, and (4) had recently filed a trademark application to obtain YourBrainOnPorn and YourBrainOnPorn.com:

My attorneys named Prause alone initially because it appears that she manages the site, irrespective of the owner of record. For example, there is correspondence from some of the “experts” named on www.realyourbrainonporn.com that they looked to Prause, not Burgess, to remove information about them from the site (in response my attornsys’ cease and desist letters to the experts). From RealYBOP expert Alan Mckee:

From former Indiana University colleague and co-author, Peter Finn:

In fact, not one of the experts mentioned Daniel Burgess’s involvement in response to the cease & desist letters they received.

WIPO responded to the initial complaint that, in fact, Daniel Burgess was the site owner of record, so Burgess was added to the amended complaint: Final Amended WIPO complaint: Gary Wilson v. Burgess and Prause (RealYourBrainOnPorn). Supporting exhibits:

In the very disappointing WIPO decision the arbitrator also saw Prause as a party: “Panel finds substantial evidence that Mr. Burgess, Dr. Prause, and Liberos LLC share involvement in the control of the website.” Excerpt from the WIPO opinion:

The Amended Complaint also names Dr. Nicole Prause and Liberos LLC as Respondents. They do not appear in the Registrar’s WhoIs database in relation to the Domain Name, but there are reasons to believe that Dr. Prause is a leading person in the “group of psychologists and scientists” that is responsible for the Respondent’s website, according to the Response. She is the second-listed expert on the site, with her affiliation shown as “Liberos”. Two of the experts who replied to the Complainant’s demand letter said they participated at her invitation. The law firm that responded on her behalf to the Complainant’s demand letter is the same law firm that represents the Respondent in this proceeding. Dr. Prause “DBA Liberos LLC” applied for United States trademark registration of YOUR BRAIN ON PORN. The online database of the California Secretary of State shows that Liberos LLC is a California limited liability company, for which Nicole Prause is the registered agent.

The Panel finds substantial evidence that Mr. Burgess, Dr. Prause, and Liberos LLC share involvement in the control of the website associated with the Domain Name, as well as common interests in this proceeding, and there has been no showing of material prejudice to them in the event that the proceeding continues with Dr. Prause and Liberos LLC as named Respondents. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2.

Accordingly, the Panel allows the Complaint against multiple respondents as styled in the caption above and refers to these parties collectively hereafter as the “Respondent.”

As the arbitrator noted, both Prause and Burgess are indeed represented by Prause’s lawyer Wayne B. Giampietro of Poltrock & Giampietro. If Prause had no involvement in www.realyourbrainonporn.com, why did her attorneys (who continue to represent her in connection with her infringement on my trademarks) also represent Daniel Burgess?

Incidentally, prior to this dispute, Giampietro represented a party associated with Backpage (an online marketplace that was shut down for trafficking minors). Backpage.com was shuttered 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, and contended that 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 Prause’s counsel Wayne B. Giampietro LLC listed as forfeiting $100,000.

Prause has weaponized the WIPO decision via a press release and constantly tweets a link to the WIPO page as if it exonerates her entirely (45-page PDF of “WIPO” tweets by RealYourBrainOnPorn & Prause).


PRAUSE: j. July 30, 2019. Wilson spoke for over an hour on an anti-pornography show about this lawsuit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmjgpuOmunw). Wilson stated about my colleagues and me, “I hope they are watching…because they will never stop me.” I reported his threat to the LAPD detective investigating the criminal death threats and the Los Angeles prosecutor.

No evidence provided by NP. She claims to have filed a police report, but fails to provide a copy of it. (If she did, the police prudently ignored her, as no one has ever contacted me.) If Prause reported me to the police for saying this, then I will report her to the LADP for filing a false police report. Numerous falsehoods by Prause:

  1. Prause keeps referring to the administrative WIPO complaint as a lawsuit. It was not a lawsuit. It’s purpose was to try to make a lawsuit unnecessary. (45-page PDF of “WIPO” tweets by RealYourBrainOnPorn & Prause).
  2. The podcast with Mark Queppet was not all about the trademark infringement case and trademark squatting case. The first half of the show concerned porn addiction and the effects of porn use. Only in the second half did we get into RealYBOP, Prause and her cronies harassing and defaming me and others, and Prause trying to steal my trademark.
  3. Prause purposely omitted the context of me stating that “they will never stop me.” Unsurprisingly that context was Prause’s relentless 7-year campaign of harassment, cyberstalking and defamation as well as her attempt to steal my trademark and URL.

Listen for yourself. The podcast is cued-up to where we begin discussing Prause & her allies’ defamation and harassment:


PRAUSE: l August 24, 2019. Wilson submitted Hilton’s response to this court to Google Scholar for indexing. See Google Scholar Documents, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(R). Google scholar is the main resource scientists use to find peer-reviewed articles. It does not index pdfs from a website unless they are submitted for indexing. This means that scientists using this resource to search for research that I have conducted will, instead, find this defamatory court filing. The link also will be emailed to thousands of people, if not millions, who subscribe to receive Google Scholar alerts.

No evidence provided by NP. Her screenshot of Hilton’s lawsuit on Google scholar proves nothing. Perhaps she posted it on Google Scholar herself, as she was the first to report its presence there. Just another instance of Prause perjuring herself, and repeating herself, as this particular lie was addressed in a previous section.

As stated previously, all court documents were available online via PACER, at this link – https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/28807982/Hilton_v_Prause_et_al

Once again, I did not submit Hilton’s response to Google Scholar for indexing. I didn’t even know one could submit links to Google Scholar (if this is in fact true). By the way, a Google Scholar search for yourbrainonporn.com returns about 100 highly diverse results (none of which were indexed by me).

That said, I do hope that researchers read the documents, follow the links, and discover the truth about Nicole Prause. She has been skewing the field with her harassment, scare tactics, defamation, and falsehoods for way too long. There needs to be a full investigation into her behind-the-scenes activities at academic journals, governing boards and media outlets. Just for starters.

In reality, a Google Scholar search for the name of the existing YBOP page covering the Hilton lawsuit mysteriously returns only one result: Nicole Prause’s biased, untruthful 106-page Motion to Dismiss, which she caused to be placed on Reason.com (the subject of the current page): “Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause: Downloadable PDFs of Hilton lawsuit, exhibits, and affidavits by 9 other Prause victims

I strongly suspect that Prause (who is tech-savvy), uploaded her already denied Motion to Dismiss onto Google Scholar.


PRAUSE: m. August 25, 2019. Wilson broke in to the website of my colleague Daniel Burgess and posted instructions publicly for others to do the same. We filed another report to the FBI and updated the Los Angeles police detective assigned to his case. See Exhibit 1(M).

No evidence provided by NP. Prause is lying. I never hacked into any website. Prause, as usual, provides no evidence and no copy of her claimed FBI or police report. Only a picture of a CD. It’s been 7 year of Prause alleging to have reported me to the police, yet no law enforcement agency has ever contacted me.

I strongly believe that Prause was behind fake Mormon porn URLs placed on the Internet WayBack Machine. The whole sordid story is here: Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause) defamation/harassment of Gary Wilson: They “discover” fake porn URLs in the Internet Wayback Archive (August, 2019)

Prause and Burgess’s miraculous discovery of some 300 fake URLs inserted into the Wayback archive was followed by RealYBOP Twitter (apparently magaged by Prause) posting about the fake URLs 110 times in a single weekend. Usually in my Twitter threads (she blocked me) or anywhere my name was mentioned. During this 4-day rampage @BrainOnPorn posted over 110 tweets targeting me. Nearly every @BrainOnPorn tweet contained at least one defamatory statement (most contained several). Rather than posting 100+ tweets here, including tweets RealYBOP posted under other comments out of context, visit this link. There you can see all the @BrainOnPorn tweets targeting me between August 22-26: PDF of over 100 RealYBOP tweets targeting Gary Wilson from August 22-26. Most contain defamation by RealYBOP.

In addition to the baseless character-impugning campaign conducted by the “Brain On Porn” Twitter account, the Twitter account also explicitly accused me of at least 3 felonies (screenshots below):

  • Stalking women in person
  • Making death threats, and
  • Hacking into websites.

Publicly accusing people of sexual/professional misconduct and felonies is actionable. In fact, if a tribunal deems RealYBOP’s (Burgess’s) actions “defamation per se,” I need not show any commercial damages in order to recover. I am investigating the remedies open to me to seek redress for RealYBOP’s (Burgess’s) actions.

In addition to approximately 150 tweets in 4 days by “Brain On Porn” Twitter and its allies (@RonSwansonTimeBurgess alias, Nicole Prause, NerdyKinkyCommie, and David Ley), on August 22 this email by the realyourbrainonporn website admin was forwarded to Gary Wilson (is it Burgess who owns the URL, or Prause?):

As the organization forwarding the email knows me, and is keenly aware of RealYBOP’s trademark infringement, and Prause’s long history of defaming and harassing those in the porn-skeptic movement, its personnel knew it was all lies.


PRAUSE: n. August 27, 2019. Wilson publicly claimed that I and over 20 other professionals committed felony computer hacking by accessing his website to post pornographic links referring to “Mormon” pornography of young girls in 2016 and 2017. Wayne Giampetro, JD had to send another Cease and Desist to stop Gary Wilson’s latest false claims against us. See Exhibit 1(N). Wilson has filed no known report to law enforcement regarding this supposed felony I/we committed.

Nothing but lies by Prause. While I strongly believe that Prause was behind the fake Mormon porn URLs placed on the Internet WayBack Machine, I never stated that she or any of the RealYBOP “experts” inserted the fake “Mormon porn” URLs into Wayback Internet Archive. Nor did Giampietro’s bogus Cease and Desist letter provide evidence that I had said anything the sort.

That said, how does Mr. Giampietro explain how Prause and Daniel Burgess magically discovered and promoted the fraudulent URLs before anyone else? In any case, our attorneys responded with this stern letter to Dr. Prause and her lawyer (reproduced below).

As explained in the previous section, this was such a complicated story that I was forced to create an extensive page documenting the events: Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause) defamation/harassment of Gary Wilson: They “discover” fake porn URLs in the Internet Wayback Archive (August, 2019). Over a 4-day rampage @BrainOnPorn posted over 110 tweets targeting me with nonsense claims: PDF of over 100 RealYBOP tweets targeting Gary Wilson from August 22-26. Most contain defamation by RealYBOP. There is no better example of Prause acting as an obssessed cyberstalker.

In response to RealYBOP’s Twitter rampage (in which Prause, apparently, was aided by @RonSwansonTime (likely a Burgess alias), NerdyKinkyCommie, and David Ley) I posted the following extensive Twitter thread exposing how “they” inserted fake YBOP URLs into the WayBack Machine archive and how I was being cyberstalked by RealYBOP, its aliases, and its allies. As you can see, none of the tweets accused anyone of “committed felony computer hacking”:

In the thread I explained how easy it was to insert fake URLs into the WayBack Machine Archive (I did it for my site).

I also tweeted that another individual had inserted fake URLs into realyourbrainonporn.com’s Wayback Archive, thus disproving RealYBOP’s Twitter claim that it could not be done: https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.realyourbrainonporn.com/*

Now on to our lawyer’s 8-page response to Mr. Giampietro’s bogus August 27, 2019 cease and desist letter (PDF):

—————————

—————–

———————

——————

———————–

—————-

—————————-

Again, this PDF of 120 tweets contains many more examples of RealYBOP (Prause or Burgess) defaming and harassing over a 4-day period.


PRAUSE: o. September 12, 2019. The World Intellectual Property Organization ruled against Gary Wilson’s complaint against me.

My attorneys filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as a possible route to having the trademark-infringing website www.realyourbrainonporn.com removed from the Web as swiftly and economically as possible. While the arbitrator declined to support its removal, he acknowledged that the infringing URL was indeed “confusingly similar” to my URL www.yourbrainonporn.com. He then decided that the infringing site was a “gripe” site, and as such, entitled to criticize my site.

My attorneys say it is not, in fact a “gripe site.” It does not criticize my work. In fact, it does not address the content of my site at all, and merely holds itself out as the “real” version of my site in a confusing manner. However, the arbitrator, having opined that the infringing site was a “gripe site,” declined to examine the third element of my complaint: Prause’s abundant bad faith. He stated that the evidence my attorneys provided “could well suffice to establish bad faith,” but found no need to reach a conclusion on that element in view of his “gripe site” opinion. The entire ruling is available here: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2019/d2019-1544.html. This is far from over.

It goes without saying that Prause’s attempt to steal my trademark, while mimicking the appearance of my website and Twitter account, reveals she is the aggressor, the obsessed harasser. She is not the victim, but the perpetrator.

Prause has weaponized the WIPO decision via a press release and constantly tweets a link to the WIPO page as if it exonerates her entirely. For example, RealYBOP’s press release (45-page PDF of “WIPO” tweets by RealYourBrainOnPorn & Prause):

The RealYBOP and Prause tweets often include the baseless assertion that I, or others, wanted to silence “them” because we were afraid of “their science.”

First, all Prause needed to do was revert to RealYBOP’s original URL ScienceOfArousal.com. Proof: if you copy & paste this URL into your browser – https://www.scienceofarousal.com you will be redirected to “realyourbrainonporn.” Prause and Daniel Burgess could simply revert to their erstwhile brand name ScienceOfArousal.com and continue to operate freely and legally.

Second, I was pleased that Prause created a RealYBOP “research page.” It allowed me to expose, item by item, her so-called research page as nothing more than a collection of cherry-picked, often irrelevant papers (many are not studies). It also allowed me to reveal Prause’s bias, egregious omissions, and deception. See: Porn Science Deniers Alliance (AKA: “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com” and “PornographyResearch.com”).

Here we have RealYBOP (an apparent Prause alias) tweeting under the Mark Queppet interview of me (RealYBOP has blocked me), falsely stating that I threatened scientists and their families. My attorneys’ carefully documented 8-page C&D letter to Prause and Burgess to request that they stop infringing on my trademark is hardly “threatening families”:

Not only does RealYBOP (Prause?) incessantly tweet a link to the WIPO decision (often entering my Twitter threads to do so), RYBOP incorrectly calls WIPO a “lawsuit,” and regularly tweets (falsely) that other “porn activists” were involved in my case. For example, RealYBOP tweeted that Gabe Deem tried to take down “realyourbrainonporn,” and thus was a party in the my WIPO comlaint. He wasn’t.

That’s defamation.

Next, a September 30, 2019 tweet about Alex Rhodes, falsely implying he was a party. In it RealYBOP falsely states that NoFap “tried to silence the actual science,” but they lost (linking to the WIPO decision in favor of RealYBOP):

RealYBOP continues, defaming Deem, and stating that he tried to silence scientists (linking to WIPO decision, falsely implying he was a party).

The next day, RealYBOP (Prause?) trolls Gabe (whom she has blocked):

Note – Gabe is not a coach and never has been. RealYBOP claims about studies on porn and sexual problems are debunked here: Erectile And Other Sexual Dysfunctions Section. More of the same, falsely claiming Gabe was involved in the WIPO complaint

RealYBOP (Prause?) also falsely tweeted that Staci Sprout (who filed an affidavit in Hilton’s suit) “sued RealYBOP and lost”:

Just more defamation. Next RealYBOP falsely tweets that Staci Sprout was involved in my WIPO complaint:

For much more see – 45-page PDF of “WIPO” tweets by RealYourBrainOnPorn & Prause


PRAUSE: 18. Hilton, who provides content for Wilson’s website, knew or should have known that he was promoting Wilson’s harassment of me by working with Wilson, as Wilson has made several disparaging and harassing comments about me around the Internet:

a. “Miss Prause is the head of UCLA SPAN lab” (from yourbrainrebalanced.com removing my doctorate, referring to marital status)
b. “Miss Prause is the head of UCLA SPAN lab” (from jsparkblog.com removing my doctorate, referring to marital status again)
c. “Nicki” (misspelling of a nickname removing my doctorate)
d. Nicole Prause [deleted “Neuroscientist” from published article reproduced]
e. “Ley’s sidekick Prause”

No evidence provided by NP. First Prause lie: Don Hilton does not “provide content for Wilson’s website.” While YBOP contains a few articles by Hilton (which I copied from other sites) he has never written an article for my site. Second Prause lie: I have never harassed her and she has never provided evidence that I have.

On to Prause’s entire collection of disparaging and misogynistic comments that I supposedly made about her. I already addressed her fabricated claims of misogyny and the context of me accidentally using “Miss” in the introduction (a & b). A refresher is in order. Using an alias to post on a porn recovery forum, Nicole Prause asked me: “How small IS your penis Gary?” That’s pretty sexist. Far more sexist than my typing “Miss” or misspelling “Nicki” (Prause has used Nicole, Nikky, Nikki, and who knows what else, to identify herself). As for “removing her doctorate” (again no example), YBOP rarely adds “Dr.” or “PhD” to anyone’s name, so Prause need not feel special. I don’t recall posting “Ley’s sidekick Prause,” but this doesn’t constitute misogyny anymore that typing “Prause’s sidekick Ley” constitutes misandry.

The story behind the unintentional use of “Miss”: I accidentally typed “Miss” Prause in a reply to Dr. Prause asking about the size of my penis. 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 (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). Using fake names, Prause frequently trolls porn recovery forums citing junk science and harassing members who are attempting to 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, which she apparently also shares at her public lectures, painting herself as being victimized “as a woman scientist,” and portraying 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 publicize the truth that I was not ‘physically stalking’ her. At the same time, she continues to act as a perpetrator, harassing and libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. See: 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, Gabe Deem & Alex Rhodes together, Alexander Rhodes#11, Alexander Rhodes #12, Alexander Rhodes #13.

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 infographic 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: To date, my name is on Gary Wilson’s website www.yourbrainonporn.com 9,710 times, he has over 100 unauthorized images of me on his website www.yourbrainonporn.com, including the one used by Hilton in his public talks about my sexuality, and has placed my name with his website link over 103,000 times on the Internet. See Prause Mention Data for Wilson Website, attached hereto as Exhibit 1(5). Wilson described my physical location on his website, including:

a. “Note: Rory Reid’s UCLA office is right next door to Prause’s (and the two used to be roommates)”

b. “females willing to act as sexual guinea pigs in Prause’s Hollywood Blvd office”

Letters a & b are addressed below. I start with the excerpts from her first paragraph.

PRAUSE: he has over 100 unauthorized images of me on his website www.yourbrainonporn.com,

Prause is calling the screenshots of her numerous defamatory tweets “unauthorized images of me.” Prause is claiming that screenshots of her tweets are copyrighted material. Tweets are generally not copyrightable, and hers are not. Every day thousands of websites and countless Twitter users post screenshots of tweets. In an attempt to remove evidence of her unethical and defamatory tweets Prause filed 3 groundless DMCA takedown requests in an attempt to bury evidence of her campaign of harassment and defamation (all 3 cases were dismissed by my web host as baseless).

PRAUSE: To date, my name is on Gary Wilson’s website www.yourbrainonporn.com 9,710 times.

PRAUSE: has placed my name with his website link over 103,000 times on the Internet..

So which is it, 9,710 times, or 103,000 times – or maybe 35,000 times and 82,ooo times as claimed in previous iterations of Prause’s Google search trickery? Prause’s fraud was debunked in this section October, 2018: Prause falsely claims in a tweet that her name appears over 35,000 (or 82,000) times on YBOP, but I’ll explain it again here.

Prause did not search my website, YourBrainOnPorn.com. Instead, she performed a purposely incorrect Google search for “prause site: yourbrainonporn.com” (leaving a space after the colon). Leaving the space tells Google to search the entire internet, not just YBOP! Prause’s search trick does return about 29,000 items (not 103,000), but the vast majority are not on YBOP:

The proper syntax for such a Google search is to omit the space between “site:” and a URL Thus, “site:yourbrainonporn.com” works fine, but “site: yourbrainonporn.com” searches across the internet for either yourbrainonporn.com or “Prause”.

In December, 2019, the proper result for Prause and yourbrainonporn.com was 8,300 Google returns. However, the vast majority of these 8,300 google returns were duplicates of YBOP pages, because YBOP is translated by G-Translate into multiple other languages (and so each mention of Prause’s name is counted multiple times leading to vastly exaggerated numbers).

Let me explain: Because Google translates each YBOP page into 100 languages, a solitary mention on a single YBOP page can lead to a Google search returning 100 pages! In other words, you might need to divide Prause’s number by 100. For example, by the 10th page of a proper Google search for Prause on YBOP, 8 out of the 10 returns are duplicate pages in a foreign language:

In October, 2018, before YBOP was redesigned to employ Google Translate, the true result for “Prause” on yourbrainonporn.com was 565 mentions:

Frankly, 565 seems low for “Prause” on YBOP, as I was forced to create several pages, like the current one, to document and counter Prause’s relentless defamation and harassment of me and many others:

If Prause continues at her current pace, we may indeed reach 103,000 primary mentions of “Prause” on YBOP. Joking aside, mentions of “Prause” have increased significantly since October 2018, as Prause’s defamation and cyberstalking have risen exponentially. For example, on January 29, 2019, Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. In April 2019, Prause created a trademark-infringing website “RealYourBrainOnPorn,” and a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/BrainOnPorn), a YouTube channel, and a Facebook page, all employing the words “Your Brain On Porn.” Prause also created a reddit account (user/sciencearousal) to spam porn recovery forums reddit/pornfree and reddit/NoFap with promotional drivel, claiming porn use is harmless, and disparaging YourBrainOnPorn.com and myself. Put simply, Prause has used her new apparent alias (“RealYourBrainOnPorn”) to wage a full scale war on all her victims. As a result, I was forced to create these new YBOP pages:

Within a few months of creating RealYBOP, two defamation lawsuits were filed against Prause. The related documents for both defamation lawsuits (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes), were placed on YBOP, resulting is these pages:

While I am weary of documenting Prause’s activity, I know that YBOP is the one site willing to document Prause’s unbelievable behavior. I have done this for the protection of her many victims, as a resource for the public to know the truth, and as a source of evidence for potential lawsuits (there are currently 3 lawsuits involving Prause). An ugly job, but unfortunately necessary.

Other sources of “Prause” on YBOP: In addition to the pages chronicling Prause’s malicious behavior, YBOP contains over 12,000 pages, and it’s a clearinghouse for nearly everything associated with Internet porn use and its effects on the user. Prause has published multiple papers about porn use and hypersexuality, and by her own admission, claims to be a professional debunker of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems.

In November, 2019 a Google search for “Nicole Prause” + pornography returned about 39,000 pages. Perhaps thanks to her costly public relations firm, she’s quoted in hundreds of journalistic articles about porn use and porn addiction. She has published several papers related to pornography use. She’s on TV, radio, podcasts, and YouTube channels claiming to have debunked porn addiction with a single (heavily formally criticized) study. So Prause’s name inevitably shows up a lot on YBOP.

Not only do Prause’s studies appear on YBOP, so do hundreds of other studies, many of which cite “Prause” in their reference sections. YBOP also has published very long critiques of seven Prause papers. In addition, YBOP hosts at least 18 peer-reviewed critiques of Prause’s studies. Further, YBOP contains at least a dozen lay critiques of Prause’s work. YBOP also hosts many journalistic articles that quote Nicole Prause, and YBOP often responds to Prause’s claims in these articles. YBOP also debunks many of the talking points put forth by Prause and her close ally David Ley. To put this in context, YBOP also critiques other questionable research on porn and related subjects. These critiques are not personal, but rather substantive.

——————————————–

PRAUSE: a. Wilson described my physical location on his website, including: “Note: Rory Reid’s UCLA office is right next door to Prause’s (and the two used to be roommates)”

No evidence provided by NP. That was her UCLA colleague at the time, Rory Reid’s, description of Prause’s “physical location” in July of 2013.

Why didn’t Prause provide the URL where this statement appeared? Because it was Rory Reid who stated the above and he did so in his very friendly-to-Prause “critique” of Steele et al., 2013. Rory Reid’s so-called critique was placed on YBOP in July of 2013: “Critique of Prause Study” Rory C. Reid, Ph.D., LCSW (July 2013). Here’s a PDF of Rory Reid’s full “critique.” A screenshot of the section where Reid says his office is next door to Prause:

Prause is trying to spin Rory Reid’s 2013 reveal, in a paper attacking Prause’s critics and lauding her genius, as somehow compromising her safety (astonishingly, Reid’s veiled defense of Steele et al., 2013 mentions me by name 10 times – did she help him write it?). This claim is ridiculous. First, Prause has provided zero evidence of anyone stalking her (only fairy tales of victim-hood as revealed in preceding sections). More importantly, in 2013 Prause’s UCLA address, office number, email, and phone were all available on the official UCLA website and her SPAN Lab website (which she represented to be a UCLA site). Nice try. By the way, eight subsequent peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013 are in accord with my analysis that Steele et al. actually supports the porn addiction model, and that Prause misrepresented her findings to the press.

——————————————

PRAUSE: b. Wilson described my physical location on his website, including: “females willing to act as sexual guinea pigs in Prause’s Hollywood Blvd office”

Notice that YBOP did not list the claimed Liberos address, only Hollywood Blvd. The reality: for years Prause’s Liberos website had a Hollywood Blvd. address listed as its location (likely a fake address, as a letter from my attorneys could not reach her there). Her website very recently switched the Liberos address to Sacramento, so she could give the court the false impression that I outed her “secret” hiding place. Prause failed to cover all her tracks, as her own LinkedIn page currently (as of December 8th, 2019) lists a Hollywood Blvd. address: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nprause

And Prause’s own GovTribe page, which she updated on March 2, 2019, has a different Hollywood Boulevard address: https://govtribe.com/vendors/prause-nicole-liberos-79eg4 (address was still there as of February, 2020, indicating Prause is unconcerned about being stalked):

There’s a reason Prause failed to provide a URL or screenshot for the above phrase: it’s in this section of the Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry? page, which reveals a possible quid pro quo with the Free Speech Coalition (the lobbying arm for the porn industry): The Free Speech Coalition allegedly provided subjects for a Prause study that “debunks” porn addiction (much more in the next section).


PRAUSE: Wilson’s website www.yourbrainonporn.com falsely accuses me of a variety of criminal acts that have never been filed with law enforcement. For example, Gary Wilson falsely claims on his website www.yourbrainonporn.com that I secretly test “porn stars” in my laboratory, have no university affiliations overseeing my research, am supported through unreported conflicts of interest by the pornography industry, and am funded by the sexual servitude of women through a company called OneTaste. Wilson knows these statements are untrue, as he has been served with cease and desist letters from my attorneys. See Exhibit 1(M). I have never tested porn stars, my research is overseen by federally-regulated, public university ethics review panels with which I have an affiliation (University of Pittsburgh, University of Nebraska-Lincoln), I have no support from the pornography industry, and none of my research is, or has ever been, funded by the OneTaste company.

No evidence provided by NP, other than a picture of a CD. Notice how Prause failed to provide:

  1. Copies on any FBI reports,
  2. Screenshots of what she claimed I have said, or
  3. URLs of YBOP pages containing what she claims I have said.

The YBOP page Prause is likely referring to is Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry? Read the page to see what I actually said.

I’ll provide very short answers to each fabricated allegation, then focus on Prause’s lies surrounding the study funded by OneTaste. Specifically, the allegation by Vice President of the adult performer union APAG (Ruby) stating that Prause obtained porn performers through the Free Speech Coalition as experimental subjects for the OneTaste study that Prause now claims debunks porn addiction (yet to be published). Ruby also stated that Prause was friends with Eric Paul Leue, the (then) Executive Director of the Free Speech Coalition, the lobbying arm for the porn industry

PRAUSE: For example, Gary Wilson falsely claims on his website www.yourbrainonporn.com that I secretly test “porn stars” in my laboratory…

Actually, it was Ruby the Big Rubousky, who is Vice President of the Adult Performers Actors Guild, who said that (more below).

…have no university affiliations overseeing my research,

What I actually said is that Prause is no longer employed by any university (which she is not). Prause is trying to turn the IRB approval for her studies, obtained by university-based co-investigators, into university affiliations for herself. IRBs do not create employment or adjunct status.

…am supported through unreported conflicts of interest by the pornography industry,

This refers to Ruby’s allegations, detailed below and here: The Free Speech Coalition allegedly provided subjects for a Prause study that “debunks” porn addiction. Is it a conflict of interest to obtain subjects through the FSC (the chief lobbying arm of the porn industry) for a study that claims to debunk porn addiction? I suspect most people would think it is.

…and am funded by the sexual servitude of women through a company called OneTaste.

I certainly never said this, and don’t know what it means. I actually said that OneTaste had recently received some unflattering, revealing publicity (and is being investigated by the FBI). Here are the news items:

Wilson knows these statements are untrue, as he has been served with cease and desist letters from my attorneys. See Exhibit 1(M).

What I know is that Prause provided no documentation (screenshots, URL’s) that I made these statements. As for Prause’s groundless cease and desist letters, most have been addressed elsewhere on the current page. Except for the first C&D in 2015 (where I asked for evidence of Prause’s false allegations), I’ve ignored the rest. Prause sends out C&Ds like other people send out holiday cards. These letters may intimidate others, but her spurious C&Ds cannot suppress my freedom to reveal the truth.

I have never tested porn stars, my research is overseen by federally-regulated, public university ethics review panels with which I have an affiliation (University of Pittsburgh, University of Nebraska-Lincoln),

Again, Prause is cleverly trying to turn an IRB into a university affiliation. IRBs do not create an employment or adjunct relationship. (Again, the IRBs were not obtained through Prause, but through her two co-researchers at Pitt and Nebraska.) I stand by my statement: Prause has not been employed by any university since UCLA decided to not renew her contract (late in 2014).

I have no support from the pornography industry, and none of my research is, or has ever been, funded by the OneTaste company.

I never stated that Prause was financially supported by the porn industry (no one but Prause knows). On the other hand, the Vice President of the adult performers union says Prause obtained subjects through the FSC). As for Prause’s assertion that her research has never been funded by OneTaste, this is contradicted by multiple publicly available pieces of evidence. Let’s turn to the OneTaste (Orgasmic Meditation) study.

Part #1: Addressing Prause’s claim that “none of my research is, or has ever been, funded by the OneTaste company.How will Prause dig herself out of this hole? I’ll provide only a few bits from the mountain of online evidence countering Prause’s assertion that she has never been funded by the OneTaste company:

The official description from page 3 of Nicole Prause’s 20-page CV (notice that Prause lists herself as “principal investigator”):

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

Screenshot of page 3:

More on the Prause & Siegle study from the Institute of OM Foundation.

Prause using her Facebook page to recruit subjects for her OM study:

Prause and co-investigator Greg Siegle presenting about Orgasmic Meditation at a conference in 2019:

Below, Prause is charging $280.00 to tell the world about Orgasmic Meditation. Very important to note that “Orgasmic Meditation” is the trademark property of OneTaste. To advertise her workshop on “Orgasmic Meditation” Prause would have need permission from OneTaste.

Prause has her own page on the OneTaste website:

Here is a page devoted to Prause’s OneTaste study on yet another official OM site: https://instituteofom.com/science. Oh, and here’s a video featuring Prause on the OneTaste YouTube channel:

In addition, numerous articles describe Prause as the principal investigator for the OneTaste (Orgamsic Meditation) study:

Less savory articles paint OneTaste not only as a sexual cult, but as employing less than savory business practices:

In the Bloomberg.com article CEO Joanna Van Vleck pretty much said that OneTaste’s success was now dependent on Prause’s upcoming EEG studies about OM:

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

And here we have Prause proudly co-presenting with founder and CEO of OneTaste, Nicole Daedone (and making good money):

From OneTaste founder Nicole Daedone’s Wikpedia page:

She founded OneTaste in 2004, a sexuality-focused wellness education company based in the San Francisco Bay Area. OneTaste trademarked the “orgasmic meditation” (OM) procedure delivered through the company’s classes. OneTaste also organizes two-week, $36,000-a-person retreats called the “Nicole Daedone Intensive”. Former members of the organization testifying about their experience at OneTaste said it “resembled a kind of prostitution ring,” where managers frequently ordered staffers to engage in sexual relations with customers. In 2015, a former employee received a 6-figure settlement for sexual assault and harassment. The company made $12 million in revenue in 2017.[6]

Like attracts like.

Finally, Prause has employed at least 30 Wikipedia aliases (called sockpuppets) to insert propaganda and falsehoods into numerous Wikipedia pages (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). One of Prause’s most infamous sockpuppets was “NeuroSex,” who was eventually investigated and banned from Wikipedia for having at least 8 other aliases. One of Prause 30 or so sockpuppets “OMer1970” edited the Nicole Prause Wikipedia page, attempting to insert information about Prause’s Orgasmic Meditation study:

As pointed out here, Prause’s usernames often contain 2-3 capitalized words. The username OMer1970 likely stands for “Orgasmic Meditation”, as this user’s edits were about Prause’s Orgasmic Mediation study (commonly called “OM”). OMer1970 was banned as a “confirmed sockpuppet of NeuroSex.”

Bottom line: All available evidence points to Prause being hired to bolster the commercial interests of the heavily tainted and very controversial company (labeled by some as a “kind of prostitution ring”). It appears once again that Prause lied under oath when she stated that she has never done research for the OneTaste company (Orgamic Meditation).

Part #2: Ruby’s allegation that The Free Speech Coalition provided subjects for the OneTaste study Prause asserts “debunks” porn addiction.

Adult performer Ruby the Big Rubousky, who is vice president of the Adult Performers Actors Guild, stated that Prause obtained porn performers as study subjects through the most prominent porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. (Prause has since deleted this Twitter thread).

The study (or studies) in question are said to be funded by OneTaste (OM), a for profit company charging $4,300.00 for a 3-day workshop to learn clitoral manipulation. As described in this Bloomberg.com expose, OneTaste offers several different packages:

Currently, students pay $499 for a weekend course, $4,000 for a retreat, $12,000 for the coaching program, and $16,000 for an “intensive.” In 2014, OneTaste started selling a yearlong $60,000 membership, which lets buyers take all the courses they want and sit in the front row.

To perform the OM study Prause needed willing participants comfortable with being hooked up to machines and having their genitals exposed and masturbated by a man, as researchers observed their responses. It’s not hard to imagine that it’s challenging to locate females willing to act as sexual guinea pigs in Prause’s Hollywood Boulevard office. Whatever the reasons, Ruby insisted that Prause obtained subjects for her OM study via the FSC (and its connections with porn actors), and that Prause had an ongoing relationship with the FSC:

If the above is true it reveals a very cozy working relationship between Prause and the FSC. A relationship that may have started in 2015, when Prause was publicly offered (and apparently accepted) assistance from the deep-pocketed FSC. On October 1, 2015, the FSC (which has spent millions on lawsuits that benefit the porn industry) offered Prause assistance with respect to her so-called “bullies.”

The real bully here was Prause, who had her first Twitter account permanently banned for harassment and cyber-stalking. (In violation of its own rules, Twitter allowed her to create a second Twitter account.) Instead of revealing the facts, Prause fabricated a tall-tale that John Adler MD (Stanford) somehow got her kicked off Twitter. Adler had nothing to with this. Lies upon lies. (Adler has recently filed an affidavit in Hilton’s lawsuit).

Prause emailed the FSC to accept their “help” with her imaginary bullies. Prause then promptly begins to discuss with another industry account why condoms in porn are a bad idea (the porn industry’s position):

Prause then offers help to the FSC (is this the beginnings of a mutually beneficial relationship?):

Since then, Prause has publicly thrown her weight behind the FSC multiple times, including for example, supporting the FSC’s campaign against California’s ill-fated Proposition 60 (calling for condom use in porn):

Here she retweets FSC propaganda. (Again, dozens of Prause’s incriminating pro-FSC tweets have since been deleted.):

The above are just a few examples. Many more Prause tweets attacking Prop 60 and its supporters can be found in these 2 sections:

Originally, the OneTaste study was funded to explore only the benefits of “Orgasmic Meditation” – but it then transformed into a study debunking porn addiction (which would certainly serve the FSC’s interests)!

In 2017 Prause began crowing that her yet to be published Orgasmic Meditation study “falsified” porn and sex addiction, even though the study had nothing to do with porn use and likely did not involve any actual porn addicts.

In her tweets and comments Prause revealed that she showed her clitoris-stroking couples “sex films” and the results (in her opinion) debunked the porn addiction model. In short, Prause’s OM study has apparently magically morphed from a “partnered sex” investigation into an anti-porn addiction, pro-porn industry paper. Below are a few examples of Prause claiming her upcoming “partnered sex” (OM) study debunks porn addiction (which has still not been published as of December, 2019).

Background: Recently the World Health Organization released a new edition of its diagnostic manual, the ICD-11, with a diagnosis called “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder.” Prior to the release of the “implementation version,” a beta draft of the ICD-11 was also put online, and made available for interested parties to comment on. (A simple sign-up is needed to view and participate.)

Astonishingly, Prause has posted more comments in the beta-draft comment section than every other commenter combined. In the comments section under this new proposal, Prause posted three times about her OM study (partnered sex, N=250). Here are her comments asserting that her OM study found no evidence of sexual compulsivity (she never does, even when neuroscientists say she has):

Another ICD-11 comment:

Another ICD-11 comment:

Her attempt failed, and the ICD-11 now contains a new diagnosis suitable for porn addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”

In July, 2018, Prause let WHO, the APA, and AASECT know that, in her opinion, her lone Orgasmic Meditation study had “falsified” the porn/sex addiction model:

What legitimate researcher would ever claim to have debunked an entire field of research, and to “falsify” all previous studies, with a single study that did not recruit porn addicts and wasn’t designed to assess the signs, symptoms and behaviors of an addiction? Prause trumpeted her purported claims of “falsification” in 2015, and was ultimately greeted with 9 peer-reviewed analyses saying she had misinterpreted her findings.

In this tweet Prause says her upcoming OM study will correct all the “lies” by sex addiction therapists:

In this 2018 SLATE article, Why Are We Still So Worried About Wat­­ching Porn?” by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause, we are told that the World Health Organization should wait for Prause’s earth-shattering OM study:

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

There are several more examples of Prause telling the world that her upcoming “partnered sex” study will debunk porn and sex addiction…for all time.

After all her crowing that her upcoming Orgasmic Meditation study would debunk porn addiction, Prause “pre-registers” the OM study on March 27, 2018 as now assessing “addiction models of sex film viewing.”

Contrary to what Prause is doing here, pre-registration is supposed to mean that prior to collecting actual data, you share the introduction and methods section of your paper with others. Prause is pre-registering her OM study 2 years after collecting data, and a year after boasting her “findings’ debunked porn addiction. The journal that eventually publishes Prause’s OM study needs to look very closely into the unprofessional behavior surrounding this paper.

What Prause is not telling anyone is that she may have used porn performers supplied by the lobbying arm of porn industry, the FSC. The same FSC that offered her help 3 years earlier when her Twitter account was permanently banned for harassment. (The victim of Prause’s Twitter-based harassment? The lead author of one of the most cited reviews of the literature on the porn addiction model: Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update (2015).)

Bottom line: Prause was offered, and appears to have accepted help from the FSC. Immediately, Prause used social media (and emails) to promote porn-industry interests, while simultaneously attacking research that reflected poorly on porn, and waging war on individuals and organizations she labeled as “anti-porn activists.”

Question: Does the University of Pittsburgh know how Prause has turned its study into a propaganda tool for the porn industry? The OM study apparently received its IRB approval through Pittsburgh and co-researcher Dr. Greg J. Siegle. Does the University know that Prause allegedly obtained subjects via the Free Speech Coalition? Does the University of Pittsburgh know about Prause’s cozy ties to the porn industry? Is the University of Pittsburgh aware of Prause’s long history of unethical, and sometimes illegal, behaviors (false police reports, defamation, false reports to governing boards) in support of the porn-industry agenda?

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply