RealYourBrainOnPorn tweets: Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause & pro-porn allies create a biased website and social media accounts to support the porn industry agenda (beginning in April, 2019)

Attempted trademark grab

This alliance of porn-science deniers has had two different names. One of them, “RealYourBrainOnPorn,” (RealYBOP) was founded on an illegal trademark squatting effort. Lawyers are now involved.realybop first RETWEETS -pornhub

On January 29, 2019, pro-porn PhD Nicole Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. These marks have been used by the popular website www.YourBrainOnPorn.com and its host Gary Wilson for nearly a decade – facts long known to Nicole Prause, who has frequently disparaged the latter website and its host since 2013.

The organizers of the imposter site employed many tactics calculated to confuse the public. For example, the new site attempted to trick visitors, with the center of each page declaring “Welcome to the REAL Your Brain On Porn,” while the tab falsely proclaimed “Your Brain On Porn.” Also, to advertise their illegitimate site, the “experts” created a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/BrainOnPorn), YouTube channel, Facebook page, all employing the words “Your Brain On Porn.”

In addition, the “experts” 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 Wilson. It’s important to note that Prause has a long documented history of employing numerous aliases to post on porn recovery forums and Wikipedia.

These 2 pages have documented numerous online aliases Prause has created to propagandize and defame individuals and organizations: page 1, page 2 (it appears that all RealYBOP social media accounts are more Prause aliases). Her easily recognizable comments promote her studies, attack the concept of porn addiction, disparage Wilson and YBOP, belittle men in recovery, and defame porn skeptics.

In a further attempt to confuse the public, the press release announcing the infringing site falsely claims to originate from Wilson’s hometown – Ashland, Oregon. (None of the “experts” named at the new site live in Oregon, let alone in Ashland.) See the Cease & desist letter sent to Nicole Prause and other RealYBOP “experts” (May 1, 2019).

Confirming suspicions, the replies by RealYBOP experts to YBOP’s C&D letter clearly exposed Prause as being in charge of the RealYBOP website and social media accounts.

Update (July, 2019): Legal actions revealed that Daniel Burgess is the current owner of the realyourbrainonporn.com URL. In March of 2018, Daniel Burgess appeared out of nowhere, engaging in targeted harassment and defamation of Gary Wilson and YBOP on multiple social platforms. Some of Burgess’s libelous claims and disturbed rantings are documented and debunked here: Addressing Unsupported Claims and Personal Attacks by Daniel Burgess (March, 2018) (Unsurprisingly Burgess is a close ally of Nicole Prause).

RealYBOP is Prause’s second iteration of a pro-porn industry website and associated social media accounts: The first was “PornHelps”

In 2015, after UCLA did not renew her contract, Nicole Prause created a username called “PornHelps,” which had its own Twitter account (@pornhelps) and a website. All promoted the porn industry agenda as well as outlier studies reporting the “positive” effects of porn. “PornHelps” chronically badgered the same people and organizations that Prause also often attacked. In fact, Prause would team up with her apparent alias PornHelps to attack individuals on Twitter and elsewhere in tandem with her other identities. Some of the Prause/PornHelps coordinated attacks are documented in these Prause-page sections:

The @pornhelps twitter account and PornHelps website were suddenly deleted when it became apparent to that Prause was the individual behind both. While many of us being attacked knew “PornHelps” was really Nicole Prause, the following @pornhelps tweet left no doubt:

Prause, a Kinsey grad, calls herself a neuroscientist, and appears to have started college about 15 years earlier than the above 2016 tweet. In response to several ad hominem attacks by “PornHelps,” which perfectly mirrored many of Prause’s usual comments, “PornHelps” was confronted in the comments section of Psychology Today with this and other evidence:

Within a few days of the above Psychology Today comment the PornHelps website and @pornhelps Twitter account vanished without a trace! All that remains of PornHelps are a smattering of comments on various sites and this abandoned disqus account (listing 87 comments). Want more confirmation that PornHelps was really Prause? This collection of comments, tweets, and coincidences make it apparent.

Prause has formed a second pro-porn sexology association in a glossy reincarnation of her now-defunct “PornHelps” effort. (Not to be confused with PornHelp.org)

A closer look at the alliance (RealYBOP “experts”)

Regardless of its ultimate name, let’s look briefly at the site’s cast of characters. The new site’s faction of sexologists and their chums is not representative of the views of the preponderance of researchers doing research on the effects of today’s porn. (Nicole Prause, Marty Klein, Lynn Comella, David J. Ley, Emily F. Rothman, Samuel Perry, Taylor Kohut, William Fisher, Peter Finn, Janniko Georgiadis, Erick Janssen, Aleksandar Štulhofer, Joshua Grubbs, James Cantor, Michael Seto, Justin Lehmiller, Victoria Hartmann, Julia Velten, Roger Libby, Doug Braun-Harvey, David Hersh, Jennifer Valli, Joe Kort, Charles Moser)

Upon closer examination, almost half of the new site’s “experts” are non-academics, not employed by any university. Not one of the listed “experts” has ever published a neurological study on a group of porn addicted subjects (Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder subjects).

Who’s missing and why? Ask yourself: why are the researchers who authored the preponderance of the relevant evidence on porn’s effects excluded from the “experts” in this alliance?

How does the new site further the interests of the porn industry?

Next, let’s take a closer look at some of the ways the new website + related social media campaign further the interests of the porn (and sexual-enhancement drug?) industries.

The new site’s collection of cherry-picked, often irrelevant, papers misrepresent the preponderance of the research on porn’s effects. For example, these 44 neurological studies on porn users and CSBD subjects are missing from the “experts’” research list. So are studies revealing a link between porn overuse and a range of sexual dysfunctions. For details see Porn Science Deniers Alliance.

The fact is, the deniers are out of step with the experts who drafted the world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The porn industry is well served by a group of purported “experts” who boldly misrepresent the balance of existing research and ignore the preponderance of the research. The latter undercuts the new site’s agenda by pointing to measurable harms associated with porn overuse.

The RealYBOP tweets by the new site (collected here due to ongoing battles) all of which are written in Prause’s distinctive, misleading style.

Judge for yourself whether they further the interests of the porn industry or rather the authentic search scientific truth. Note: the Twitter accounts for RealYBOP and Prause have never tweeted a study reporting negative outcomes related to porn… even though the vast preponderance of pornography studies report negative outcomes. This alone exposes both accounts as promoting the porn industry’s agenda.

We start with the very first tweet by the new RealYBOP. Notice that about half of the retweets were by accounts associated with the porn industry. As the RealYBOP account had no followers yet, this means these fans were likely notified via email. It appears that PornHub was first account to retweet this, suggesting a coordinated effort between PornHub and the RealYBOP account!

It appears that PornHub was the first account to retweet the above:

Is this evidence that RealYBOP’s Twitter and website are cozy with the porn industry? It’s clear that Pornhub knew about RealYBOP’s twitter account before it was created. Enough said.

—————-

Promoting their disparaging press release:

——————

——————–

Just as Prause often does, RealYBOP trolls an account that claims porn use may cause problems:

———————-

Trolling another porn skeptic:

——————

Just like Prause, RealYBOP attacks state porn resolutions:

——————-

RealYBOP tweeting under a Ley tweet libeling Wilson (Prause & Ley’s top targets are Wilson and YBOP). Who else but Prause would do this?

——————

Overview of RealYBOP’s cherry-picked, often dubious papers

A closer examination of RealYBOP’s list of studies reveals cherry-picking, bias, egregious omission, and deception. Here’s an analysis of its initial line-up of studies.

First, half of the papers listed were authored by RealYBOP “experts.” It should be noted that RealYBOP studies by the likes of deniers Prause, Kohut, Fisher or Štulhofer never seem to find any negative effects from porn use (actually, negative effects can often be parsed from their data, as we will see below). The RealYBOP studies are out of alignment with the preponderance of the research in the field. For example, Taylor Kohut’s 2017 non-quantitative study on relationships and porn use claimed to find few negative effects. Kohut’s cunningly designed paper contradicts every other study ever published on males: Over 65 studies link porn use to less sexual & relationship satisfaction, with all studies involving males reporting that more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction.

Second, the list omits not only the preponderance of evidence, but also the work of every academic neuroscientist who has published studies on porn users or CSBD subjects. These include Marc Potenza, Matthias Brand, Valerie Voon, Christian Laier, Simone Kühn, Jürgen Gallinat, Rudolf Stark, Tim Klucken, Ji-Woo Seok, Jin-Hun Sohn, Mateusz Gola and many others. As one example, why are Matthias Brand’s studies omitted from the deniers’ list? Brand has authored 310 studies, is the head of the Department of Psychology: Cognition, at the University of Duisburg-Essen, supervises a lab with over 20 researchers, and has published more neuroscience-based studies on pornography users/addicts than any other researcher in the world. (See his list of his porn addiction studies here: 16 neurological studies and 5 reviews of the literature.)

Third, eight of the 50 papers listed are mere opinion pieces, not actual studies. Talk about citation inflation.

Fourth, the list contains no reviews of the literature and only one meta-analysis, which limits itself to 21 studies assessing the porn use of adult sexual offenders: The use of pornography and the relationship between pornography exposure and sexual offending in males: A systematic review. While this meta-analysis concludes porn use is not related to adult sexual offending there’s good reason to question its findings. For example, the authors retrieved 189 studies, but included only 21 in their review. Put simply, numerous studies with opposing results were excluded.

The absence of reviews of the literature and meta-analyses is a giveaway that RealYBOP cherry-picked outlier studies (usually the “experts'” own). While most of RealYBOP’s puzzling research categories don’t lend themselves to literature reviews or meta-analysis, a few might: “love & intimacy” or “youth.” Why not provide the reader with one of the literature reviews on pornography and “youth” (adolescents) , such as: review#1, review2, review#3, review#4, review#5, review#6, review#7? Why doesn’t a RealYBOP “love & intimacy” category provide a literature review on pornography and sexual or relationship satisfaction, such as: review#1, review#2, review#3? The answer is clear: no review aligns with RealYBOP’s agenda.

Fifth, and most telling, RealYBOP’s list excludes nearly every study linking porn use to negative outcomes (these represent the majority of porn studies). Moreover, in those few studies listed that did report negative outcomes, RealYBOP omits these findings from their description. By using YBOP’s list of relevant studies we can easily identify their deceit:

  1. RealYBOP omitted all 44 neurological studies on porn users and CSB subjects, except for Prause et al., 2015 (they don’t tell the readers about the 8 peer-reviewed papers that say that Prause’s EEG study actually supports addiction model).
  2. RealYBOP omitted all but two of these 65 studies linking porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. RealYBOP misled the reader on those 2 studies (and others in the “love” category): as both link porn use poorer relationship satisfaction or more infidelity: study 1, study 2.
  3. RealYBOP omitted all 23 recent neuroscience-based literature reviews & commentaries, authored by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All 21 papers support the addiction model.
  4. RealYBOP omitted every study on this list of over 35 studies linking porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views. They omitted this 2016 meta-analysis of 135 studies assessing the effects of porn & sexual media use on beliefs, attitudes and behaviors: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015.
  5. RealYBOP omitted all but two of the papers in this list of over 35 studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms (all signs and symptoms associated with addiction). The two studies are by Nicole Prause and Alexander Štulhofer, whose artfully crafted write-ups mislead the reader: study 1 (Prause et al., 2015 – again); study 2 by Štulhofer.
  6. RealYBOP omitted all but three of the papers in this list of over 35 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. Not surprisingly, the 3 studies are by RealYBOP “experts” Alexander Štulhofer, Joshua Grubbs, and James Cantor. In a blatant example of RealYBOP misrepresenting their own studies, all 3 papers reported links between sexual problems and porn use or porn addiction: study 1 by Štulhofer; study 2 by Grubbs; study 3 by James Cantor.
  7. RealYBOP omitted all but two of the 26 studies countering the talking point that sex & porn addicts “just have high sexual desire” (same two papers misrepresented in the previous list: study by Štulhoferr; study by James Cantor).
  8. RealYBOP omitted all the papers in this list of over 65 studies linking porn use to poorer mental-emotional health & poorer cognitive outcomes.
  9. RealYBOP omitted all 250 studies in this comprehensive list of peer-reviewed papers assessing porn’s effect on adolescents.

————————–

Truth in preceding section, not in tweet below:

Half of the outlier papers are by RealYBOP “experts.” Most of these papers have been exposed on this page as not what they claim to be.

—————————

Trolling some random Twitter thread:

—————–

More trolling in support of porn industry:

———————

Just as Prause often does, RealYBOP cites Taylor Kohut’s outlier, non-quantitative study on relationships:

Taylor Kohut’s skewed qualitative paper, which is thoroughly dismantled here: Perceived Effects of Pornography on the Couple Relationship: Initial Findings of Open-Ended, Participant-Informed, “Bottom-Up” Research (2016), Taylor Kohut, William A. Fisher, Lorne Campbell. The intention behind this Taylor Kohut study is to (attempt to) counter the over 65 studies linking porn use to negative effects on relationships. The two main problems with Kohut’s study are:

  • It does not contain a representative sample. Whereas most studies show that a tiny minority of females in long-term relationships use porn, in this study 95% of the women used porn on their own. And 83% of the women had used porn since the beginning of the relationship (in some cases for years). Those rates are higher than in various studies in college-aged men! In other words, the researchers appear to have skewed their sample to produce the results they were seeking. The reality? Cross-sectional data from the largest nationally representative US survey (General Social Survey) reported that only 2.6% of married women had visited a “pornographic website” in the last month. Data from 2000, 2002, 2004 (for more see Pornography and Marriage, 2014).
  • The study used “open ended” questions where the subject could ramble on about porn. Then the researchers read the ramblings and decided, after the fact, what answers were “important,” and how to present (spin?) them in their paper. In other words, the study did not correlate porn use with any variable assessing sexual or relationship satisfaction. Then the researchers had the gall to suggest that all the other studies on porn and relationships, which employed more established, scientific methodology and straightforward questions about porn’s effects were flawed. Is this really science?

—————-

Promoting one of RealYBOP’s experts (Justin Lehmiller) who happens to be a writer for Playboy:

——————–

Prause promoting RealYBOP:

———————

Misrepresenting the actual findings of a new study:

The abstract attempts to obfuscate the basic correlations, which were pretty straightforward: More porn use was related to greater depression & loneliness/less relationship satisfaction & closeness. Affection substitution: The effect of pornography consumption on close relationships (2019) –Excerpts:

In this study, 357 adults reported their level of affection deprivation, their weekly pornography consumption, their goals for using pornography (including life satisfaction and loneliness reduction), and indicators of their individual and relational wellness…. As predicted, affection deprivation and pornography consumption were inversely related to relational satisfaction and closeness, while being positively related to loneliness and depression.

———————–

RealYBOP promoting its professionally produced YouTube video. Question: who is paying for all this?

——————–

RealYBOP trolling Skeptic Magazine editor Michael Shermer (who published 2 articles by Gary Wilson and Phil Zimbardo).

——————-

—————–

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

——————-

Promoting 2 RealYBOP “experts,” who appear to be as biased and pro-porn as Prause (Ley & Kohut):

———————

Trolling another person’s thread:

———————-

Trolling another person’s thread, defending the porn industry, and speaking as if the writer possesses insider info on the porn industry:

————————

Promoting superfans of porn, who attended the AVN convention:

The paper’s criteria for “less sexism” is dubious, to say the least.

——————-

Spinning an incident involving a mentally ill person as “shame.” Nice.

———————–

Again, trolling a thread to spread propaganda and falsehoods. RealYBOP is lying about the World Health Organization’s diagnostic manual, the ICD-11, just as Prause has in many earlier tweets, and in her Slate article: Debunking “Why Are We Still So Worried About Wat­­ching Porn?” by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause (2018).

RealYBOP echoes all of Prause’s favorite talking points in this second tweet (all debunked many times over in preceding section).

——————-

Promoting RealYBOP “expert” Chris Donaghue, who just happens to be engaged to a porn star (no bias there).

—————–

Promoting a new study on female porn stars, which reported an expected finding: lower rates of sexual dysfunction than the general population. Noteworthy: RealYBOP did not tweet a study by the same research group, which found much higher rates of ED in male performers! The research survey of male adult film actors published in 2018 reported 37% of male porn stars, ages 20-29, had moderate to severe erectile dysfunction (the IIEF, which measures function during partnered sex, is the standard urology test for erectile function).

—————-

This tweet is about Wilson and his paper involving 7 Navy doctors, which has been a Prause obsession for 4 years running: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted. The paper in question: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016). As of early 2019, Park et al., 2016 has been cited by over 40 other peer-reviewed papers, and is the most viewed paper in the history of the journal Behavioral Sciences.

Two lies in RealYBOP tweet:

  1. Real YBOP lies about replication, as Park et al., 2016 was review of the literature, while the new study was survey data from a naval urology clinic. (Reviews can’t be “replicated.”)
  2. The authors of the new paper believe it supports the existence of porn-induced ED.

The authors of the current study do not agree with spin and omissions by “RealYBOP.” The US Navy doctors believe their data lend support to the existence of porn-induced ED (see screenshots). They suspect sexual conditioning, rather than porn addiction (which is what YBOP has said for years). Graph:

Excerpt from study:

——————-

RealYBOP mimics the unsupported talking point that Prause always says, that the problem is masturbation, not porn…. never porn:

RealYBOP contiunes with falsehoods, asserting that porn is good for relationhips. A falsehood as over 65 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. As far as we know all studies involving males have reported more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction.

More Prause-like spin, trying to blame masturbation, rather than porn:

Reality: Critique of Samuel Perry’s “Is the Link Between Pornography Use and Relational Happiness Really More About Masturbation? Results From Two National Surveys” (2019).

  • After sophisticated statistical “modeling” (under pressure from Prause?) Perry proposed that masturbation, not porn use, is the real culprit in relationship problems. In reality, more porn use was related to less satisfaction.
  • The gaping hole in Perry’s analysis is the absence of specific, reliable data on masturbation frequency. Without that, his claim is little more than hypothetical.

——————-

RealYBOP posts on Gary Wilson thread as part of this 4-tweet series. Both Prause and RealYBOP blocked Wilson so they could sneak tweets onto his threads. Are they afraid that Wilson will debunk their misinformation?

———————-

Trolling, with bizarre tweets:

—————-

April, 28th, 2019 RealYBOP trolls a few old tweets by Director of Abolition for Exodus Cry, Laila Mickelwait. This is no coincidence as Prause too has harassed and libeled Exodus Cry, their CEO Benjamin Nolot, and Laila Mickelwait. For details see this section of Prause page #2: February, 2019: Prause falsely accuses Exodus Cry of fraud. Asks twitter followers to report the non-profit to the Missouri attorney general (for spurious reasons), Appears to have edited the CEO’s Wikipedia page.

RealYBOP tweets under 2-week old tweet, misrepresnting the reserach (sounds exactly like Prause):

RealYBOP trolls another old Mickelwait thread, informing her that Norman Doidge is mistaken about porn-induced ED:

Here are some actual scientists: 30 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 6 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.

——————-

In a very Prause-like move, RealYBOP spins a sex addiction study (hypersexuality) as debunking sex addiction:

Link to the study – A Randomized Controlled Study of Group-Administered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Hypersexual Disorder in Men

Abstract. Does this sound like it debunked sex addiction?

Hypersexual disorder (HD) is defined as a condition in which the individual loses control over engagement in sexual behaviors, leading to distress and negative effects on key life areas. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been proven to reduce symptoms of hypersexual behavior; however, no randomized controlled study of CBT interventions for HD has been reported previously.

A significantly greater decrease in HD symptoms and sexual compulsivity, as well as significantly greater improvements in psychiatric well-being, were found for the treatment condition compared with the waitlist.

In fact, the full paper actually debunks Prause’s ongoing spin around the ICD-11’s CSBD diagnosis:

In a review on therapeutic interventions, this was supported by the conclusion that a more​ “flexible approach” in the treatment of different subgroups of​ hypersexual behavior could be “promising.”54 In the revision of​ the ICD-11, the diagnostic category compulsive sexual behavior​ disorder is included in the section for impulse control disorders.​ The criteria bear many similarities to those of HD and a more​ nuanced research on possible social, psychological, and biological​ causes can now be performed.

Although Rettenberger et al identified sexual excitation as the most important predictor of hypersexual​ behavior, it is reasonable to assume that there are differences​ between those engaging in interpersonal sexual behaviors (ie,​ sexual behaviors with consenting adults) and those engaging in​ solitary sexual behaviors (eg, pornography consumption,​ masturbation). It has long been argued that HD can be subclassified​ into sexual behaviors used as a strategy for coping with​ anxiety and negative mood states on the one hand and a​ sexually motivated condition, with emphasis on loss of impulse​ control and sexual sensation-seeking, on the other hand. Sexual​ behaviors with consenting adults may be further subdivided​ based on, for example, repeated purchases of sexual services or​repeated establishment of short-term sexual relations.

——————

Supporting porn industry. Many of the films were violent or degrading porn.

——————

Promoting their porn-friendly “experts” to TeenVogue:

——————

Disparaging sex and porn addiction models.

——————

RealYBOP trolling sex addiction therapist Paula Hall. Prause has harassed Hall in the past, see – September 25, 2016: Prause attacks therapist Paula Hall. Notice that RealYBOP’s comment is identical to Prause’s claims: Pornography use is “overwhelmingly positive” for most people.

——————-

RealYBOP trolling another account to counter Gail Dines. Prause has disparaged Dines in the past, see – April, 2017: Prause insults Professor Gail Dines, PhD, perhaps for joining the “Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography?”

Real YBOP claim is BS, and only based on two studies that employ questionable criteria for “egalitarianism.” The truth is that nearly every study assessing porn use and egalitarianism (sexual attitudes) has reported that porn use is associated with attitudes toward women that both liberals and conservatives regard as extremely problematic. RealYBOP’s list of research omitted every study on this list of over 25 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views. They also omitted every meta-analysis or review of the literature on the subject, such as this 2016 meta-analysis of 135 studies: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015. Excerpt:

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

——————

RealYBOP trolling another account, in support of the porn industry’s agenda:

Note: the above study is one of only 5 studies Prause cited in her op-ed attacking FightTheNewDrug. This debunking of Prause’s op-ed pointed out her cherry-picking Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography?

On the basis of a single citation we are asked to believe the production of pornography promotes “higher self-esteem” for performers while its consumption “reduc[es] violence and sexual assaults”—this, without mention of either six studies confirming mental and physical health problems of female performers or a full 50 peer-reviewed studies directly linking porn use to sexual violence.

——————

As Prause has done countless times, RealYBOP smears FTND (note – troll, and Prause ally, nerdy kinky commie had his original Twitter account permanently banned for misdeeds while targeting FTND):

The following sections of the Prause-Harassment pages contain numerous documented incidents of Prause & David Ley defaming and harassing FTND:

—————–

RealYBOP tweets to “peddler of perversion,” describing her defense of porn producer @linabembe:

Interesting how both RealYBOP and Prause have cozy relationships with adult performers and porn producers.

—————-

Tweeting about RealYBOP “expert” William Fisher’s testimony opposing Canada’s Motion 47:

Motion 47 would have been a PR blow to the porn industry.

————————

Promoting Alan McKee’s claim that porn use does not cause aggression. (Note that Mckee once published a study funded by the porn industry!)

————————

Supporting Prause & Ley’s prime objective: trying to discredit the phenomenon of porn-induced sexual dysfunctions:

But all RealYBOP can cite is a 3-year old article, in Dutch. All the Dutch sexologist can do is disparage UK sex therapist Angela Gregory, and lie about the state of the research. Articles featuring Angela Gregory:

The state of the research: 30 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 6 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.

————————–

RealYBOP being very cozy with porn producer (https://www.provillain.com/):

———————–

Trolling well know blogger, neuroskeptic:

———————

RealYBOP tweets outlier study by denier Alexander Štulhofer, who always seems to report few porn-related problems in his studies. He has played games by downplaying significant findings in write-ups, manipulating regressions to achieve results, and omitting data presented earlier at a conference. Example of omissions of data.

Štulhofer’s reported findings are countered by over 65 studies linking porn use to poorer mental-emotional health & poorer cognitive outcomes. What about the porn use and adolescents? Check out this list of over 230 adolescent studies, or this 2012 review of the research – The Impact of Internet Pornography on Adolescents: A Review of the Research (2012).

———————–

On May 1, 2019 the attorneys for the common-law owner of the trademarks “Your Brain On Porn” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com” (this website) sent a cease and desist demand to all of those who appeared to be behind the infringing site (the “Experts”). They also demand that Dr. Prause abandon her malicious trademark-squatting application for the marks “Your Brain On Porn” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com.”

Instead of complying with the reasonable, well documented demands, a number of the RealYBOP Experts responded with a derisory Twitter rage storm, baseless accusations that their “free speech rights” were being violated, and clear indications of malicious intent, such as threats to go to the press to have their infringing activities mischaracterized as free speech.

Here’s a Twitter response to the C&D letter by one of the experts, Lynn Comella, who incorrectly spins this as squelching her freedom of speech. PornHelp.org educates Comella. Eventually RealYBOP responds with a link that only Prause ever posts:

The CBC link is mischaracterized by RealYBOP, as it has always been by Prause. It’s part of a very long saga, with Prause’s first Twitter account being permanently banned, Prause asking Gary Wilson about the size of penis…and so much more. See:

Prause and RealYBOP mirror each others tweets:

RealYBOP continues rampage against Wilson, looking more and more unhinged.

Above tweet is nearly identical to 2 earlier tweets by Prause:

RealYBOP comes back with a bizarre tweet under a 2-week old libelous tweet by David Ley. (Prause ally Ley actually stated that “the folks at YBOP” threatened his life. This untrue accusation of a felony constitutes “defamation per se,” and is actionable.)

RealYBOP claims Wilson has a puppet account (he doesn’t) – and of course fails to link to support for the accusation.

———————————–

In support of porn industry agenda:

———————–

RealYBOP, once again promoting Perry’s dubious suggestion that masturbation, not porn, affects relationship happiness:

Reality: Critique of Samuel Perry’s “Is the Link Between Pornography Use and Relational Happiness Really More About Masturbation? Results From Two National Surveys” (2019).

  • After sophisticated statistical “modeling” Perry (under pressure from Prause?) proposed that masturbation, not porn use, is the real culprit in relationship problems. In reality, more porn use was related to less satisfaction.
  • The gaping hole in Perry’s new analysis is the absence of specific, reliable data on masturbation frequency. Without that, his claim is little more than hypothetical.

————————

Trolls another thread with pro-porn propaganda: porn use is just fine for kids.

RealYBOP’s research section is cherry-picked, especially the “youth” section where RealYBOP purposely omits all reviews of the literature and meta-analyses, such as: review#1, review2, review#3, review#4, review#5, review#6, review#7. The RealYBOP “youth” section omitted all 230 studies in this comprehensive list of peer-reviewed papers assessing porn’s effect on adolescents.

————————

Same as preceeding tweet, falsely claiming that RealYBOP’s handful of cherry-picked adolescent studies represents the state of the research. This time RealYBOP trolls a sex education organization:

———————–

More trolling and as with preceeding tweet, falsely claiming that RealYBOP’s handful of cherry-picked adolescent studies represents the state of the research:

———————–

Cherry-picks oulier finding from 2-3% of study’s subjects. Omits primary findings, and 65 other other studies:

Primary findings of the study in question – Does Viewing Pornography Reduce Marital Quality Over Time? Evidence from Longitudinal Data (2016). Excerpt:

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

Second, as previously stated, over 65 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. As far as we know all studies involving males (which is the majority of studies) have reported more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction.

Third, when evaluating the research, it’s important to know that coupled females who regularly use internet porn (and can thus report on its effects) make up a relatively small percentage of all porn users. Large, nationally representative data are scarce, but the General Social Survey reported that only 2.6% of all US women had visited a “pornographic website” in the last month. The question was only asked in 2002 and 2004 (see Pornography and Marriage, 2014). Studies reporting that more porn use is correlated to greater satisfaction in women are referring to a relatively small percentage of women (perhaps only 1-2% of the female population).

———————–

RealYBOP’s spin and misrepresentation is so egregious that even Taylor Kohut corrects her misleading tweets:

———————–

Trolling another thread, in support of porn industry agenda:

———————–

RealYBOP and David Ley respond to OBGYN, Jennifer Gunter calling out Ley’s pro-porn propaganda:

Gunter, not buying Ley’s lone irrelevant study:

David Ley cites this irrelevant study: EXPOsing Mens Gender Role Attitudes as Porn Superfans. Sociological Forum. doi:10.1111/socf.12506 Link to web

Seriously? Interviewing “Porn superfans” attending the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo passed peer-review? What’s next, interviewing bar patrons to see what they think of beer? Even if taken seriously, the study tells us nothing about the effects of viewing porn as it didn’t correlate porn use with the four criteria. Contrary to the RealYBOP summary, the narrow criteria employed assessed “gender roles,” not sexist or misogynistic attitudes. For example, Harvey Weinstein would score exceptionally high on their gender-role assessment. In more extreme example, any pimp who wants his “hoes” working for his benefit would agree that women should work, but that doesn’t rule out extreme misogyny on his part.

As with the Taylor Kohut studies cited by Prause & Ley, it’s easy to see that religious/conservative populations would score lower than secular/liberal populations on these carefully chosen criteria. Here’s the key: secular populations, which tend to be more liberal, have far higher rates of porn use than religious populations. By choosing certain criteria and ignoring endless other variables, Kohut, Fisher, and the authors the current paper knew they would end up with porn use (greater in secular populations) correlating with carefully chosen selection of what they would have defined as “egalitarianism.

RealYBOP jumps in to defend porn:

None of the studies on RealYBOP support Ley or contradict Gunter. RealYBOP omits the following studies validating Gunter’s concern. Both found that deviant (i.e., bestiality or minor) pornography users reported a significantly younger onset of adult pornography use. These studies link earlier onset of porn use to escalation to more extreme material.

1) Does deviant pornography use follow a Guttman-like progression?” (2013). An excerpt:

The findings of the current study suggest Internet pornography use may follow a Guttman-like progression. In other words, individuals who consume child pornography also consume other forms of pornography, both nondeviant and deviant. For this relationship to be a Guttman-like progression, child pornography use must be more likely to occur after other forms of pornography use. The current study attempted to assess this progression by measuring if the “age of onset” for adult pornography use facilitated the transition from adult-only to deviant pornography use. Based on the results, this progression to deviant pornography use may be affected by the individuals “age of onset” for engaging in adult pornography. As suggested by Quayle and Taylor (2003), child pornography use may be related to desensitization or appetite satiation to which offenders begin collecting more extreme and deviant pornography. The current study suggests individuals who engage in adult pornography use at a younger age may be at greater risk for engaging in other deviant forms of pornography.

2) Deviant Pornography Use: The Role of Early-Onset Adult Pornography Use and Individual Differences” (2016). Excerpts:

Results indicated that adult + deviant pornography users scored significantly higher on openness to experience and reported a significantly younger age of onset for adult pornography use compared to adult-only pornography users.

Finally, the respondents’ self-reported age of onset for adult pornography significantly predicted adult-only vs. adult + deviant pornography use. That is to day, adult + deviant pornography users selfreported a younger age of onset for nondeviant (adult-only) pornography compared to the adult-only pornography users. Overall, these findings support the conclusion drawn by Seigfried-Spellar and Rogers (2013) that Internet pornography use may follow a Guttman-like progression in that deviant pornography use is more likely to occur after the use of nondeviant adult pornography.

Two more RealYBOP tweets in the Gunter thread:

As Prause and Ley always do, RealYBOP says masturbation, not porn, is the problem.

In the same thread, RealYBOP promotes Ley’s porn book:

————————-

Once again, RealYBOP disparages state resolutions deeming porn a public health issue. Her tweet contains several falsehoods:

RealYBOP falsehoods and spin related to the organizations cited:

————————

There’s nothing that RealYBOP won’t use to support the porn-industry agenda, including shaming a women for making a choice, re-labeling the choice as “anti-porn shaming.” Question: is RealYBOP exhibiting misogyny?

———————–

RealYBOP trolling a year-old tweet by SASH (an organization Prause has previously defamed on social media):

Notice how RealYBOP says “as Dr. Geoffrey Reed, chair, described for us.” The “us” is Nicole Prause as she emailed (harassed) Dr. Reed several times and tweeted one his out-of-context replies multiple times. One example:

Geoffrey Reed isn’t an official WHO spokesperson, and this was only a private email to Prause to get her off of his back. In truth only one official WHO spokesperson officially commented on CSBD – Christian Lindmeier. If you have any doubts about the true nature of the Prause/RealYBOP campaign, carefully read this responsible article about compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD). It quotes official WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier. Lindmeier is one of only four officials WHO spokespersons listed on this page: Communications contacts in WHO headquarters – and the only WHO spokesperson to have formally commented about CSBD! The SELF article also interviewed Shane Kraus, who was at the center of the ICD-11’s Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD) working group. Excerpt with Lindmeir quotes makes it clear that WHO did not reject “sex addiction”:

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

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

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

————————-

Disparaging sex addiction therapist (as Prause & Ley always do):

Documenation of Ley and Prause harassing and defaming sex addiction therapists:

————————–

Trolling researcher Michael Flood. Pro-porn RealYBOP attempts to smear what she calls “anti-porn” activists.

———————–

RealYBOP re-tweets porn performer, once again confirming its pro-porn industry agenda (while taking a swipe at “activists”):

If the illegitimate website (RealYBOP) is suppose to be about porn’s possible effects on users, why does RealYBOP regularly tweet propaganda for the porn industry?

———————

Three RealYBOP tweets of 15 years old data from Norway (only), claiming (for some unknown reason) that gay people are no more likely to be addicted to porn.

Another example of RealYBOP cherry-picking, as most other studies report that gays and lesbians have higher rates of porn use and porn addiction (CSBD). From The Role of Maladaptive Cognitions in Hypersexuality among Highly Sexually Active Gay and Bisexual Men (2014):

Problematic hypersexuality is a particular concern for gay, bisexual, and other MSM given the unique psychosocial factors driving this problem among this group, including minority stressors across development (Parsons, Grov, & Golub, 2012; Parsons et al., 2008) and the relationship between problematic hypersexuality and HIV risk (Dodge et al., 2008; Grov, Parsons, & Bimbi, 2010). In addition to experiencing disproportionate problems with hypersexuality compared to heterosexual men (Baum & Fishman, 1994; Missildine, Feldstein, Punzalan, & Parsons, 2005), gay and bisexual men contend with elevated rates of other factors shown to be associated with both hypersexuality and maladaptive cognitive processes, including childhood sexual abuse (Purcell et al., 2007) and stressors related to social prejudice and stigma (Muench & Parsons, 2004; Pincu, 1989). These stressors combine with mental health problems, such as problematic hypersexuality, to form a synergistic cluster of risks, or syndemic, that simultaneously threaten the health of this group of individuals (Parsons et al., 2012; Stall et al., 2003). Thus, the identification of treatable components of any one of these health risks has the potential to disrupt the health-depleting cascade of interrelated risks facing members of this population.

———————

More propaganda serving the porn industry’s agenda:

———————–

One of Prause’s obsessions is FightThe NewDrug. RealYBOP trolls a FTND supporter with her usual ad hominem attacks:

More trolling, citing Prause’s SLT op-ed:

Prause’s 600-word Op-Ed is chock full of unsupported assertions meant to fool the lay public. It fails to support a single assertion as it cites only 4 papers – none of which have anything to do with porn addiction, porn’s effects on relationships, or porn-induced sexual problems.

Several experts in this field debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” they cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature.

More attacks the next day:

Even more attacks on FTND:

Several Prause Wikipedia sockpuppets tried to place the above on the FTND wikipedia page. See: Others – March 17, 2019: Numerous Prause sock-puppets edit the Fight The New Drug Wikipedia page, as Prause simultaneously tweets content from her sock-puppets’ edits

———————–

Once again, promoting a new study on female porn stars, which reported an expected finding: lower rates of sexual dysfunction than the general population.

Acting as a if it were a propaganda outlet for the porn industry, RealYBOP did not tweet a study by the same research group, which found much higher rates of ED in male performers! The research survey of male adult film actors published in 2018 reported 37% of male porn stars, ages 20-29, had moderate to severe erectile dysfunction (the IIEF, which measures function during partnered sex, is the standard urology test for erectile function).

———————

RealYBOP promoting a “study” claiming that using prostitutes is aligned with the principles of sexual health.

Why does RealYBOP constantly tweet in support of porn industry and prostitution, when the site claims to be about the effects of porn on the user?

———————-

RealYBOP disparages anti-pornography feminists. The source? An article by Jerry Barnett (AKA pornpanic), who once owned a porn site!

RealYBOP continues:

Prause has openly attacked Gail Dines in the past: April, 2017: Prause insults Professor Gail Dines, PhD, perhaps for joining the “Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography?”

If you have anything disparaging to say about porn you could be attacked or harassed by RealYBOP. The porn industry must love RealYBOP.

———————–

Surprise. RealYBOP retweets a Prause tweet that disparages state resolutions:

—————————

RealYBOP promoting a study, while incorrectly claiming it doesn’t support addiction model. In fact, it’s about porn addiction – Sexual Desire, Mood, Attachment Style, Impulsivity, and Self-Esteem as Predictive Factors for Addictive Cybersex (2019):

Another tweet:

Contrary to RealYBOP’s claim, higher sexual desire was not the strongest predictor of cybersex addiction. Rather, depressive mood, avoidant attachment style, and male gender were better predictors (than “sexual desire”):

We concluded that addictive cybersex use, as assessed by the CIUS adapted for sexual activities, is associated with sexual desire, depressive mood, an avoidant attachment style, and male gender. As shown in Table 3 (standardized coefficients), the results suggest that the most important influence on the CIUS scores is depressive mood, followed by avoidant attachment style, male gender, and sexual desire.

Debunking RealYBOP’s unsupported talking point that “high sexual desire” explains away porn or sex addiction: At least 25 studies falsify the claim that sex & porn addicts “just have high sexual desire.”

It’s important to address the unbelievable claim that “high sexual desire” is mutually exclusive to porn addiction. Its irrationality becomes clear if one considers hypotheticals based on other addictions. (For more see this critique of Prause’s flawed EEG study – High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al., by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD*.)

For example, does such logic mean that being morbidly obese, unable to control eating, and being extremely unhappy about it, is simply a “high desire for food?” Extrapolating further, one must conclude that alcoholics simply have a high desire for alcohol, right? In short, all addicts have “high desire” for their addictive substances and activities (called “sensitization”), even when their enjoyment of such activities declines due to other addiction-related brain changes (desensitization).

Another, more legitimate, way to interpret “higher desire” to masturbate or have sex: This is quite possibly evidence of sensitization, which is greater reward circuit (brain) activation and craving when exposed to (porn) cues. Sensitization can be a precursor to addiction.

Most addiction experts consider “continued use despite negative consequences” to be the prime marker of addiction. After all, someone could have porn-induced erectile dysfunction and be unable to venture beyond his computer in his mother’s basement. Yet, according to these researchers, as long as he indicates “high sexual desire,” he has no addiction. This paradigm ignores everything known about addiction, including symptoms and behaviors shared by all addicts, such as severe negative repercussions, inability to control use, cravings, etc.

———————–

RealYBOP had to go all the way back to 1989 to cherry-pick an outlier study:

The truth is that nearly every study assessing porn use and egalitarianism (sexual attitudes) has reported that porn use is associated with attitudes toward women that both liberals and conservatives regard as extremely problematic. Check out this list of over 25 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views, or this 2016 meta-analysis of 135 studies: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015. Excerpt:

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

Also – this review of the literature: Pornography and Attitudes Supporting Violence Against Women: Revisiting the Relationship in Nonexperimental Studies (2010). An excerpt:

A meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether nonexperimental studies revealed an association between men’s pornography consumption and their attitudes supporting violence against women. The meta-analysis corrected problems with a previously published meta-analysis and added more recent findings. In contrast to the earlier meta-analysis, the current results showed an overall significant positive association between pornography use and attitudes supporting violence against women in nonexperimental studies. In addition, such attitudes were found to correlate significantly higher with the use of sexually violent pornography than with the use of nonviolent pornography, although the latter relationship was also found to be significant.

———————–

Tweeting a 10-year old outlier study on adolescents:

Check out YBOP’s expose’ on RealYBOP’s cherry-picked collection of adolescent studies: Youth Section

As always, the Alliance provides only a handful of outlier studies or fillers to delude journalists and the public that porn use is harmless for adolescents. As with the other sections, the Alliance provides no reviews of the literature or meta-analyses. Why did the Alliance omit these seven literature reviews on pornography and “Youth” (adolescents): review#1, review2, review#3, review#4, review#5, review#6, review#7, review#8, review#9, review#10, review#11?

Why has the Alliance omitted all 240 studies in this comprehensive list of peer-reviewed papers assessing porn’s effect on adolescents? The answer is clear: the reviews, as with the vast majority of individual studies, fail to align with the Alliance’s pro-porn agenda. Here we present the reviews the Alliance omitted with relevant excerpts…..

———————–

Tweeting an outlier study employing the PCES (which ALWAYS finds that more porn is beneficial):

As for the findings, this to be expected as the study used the porn use questionnaire known as the Pornography Consumption Effect Scale (PCES). As explained in this critique by YBOP and a psychology professor the study creating the PCES may be the most egregious porn study ever published (Hald & Malamuth, 2008).

The PCES questions are designed and scored so that the more porn one uses the greater the benefits. In fact, if you don’t use porn, the lack of porn use is having a negative effect on your life according to this instrument. This is no exaggeration as many PCES-based studies conclude just that! This 7-minute video critique of the PCES reveals Hald & Malamuth’s primary results from what a dismayed psychology professor called a “psychometric nightmare”:

  • Porn use was almost always beneficial – with few, if any, drawbacks, for anyone.
  • The more hardcore the porn the greater its positive effects in your life. Put simply, “More porn is always better.”
  • For both genders the more porn you use, the more you believe it represents real sex, and the more you masturbate to it, the more positive the effects it has in every area of your life.

The PCES almost always reports benefits because:

  1. Hald & Malamuth randomly decided what was a “positive” and “negative” effect of porn use. For example “added to your knowledge of anal sex” is always beneficial, while “reducing your sexual fantasies” is always negative.
  2. The PCES gives equal weight to questions that do not assess equivalent effects. For example, compare the gravity of “Has added to your knowledge of anal sex?” with “Has led to problems in your sex life?” Whether or not you think superficial effects are positive effects, they are in no way equivalent to reduced quality of life (job loss, divorce), or problems in your sex life (erectile dysfunction, no sex drive).

In other words, your marriage could be destroyed and you could have chronic ED, but your PCES score can still show that porn has been just great for you. As one recovering porn user said after viewing the 47 PCES questions:

Yeah, I’ve dropped out of university, developed problems with other addictions, never had a girlfriend, have lost friends, got into debt, still have ED and never had sex in real life. But at least I know about all the porn star acts and am up to speed on all the different positions. So yeah, basically porn has enriched my life no end.

———————-

Tweets that porn is a source of inspiration:

“Source of inspiration” mean greater use of sex toys and more anal sex. From the study:

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between pornography use and sexual behavior in young adults from two culturally different countries. Data were collected in an online survey among German (n = 1,303; G) and Polish (n = 1,135; P) university students aged 18 to 26 years. Pornography use was associated with engaging in a greater variety of sexual activities (e.g., sexual role playing, using sex toys; G > P) rather than with a high number of sex partners or condom use consistency. The differences between the samples were found primarily for females (in anal sex experience and age at the first sexual intercourse;

———————

Ah yes, the usual talking point that greater availability of porn leads to lower rates of sex crimes. The porn industry no doubt loves that myth:

Three problems:

  1. Its not a peer-reviewed study.
  2. The author of the paper carefully selected only the years 1998-2003, only males ages 15-19, only the USA.
  3. It’s not really accurate. See – Rape rates are on the rise, so ignore the pro-porn propaganda (2018).

——————-

Trolling a 2-month old tweet by anti-porn activist Suzzan Blac:

YBOP’s critique of RealYBOP’s “sex offender” section: Sex Offender Section.

The next day, Suzzan Blac calls out RealYBOP (Prause), and Prause replies with her usual lies, even implying that Gary Wilson has sent death threats. Prause provides no proof (she never does for any of her victim claims), because she is lying.

The truth is on these extensive pages:

RealYBOP blocked Suzzan Blac so she couldn’t see the RealYBOP/Prause’s defamatory reply. Blac reponded anyway:

 

——————–

Trolling a well-known therapist with falsehoods – (Note: RealYBOP often simultaneously tweets & blocks so that the person being trolled is never aware, and doesn’t reply):

YBOP’s critique of RealYBOP’s “relationship section”: Love and Intimacy Section. Reality – Over 65 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. As far as we know all studies involving males have reported more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction.

——————–

Third trolling episode of the same. More propaganda:

RealYBOP is referring to Taylor Kohut’s study that she has tweeted 40 times (as documented on this page). Exposed here: Critique of “Is Pornography Really about Making Hate to Women? Pornography Users Hold More Gender Egalitarian Attitudes Than Nonusers in a Representative American Sample” (2016), Taylor Kohut, Jodie L. Baer, Brendan Watts.

YBOP’s critique of RealYBOP’s section with the above studies: Attitudes Towards Women Section.

———————-

Trolling a 4th person, with the usal Prause propaganda that the ICD-11 rejected porn addiction:

RealYBOP (Prause) tweets a link to an excerpt from Prause’s Geoffrey Reed email. Geoffrey Reed isn’t an official WHO spokesperson, and this was only a private email to Prause to get her off of his back. In truth only one official WHO spokesperson had commented on CSBD – Christian Lindmeier. If you have any doubts about the true nature of the Prause/RealYBOP campaign, carefully read this responsible article about compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD). It quotes official WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier. Lindmeier is one of only four officials WHO spokespersons listed on this page: Communications contacts in WHO headquarters – and the only WHO spokesperson to have formally commented about CSBD! The SELF article also interviewed Shane Kraus, who was at the center of the ICD-11’s Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD) working group. Excerpt with Lindmeir quotes makes it clear that WHO did not reject “sex addiction”:

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

A January, 2019 WHO paper also discusses CSBD (Innovations and changes in the ICD‐11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders):

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder is characterized by a persistent pattern of failure to control intense repetitive sexual impulses or urges, resulting in repetitive sexual behaviour over an extended period (e.g., six months or more) that causes marked distress or impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning.

Although this category phenomenologically resembles substance dependence, it is included in the ICD‐11 impulse control disorders section in recognition of the lack of definitive information on whether the processes involved in the development and maintenance of the disorder are equivalent to those observed in substance use disorders and behavioural addictions.

Note: A new WHO paper (Geoffrey Reed is one of the authors) calls out Prause’s behavior on ICD-11 comment section: Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD‐11 chapters related to mental and sexual health (2019). WHO discusses public comments made in the proposed ICD-11 mental disorders comment section, including “compulsive sexual behavior disorder” where Nicole Prause posted more comments than everyone else combined (22), disparaging individuals and organizations, making false accusations and engaging in libel. Bold type describes Prause comments:

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder received the highest number of submissions of all mental disorders (N=47), but often from the same individuals (N=14). The introduction of this diagnostic category has been passionately debated3 and comments on the ICD‐11 definition recapitulated ongoing polarization in the field. Submissions included antagonistic comments among commenters, such as accusations of a conflict of interest or incompetence (48%) or claims that certain organizations or people would profit from inclusion or exclusion in ICD‐11 (43%).

Click here if you want to read the public comments on the ICD-11 CSBD sections (including the hostile/defamatory/disparaging ones). You will need to sign up with a username to view comments.

Prause’s Op-Ed is chock full of unsupported assertions meant to fool the lay public. It fails to support a single assertion as it cites only 4 papers – none of which have anything to do with porn addiction, porn’s effects on relationships, or porn-induced sexual problems. Several experts in this field debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” they cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature.

———————

The Guardian article got it wrong, as the study in question did not ask about porn use.

———————

RealYBOP retweeting a “call girls” tweet:

——————–

May, 2019: David Ley and RealYBOP misrepresenting Staci Sprout’s tweet. Sprout said nothing about “sex addiction”:

RealYBOP (Prause) harassing Staci Sprout, yet again: January 24, 2018: Prause files groundless complaints with Washington State against therapist Staci Sprout. RealYBOP tweets a link to an excerpt from Prause’s Geoffrey Reed email (discussed above). Contrary to RealYBOP assertion, Sprout’s tweet is completely accurate, says nothing about “sex addiction,” and links to yet another 2019 paper by WHO in World Psychiatry:

The new WHO paper linked to by Sprout (Geoffrey Reed is one of the authors) calls out Prause’s behavior on ICD-11 comment section: Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD‐11 chapters related to mental and sexual health (2019). WHO discusses public comments made on proposed ICD-11 mental disorders, incuding “compulsive sexual behavior disorder” where Nicole Prause posted more comments than everyone else combined (22), disparaging individuals and organizations, making false accusations and engaging in libel. Bold type describes Prause comments:

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder received the highest number of submissions of all mental disorders (N=47), but often from the same individuals (N=14). The introduction of this diagnostic category has been passionately debated3 and comments on the ICD‐11 definition recapitulated ongoing polarization in the field. Submissions included antagonistic comments among commenters, such as accusations of a conflict of interest or incompetence (48%) or claims that certain organizations or people would profit from inclusion or exclusion in ICD‐11 (43%).

Click here if you want to read the public comments on the ICD-11 CSBD sections (including the hostile/defamatory/disparaging ones). You will need to sign up with a username to view comments.

———————-

Obsessively tweeting same thing over and over again:

7th or 8th tweet of the day, mentioning WHO and the ICD-11 diagnosis for CSBD:

Exposing RealYBOP’s “Models of Hypersexuality”section – with its handful of irrelevant papers – as irresponsible: Models of Hypersexuality Section.

More ICD spin:

The truth:

1) “Most contested”: If RealYBOP means most comments on ICD-11 beta draft, it was Prause who created the “most” comments as she posted more than all others combined! Add in Prause allies such as David Ley, Roger Libby and others, and all the “contested comments” came from a handful of obsessed spammers (who now run the RealYBOP Twitter account!). A new WHO paper (Geoffrey Reed is one of the authors) calls out Prause’s behavior on ICD-11 comment section: Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD‐11 chapters related to mental and sexual health (2019). WHO discusses public comments made on proposed ICD-11 mental disorders, including “compulsive sexual behavior disorder” where Prause posted more comments than everyone else combined (22), disparaging individuals and organizations, making false accusations and engaging in libel. Bold type describes Prause comments:

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder received the highest number of submissions of all mental disorders (N=47), but often from the same individuals (N=14). The introduction of this diagnostic category has been passionately debated3 and comments on the ICD‐11 definition recapitulated ongoing polarization in the field. Submissions included antagonistic comments among commenters, such as accusations of a conflict of interest or incompetence (48%) or claims that certain organizations or people would profit from inclusion or exclusion in ICD‐11 (43%).

2) ICD rarely changes. The 1990 ICD, without homosexuality, was ICD-10. The previous ICD-9 was created in the mid 1970’s. The DSM had homosexuality in the DSM until 1973.

———————-

According to RealYBOP – “A majority of women have enjoyed rape pornography, while a minority of women describe it as their most preferred content.”

Propaganda. No citation for the claim. The linked to article contains no citation to support this claim. The “realYBOP” research page contains no study to support the claim that most woman enjoy rape porn.

—————–

RealYBOP (Prause aliases) cites an article by the Adult Video News (AVN) to disparage FTND. Sounds like someone is back-tracking as no amount of editing could put words in the former porn star’s mouth (and he hasn’t asked FTND to take down the interview). Interview: Most Successful Male Porn Star Of All Time Speaks Out On Porn

While Prause and RealYBOP have posted countless times that FTND misrepresents studies, they never link to an example of misrepresentation. Never.

——————

Innacurate claims by RealYBOP:

First, studies examine neutral constructs like sexual or relationship satisfaction. More is better, less not so much. These types of studies are the most legitimate.

Second, as for “participants reported greater positive self-perceived effects” this to be expected as the study used the porn use questionnaire known as the Pornography Consumption Effect Scale (PCES). As explained in this critique by YBOP and a psychology professor the study creating the PCES may be the most egregious porn study ever published (Hald & Malamuth, 2008).

The PCES questions are designed and scored so that the more porn one uses the greater the benefits. In fact, if you don’t use porn, the lack of porn use is having a negative effect on your life according to this instrument. This is no exaggeration as many PCES-based studies conclude just that! This 7-minute video critique of the PCES reveal Hald & Malamuth’s primary results from what a dismayed psychology professor called a “psychometric nightmare”:

  • Porn use was almost always beneficial – with few, if any, drawbacks, for anyone.
  • The more hardcore the porn the greater its positive effects in your life. Put simply, “More porn is always better.”
  • For both genders the more porn you use, the more you believe it represents real sex, and the more you masturbate to it, the more positive the effects it has in every area of your life.

The PCES almost always reports benefits because:

  1. Hald & Malamuth randomly decided what was a “positive” and “negative” effect of porn use. For example “added to your knowledge of anal sex” is always beneficial, while “reducing your sexual fantasies” is always negative.
  2. The PCES gives equal weight to questions that do not assess equivalent effects. For example, compare “Has added to your knowledge of anal sex?” with “Has led to problems in your sex life?” Whether or not you think superficial effects are positive effects, they are in no way equivalent to reduced quality of life (job loss, divorce), or problems in your sex life (erectile dysfunction, no sex drive).

In other words, your marriage could be destroyed and you could have chronic ED, but your PCES score can still show that porn has been just great for you. As one recovering porn user said after viewing the 47 PCES questions: “Yeah, I’ve dropped out of university, developed problems with other addictions, never had a girlfriend, have lost friends, got into debt, still have ED and never had sex in real life. But at least I know about all the porn star acts and am up to speed on all the different positions. So yeah, basically porn has enriched my life no end.”

——————–

RealYBOP retweets a tweet by an advocy group for porn performers: Adult Performers Unite:

——————

More support for porn industry agenda” ‘fake porn panic”:

—————-

Links to two PhD’s who think it’s just fine to let sexual offenders use porn:

——————

David Ley and Prause (as RealYBOP Twitter & “sciencearousal”) continue their campaign to connect porn recovery forums to white supremacists/Nazis. It’s 2019 and not much has changed. David Ley and Prause (as RealYBOP Twitter & “sciencearousal”) are still campaigning to connect porn recovery forums and anti-porn activists to anti-Semitism and fascism. This is just the latest, as we have already documented Prause and Ley’s previous attempts in other sections:

It appears that David Ley collaborated again with journalist Rob Kuznia to produce the following June, 2019 NY Times piece: “Among Some Hate Groups, Porn Is Viewed as a Conspiracy.” Back in 2017 Kuznia collaborated with Prause and Ley to produce a factually inaccurate hit-piece for The Daily Beast. As was cleverly done in his 2017 Daily Beast article, Kuznia tricks the reader into presuming connections that don’t really exist. For example, in this new piece he places two unconnected sentences into a single paragraph to fool the reader into thinking that reddit/nofap is populated by white nationalists and somehow connected to the Proud Boys.

For example, a forum on Reddit is a support group of sorts for 440,000 members who take breaks from masturbation and porn for what they believe to be mental, physical and sexual-health reasons. The Proud Boys, a self-professed “western chauvinist” group, encouraged a similar message.

Neither is the case, and Kuznia provides no evidence. But hey, that’s what you can expect from agenda-driven journalists.

Concurrently with the latest Kuznia smear, Prause tunes up with two aliases representing her new website (which illegally infringes on YBOP’s trademarks): realyourbrainonporn twitter account and reddit user scienceofarousal. First, here are the targeted tweets (which both Ley and Prause retweet):

RealYBOP falsely claims the “anti-porn” movement is rooted in hate groups.

Next, RealYBOP links to the Xhamster thread where (in December, 2018) Prause defamed Alexander Rhodes of NoFap. (For details, see December, 2018: Prause joins Xhamster to smear NoFap & Alexander Rhodes; induces Fatherly.com to publish a hit-piece where Prause is the “expert”.)

RealYBOP trolls another thread with Prause’s standard claims about being stalked or receiving rape threats. Prause has yet to provide documentation for these incidents. On the other hand, the page you’re reading, and its sister page, document Prause lying numerous times by making false claims that Gary Wilson, Alex Rhodes, and Clay Olsen have threatened or stalked her physically.

As RealYBOP was tweeting, the RealYBOP Reddit account (user/sciencearousal) was spamming r/nofap with the Kuznia article, implying that r/nofap is a hate group:

Sciencearousal (Prause) followed up her post with what on the surface appears to be an uncharacteristically sincere answer:

However, closer examination reveals a link to one of Prause & Ley’s all time favorite propaganda articles: a 2016 David Duke article with a link to Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk. Ley and Prause have used this over and over to suggest (falsely) that Wilson is allied with Duke. That’s what sciencearousal is trying to do with her oh-so-reasonable comment (hoping not to be deleted). Disgusting ploy.

A few more examples:

Prause immediately retweeted it (then later deleted her tweet):

Wilson’s TEDx talk has some 11 million views, so thousands of folks of all stripes have linked to (and recommended) Wilson’s talk, “The Great Porn Experiment.” How does this implicate Gary Wilson as a “white supremacist?” It doesn’t, of course. This ridiculous assertion is like suggesting all dog lovers are Nazis because Hitler loved his dogs.

RealYBOP continues, trolling a thread to spread her usual propaganda:

——————

RealYBOP & Ley team up again to attack the concept porn-induced sexual dysfunctions (Prause’s #1 obsession). Both tweeted in reponse to a person questioning Ley, and citing YBOP’s research page (which has about 500 studies that debunking Ley’s talking points):

No, RealYBOP didn’t “look hard”. YBOP critque of RealYBOP’s section: Erectile And Other Sexual Dysfunctions Section. Reality: This list contains over 30 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 6 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.

RealYBOP continues, appearing to suggest that porn is OK for kids:

RealYBOP links to its laughable “youth section”, which YBOP dismantled here: Youth Section. As always, RealYBOP provides only a handful of outlier studies or fillers to delude journalists and the public that porn use is harmless for adolescents. As with the other sections, RealYBOP provides no reviews of the literature or meta-analyses. RealYBOP/Prause omitted these 12 literature reviews on pornography and “Youth” (adolescents): review#1, review2, review#3, review#4, review#5, review#6, review#7, review#8, review#9, review#10, review#11, review#12? RealYBOP/Prause omitted all 240 studies in this comprehensive list of peer-reviewed papers assessing porn’s effect on adolescents.

——————

A RealYBOP tweet that is unrelated to Fight The New Drug, cites Prause’s debunked op-ed disparaging FTND:

Reality concerning her 600-word op-ed: Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016)

RealYBOP cherry-picks a study, then misrepresents it:

Here’s the abstract and what it actually says:

Using a probability-based sample of young Danish adults and a randomized experimental design, this study investigated effects of past pornography consumption, experimental exposure to nonviolent pornography, perceived realism of pornography, and personality (i.e., agreeableness) on sexist attitudes (i.e., attitudes toward women, hostile and benevolent sexism). Further, sexual arousal mediation was assessed. Results showed that, among men, an increased past pornography consumption was significantly associated with less egalitarian attitudes toward women and more hostile sexism. Further, lower agreeableness was found to significantly predict higher sexist attitudes. Significant effects of experimental exposure to pornography were found for hostile sexism among low in agreeableness participants and for benevolent sexism among women.

YBOP debunks and exposes RealYBOP’s research section – Love and Intimacy Section

—————–

More propaganda. In reality “sex addiction” was never considered for the ICD-1. Neither the the ICD-11 nor the DSM uses the word addiction, for any addiction. Both use “disorder”:

The deniers of porn addiction are agitated because the latest version of the World Health Organization’s medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for diagnosing what is commonly referred to as ‘porn addiction’ or ‘sex addiction.’ It’s called “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” (CSBD). The first section of this extensive critique expose Prause’s falsehoods surrounding the ICD-11: Debunking “Why Are We Still So Worried About Wat­­ching Porn?” by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause (2018).

RealYBOP was informed about the ICD-11. She reponded with her usual factually innacurate reply:

——————-

RealYBOP fabricates excerpt. Even though the new paper is by close ally Samuel Perry – it never said that masturbation is the functional equivalent of porn:

—————–

Faced with a corrleation she doesn’t care for, RealYBOP makes unsupported claim. The correlation: “higher likelihood of committing infidelity is associated with preferences for gangbang scenes in pornography”. Nope, the study to not turn “the causal arrow”, and the authors of the study do not make this assertion:

——————-

RealYBOP falsely claims that a study “busts the myth” that men watch more porn than women. Numerous individuals mock her for this misrepresentation:

The next day:

Another PhD making fun of RealYBOP’s “myth-busting”

Yet more criticism:

Within a day RealYBOP has become an internet meme, yet she still defends her original tweet. In this thread RealYBOP argues that being drunk does not impair driving:

RealYBOP exposed.

—————–

Upset by a new study, RealYBOP tries to spin the findings.

RealYBOP is busted. Unfortunately for her, the full paper is available here: The Effects of Pornography on Unethical Behavior in Business (2019) Excerpts:

Given the pervasive nature of pornography, we study how viewing pornography affects unethical behavior at work. Using survey data from a sample that approximates a nationally representative sample in terms of demographics, we find a positive correlation between viewing pornography and intended unethical behavior. We then conduct an experiment to provide causal evidence. The experiment confirms the survey—consuming pornography causes individuals to be less ethical. We find that this relationship is mediated by increased moral disengagement from dehumanization of others due to viewing pornography. Combined, our results suggest that choosing to consume pornography causes individuals to behave less ethically.

——————-

Tweets pro-porn activist, and former porn site owner, Jerry Barnett’s (“@PornPanic”), propaganda:

———————-

More pro-porn propaganda, from 1988!

——————-

About the 500th time Prause/RealYBOP has tweeted about Mormons and attacked porn as a public health issue. This incredibly biased video by “slutever” contains Mormon porn (not kidding):

——————-

Tweet about Grubbs CPUI-9 studies:

In reality level of porn use was strongest predictor of porn addiction, not moral anything. See:

——————–

RealYBOP says treaments for porn related problems should NOT involve reduction of use. Porn industry loves that.

——————-

Once again, RealYBOP misrepresents the ICD-11 diagnosis:

—————-

Is RealYBOP supporting sex trafficking (via their support for BackPage)? What does BackPage have to do with the effects of porn on the user?

1) More about BackPage.

2) The lawyer for Nicole R Prause in her attempt to steal the YBOP trademark and URL was the lawyer for BackPage!

——————-

Never asks about negatives, never tweets a study reporting negatives.

——————-

Disparaging an article about the negative effects of porn:

—————–

Tweets article by biased researchers:

Reading their paper exposes them as biased. More importantly, the author tags RealYBOP, Prause, Ley, Josh Grubbs, Sam Perry (all involved in illegal trademark infringement of YBOP) in this tweet, while hashtag’s pathologizing-porn.

—————–

ReaYBOP tweets the 3rd junk paper by NZ grad student Kris Taylor. Taylor is beyond biased – and knows nothing about neuroscience. He’s a sociologist. YBOP critiqued a 2017 article by him where he disparaged Gary Wilson and the review with US navy doctors (Taylor often resorts to simply lying in his article): Debunking Kris Taylor’s “A Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunction” (2017)
Taylor’s 2 earlier papers are favs of Prause and Ley (especially the one about r/nofap), with Prause’s Wikipedia aliases inserting both into Wikipedia pages. Prause obsessively cites (and misrepresents) Taylor’s paper about Nofap.

—————–

Retweets RealYBOP “expert”, grad student Madita Oeming’s tweet about her biased article trying to blame religion and the media for porn addiction:

In her article Madita Oeming admits she knows nothing about addiction, or neuroscience, or the neurological studies on porn users, but she is miraculously confident that porn addiction doesn’t exist. Her qualifying statement:

I am neither a neurobiologist nor a behavioral psychologist, so I have no expertise in judging whether pornography is actually physically addictive. But first, it will be discussed among those who have this expertise. Although the WHO has now decided to “obsessive-compulsive sexual behavior”, including apparently also “excessive consumption of porn” , from 2022 to include in their diagnostic catalog. And secondly, I’m dealing with something completely different. As a cultural scientist, er, poetry interpreter, I understand pornography primarily as a narrative.

A poetry student?

——————-

RealYBOP trolling the New York Times OBGYN Jen Gunter because she’s not a fan of porn. RealYBOP links to an article by Free Speech Coalition employee Lotus Lain. Helping out the porn industry whenever she can:

RealYBOP claims that “Many viewers also experience improved body image” are debunked here: Body Image Section.

—————–

Why does RealYBOP chronically posts tweets in support of the porn industry, when RealYBOP claims to be concerned about porn’s effects on the users?

The answer is obvious.

——————-

Another fine example of RealYBOP omitting the primary findings while highlighting irrelevant findings (a form of propaganda):

The important findings:

Controlling for pornography viewing frequency, religious identity, and sexual orientation, structural equation modeling revealed power over women and playboy norms as associated with increased problematic pornography viewing, while emotional control and winning norms were negatively related to problematic pornography viewing. Of these associations, power over women norms produced consistent positive direct effects across all dimensions, whereas emotional control norms produced consistent negative direct effects

Put simply – power over women is associted with probelmatic porn use (porn addiction).

—————–

RealYBOP (Prause) retweets David Ley propaganda piece, where he asserts that he and others are victims of “ant-porn activists (Prause being reported to California Board is recounted, but she is not named). In fact, the opposite is true as Prause and Ley are the perpetrators, with Prause reporting over 20 individuals and organizations to governing bodies (Prause’s comaplinst were all dismissed as being without merits. These pages contains hundreds of instances of Prause and Ley defaming, stalking and harassing those they disagree with about porn’s effects:

——————

A joke tweet?

Never blame the porn industry, just those who suggest porn may cause problems. The article.

—————–

As for the findings, this to be expected as the study used the porn use questionnaire known as the Pornography Consumption Effect Scale (PCES). As explained in this critique by YBOP and a psychology professor the study creating the PCES may be the most egregious porn study ever published (Hald & Malamuth, 2008).

The PCES questions are designed and scored so that the more porn one uses the greater the benefits. In fact, if you don’t use porn, the lack of porn use is having a negative effect on your life according to this instrument. This is no exaggeration as many PCES-based studies conclude just that! This 7-minute video critique of the PCES reveals Hald & Malamuth’s primary results from what a dismayed psychology professor called a “psychometric nightmare”.

—————–

Tweeted a highly criticized paper:

Getting a lot of press, falsely claiming that men and women are no different in how they respond to porn. The headline doesn’t match the study or authors spin as they did assess MAGNITUDE of brain response:
But questions remain. The latest study was not able to look at whether the magnitude of the changes of brain activity were the same for both biological sexes.

So it doesn’t assess if men are more turned than women by the same images – so the headlines are BS. As I pointed out in my critique of Prause’s EEG studies (which mixed males, females, gay straight) – men and women have different brain responses to the same sexual images. That’s what these studies and reviews found:

Here are 3 comments by PhD’s from an academic sexology listserve. Two of the three have done reviews of the literature on this very subject. The 1st is Mike Bailey, who runs the listserve. I omitted the name of the 2nd name. The 3rd is Kim Wallen who runs a journal and did earlier stduies on Amygdala described in RealYBOP’s tweet.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, Mike Bailey wrote:

Um, no
> *Women as likely to be turned on by sexual images as men – study*

Subject: Re: Women as likely to be turned on by sexual images as men – study

I agree with Mike.

While I appreciate that they included a lot of our work, I have some concerns about this paper.

1. I could be mistaken, but it doesn’t seem like they’re taking into account effect sizes from the original studies. It’s one thing to say that areas are likely to “show up”, but this doesn’t address the question, “how much.” Without taking this information into account, these may not be sound statistical inferences.

2. Many of the individual studies show male>female responses (e.g. Karama et al., Sabatinelli et al., Hamann et al., Sylva et al., Safron et al. (in press)), and I don’t believe any show effects in the opposite direction. In case anyone wants more details on that, I’ve attached an unpublished
manuscript I wrote in 2015 where I reviewed much of this literature. I probably should have published it, but perfectionism got in the way, and then I got distracted. Reminder to self: Perfect is the enemy of the good.

3. They don’t really show any clearly reward-related activations. Only ventral striatum has been shown to be valence specific (and even then you can have mixed results). One could make a case for hypothalamus, but even then, I worry about the poor spatial resolution of non-invasive neuroimaging (although 7T scanning might be a game changer).

This study never would have been published if it didn’t further political agendas.

This study will be interpreted as pushing back against patriarchal assumptions that biased scientific practice and reporting. I imagine this was the case in the past, but I don’t think it’s been an accurate description for a long time, and now may frame the situation precisely backwards.

Politics is the minds killer.

—-B

Subject: Re: [External] Re: Women as likely to be turned on by sexual images as men – study

Thanks for your insightful comments. I would add a few additional concerns. I was particularly struck by the fact that the authors highlighted Stephan Hamann’s and my study in 2004 where we demonstrated a sex difference in amygdala activation. The authors went on to say that when they used the whole sample they didn’t find this sex difference. There are two aspects of this that I find curious. The first is that in 2014 Stephan and I replicated our 2004 finding in the control men and women in our CAIS study. Interestingly this study is not in the metaanalysis sample (I have asked logothetis why this was not included). It would seem that replication with comparable effect sizes in both samples would warrant some consideration.

A second issue is that from the sample size the authors claimed to have used to assess sex differences in amygdala activation, they clearly used all of the subjects including nonheterosexuals and trans people. This strikes me as inappropriate as our samples were limited to heterosexual men and women. Since that is the population from which the sex difference was identified it would seem that the heterosexual portion of the MA sample (about 90% of the sample) should have been the sample to compare to our samples.

I think there is also a concern about the earlier conclusion that there are not sex differences. This too is based on the whole sample. They found sex had <1% predictive value, whereas sexual orientation had 15% predictive value. Given that for 90% of the sample sex and sexual orientation are congruent it is surprising that sexual orientation shows an effect, but sex doesn’t. This leads me to think that SO interacts with sex in a manner that eliminates the sex effect. This most likely reflects that sex in this analysis is categorical, whereas SO is a more or less continuous variable. I would have liked to see a metaanalysis that used only the heterosexual sample to investigate the sex difference in response. I didn’t see such an analysis in the supplementary materials, maybe I missed it. Given the findings for SO I suspect that sex differences would be found in the heterosexual only sample.

I am not sure that I agree that this illustrates that a political agenda drives this paper, though it is in the current zeitgeist. Sadly I think it more reflects that age old circumstance where members of the NAS can publish whatever they damn well please. Those must have been some sweetheart reviews that this got

Kim Wallen, Ph.D.

——————–

RealYBOP saying addiction model causes harm (she cites nothing to support propaganda):

———————–

Propaganda: trying to blame masturbation, not porn, for the hundreds of studies that link porn use to myriad negative effects.

Ongoing tactic by Ley & Prause, as chronicled in this article – Sexologists deny porn-induced ED by claiming masturbation is the problem (2016)

———————-

Tweeting another junk-science paper by sociology grad student Kris Taylor:

YBOP exposed Taylor as making several false statements in this critique: Debunking Kris Taylor’s “A Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunction” (2017).

————————

RealYBOP tweeting unsupported claim by realYBOP “expert”, Joshua Grubbs (how scientific of Grubbs to make definitive pronouncements, backed by nothing)

Link to the YBOP analysis of the RealYBOP research section (which discredits Grubbs definitive pronouncement): Sex Offender Section.

Grubbs spouting more unsupported definitive statements in support of porn and gaming industry

————————

RealYBOP cites a 30-year old outlier study to convince us that employing misogynistic images of females to sell goods is OK:

Porn industry thanks you, RealYBOP.

—————————-

Two for one: 1) misrepresentation of the tweeted study, 2) ignoring every quantitative study on relationships

Misrepresentation – “subliminal but not supraliminal exposure”. In other words ,subliminal had a transient effect, but actual porn exposure did help out the situation.

As a pro-porn shill, RealYBOP never tells the truth about the preponderance of studies. Continued use is bad for relationships. Porn’s effects on relationships? Over 70 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. As far as we know all studies involving males have reported more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction.

——————–

RealYBOP directly promoting the porn industry:

——————–

RealYBOP once again pushing her lies about anti-porn activists

If you have any doubt about who ReaYBOP might be, see these pages:

 

———————————

If you still have doubt: July, 2019 – Prause supplies troll NerdyKinkyCommie with a YBOP trademark lawsuit document; NerdyKinkyCommie lies about a document; & RealYBOP experts spread his libelous tweets, adding their own lies

The venomous instigators: David Ley and Nicole Prause’s October, 2018 blog post (Why Fascists Hate Masturbation: The rise of nationalism coincides with anti-masturbation movements) and Twitter tirade attacking & libeling Alexander Rhodes/Nofap, is the culmination of a malicious 3-year campaign to associate YBOP, and men in recovery, with neo-Nazis. In Ley’s reprehensible October 27, 2018 tweet promoting his defamatory blog post, he asks “who knew that YBOP, Nofap, and fascism were really connected?”

Ley and Prause minions: NerdyKinkyCommie, whose Twitter handle is @SexualSocialist, appears to be a prolific troll. He freely admits to being obsessed with porn and sex and revels in harassing and defaming anyone who suggests that internet porn might cause problems. Among his favorite targets are Alexander Rhodes, NoFap, Fight The New Drug, Gary Wilson, and men in recovery from porn-related difficulties. Nerdy’s original Twitter account was permanently banned for relentless harassment of Fight The New Drug (Prause’s original account was also banned for harassment). In violation of Twitter rules, and just like Prause, Nerdy created a new Twitter account for trolling: https://twitter.com/SexualSocialist

NerdyKinkyCommie often re-tweets Ley, RealYBOP and Prause propaganda. Prause, Ley and Nerdy regularly engage in friendly banter, expressing their disdain for the aforementioned targets. In June and July, NerdyKinkyCommie trolled Gary Wilson threads posting material mirroring Prause & Ley’s disgusting tweets and screenshots struggling in vain to connect Gary Wilson, YBOP and Nofap with Nazis and white nationalists. One example of many such tweets:

Prause’s disgusting collaboration with NerdyKinkyCommie resulted in a 7-day Twitter-ban for Nerdy:

Wilson reported NerdyKinkyCommie, who was eventually banned for a week by Twitter.

After the ban, NerdyKinkyCommie continued where he left off, this time aided by Prause, the RealYBOP Twitter account, and RealYBOP “experts.”

On July 21 David Ley tweets in Nerdy’s thread that defamed Wilson:

The next day NerdyKinkyCommie produced a tweet that was most certainly constructed by Nicole Prause.

  1. It falsely accused Wilson of being funded by The Reward Foundation (Prause concocted this lie in 2016, repeating it on social media and on Wikipedia)
  2. The screenshot is of a the YourBrainOnPorn UK trademark provided to Prause’s lawyers, by Wilson, in trademark infringement case made necessary because Prause had filed an application for an infringing trademark.

What the above screenshot actually shows: Acting as Gary Wilson’s UK representative and using Wilson’s money, The Reward Foundation (a UK charity) paid the UK government to trademark YourBrainOnPorn in the UK. The UK trademark was a response to Prause trying to shut down YBOP by:

  1. filing a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM in January of 2019 (click for much more), and
  2. publicizing a new website with the trademark-infringing URL realyourbrainonporn.com in April of 2019.

As thoroughly explained elsewhere Wilson donates the proceeds of his book to The Reward Foundation. Wilson accepts no money, and has never received a dime for any of his efforts. YBOP accepts no ads and Wilson has accepted no fees for speaking. As documented in these sections, Prause has constructed a libelous fairy tale that Wilson is being paid by the same charity he donates his book proceeds to:

In fact, this is not true. The above two sections are addressed in Gary Wilson’s sworn affidavit, which is part of the Dr. Hilton’s defamation lawsuit filed against Dr. Prause. Here are the relevant sections of Wilson’s sworn affidavit filed in Federal Court: Gary Wilson of YBOP (affidavit #2 in Hilton defamation lawsuit):

Put simply, Nikky and Nerdy are collaborating in provable defamation (to repeat, Prause provided Nerdy with the “evidence” for his misleading tweet). Then RealYBOP, RealYBOP “experts” and good old PornHub jumped aboard. First we have RealYBOP (Prause) immediately retweeting Nerdy’s lies, and adding her own (RealYBOP “expert” Roger Libby also comments):

All lies. RealYBOP isn’t a registered non-profit. In fact, all the experts advertise their services on RealYBOP. Moreover, David Ley and two other RealYourBrainOnPorn.com “experts” (Justin Lehmiller and Chris Donaghue) are being paid to promote xHamster websites! If you believe that RealYBOP isn’s biased, check out their tweets, or their so-called “research page”. Other RealYBOP “experts” joined NerdyKinkCommie in defaming the legitimate YBOP, Wilson, and The Reward Foundation. First, “expert” Victoria Hartmann:

Then, of course, David Ley:

Taylor Kohut (as Smart Lab), who rarely tweets

Finally we have PornHub, a RealYBOP ally, “liking” the defamatory tweet (PornHub’s was the second Twitter account to tweet about RealYBOp’s new Twitter account and website when it appeared):

Hmmm… PornHub, Prause, Ley and Hartmann all “liking” the tweet of an obscure Twitter troll who had recently completed a 7-day ban for harassing Gary Wilson. Go figure.

The cherry on top of RealYBOP’s targeted defamatory cyberstalking: As described here, RealYBOP’s reddit account, sciencearousal trolled and spammed reddit porn recovery forums, usually posting wherever Gary Wilson’s name or “Your Brain On Porn” appeared. In her recent reddit posts, sciencearousal spammed a nofap subreddit with the same Rob Kuznia article frequently tweeted by RealYBOP and Nikky (Kuznia is pals with Nikky). Nofap deleted her post:

RealYBOP/sciencearousal comment where she links to her fav – David Duke’s article about porn, which conatins a link to Gary Wilson’s TEDx Talk (Sciencearousal comment was deleted):

Scouring the internet for anything Ley can use to smear Wilson, he pounced upon an obscure (and disgusting) David Duke blog post containing a link to Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk. Wilson’s TEDx talk has some 11 million views, so thousands of folks of all stripes have linked to (and recommended) Wilson’s talk, “The Great Porn Experiment.”

How does this implicate Gary Wilson as a “white supremacist?” It doesn’t, of course. This ridiculous assertion is like suggesting all dog lovers are Nazi’s because Hitler loved his dogs. It’s the equivalent of claiming that the producers of “The Matrix” are neo-Nazis because David Duke liked their movie. See: Ongoing – David Ley & Prause’s ongoing attempts to smear YBOP/Gary Wilson & Nofap/Alexander Rhodes by claiming links with neo-Nazi sympathizers.

—————

RealYBOP lying about the research on violence portrayed in porn (no one is buying it). RealYBOP debunked here: Attitudes Towards Women Section

The porn industry thanks you, RealYBOP.

@RealFeminist4 starts her own twitter thread about ReaYBOP’s propaganda, RealYBOP jumps in to support porn industry agenda (RealYBOP cites no research to support its claim).

More accounts pile on RealYBOP’s supprt of the porn industry agenda:

RealYBOP cites nothing.

———————–

RealYBOP promoting paid porn site, with claim that is countered by nearly every published study – Over 70 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction.

So testimonials are OK, as long as they support the porn industry. Just checking, RealYBOP.

————————

RealYBOP doesn’t limit herself to saying porn is great for most everyone, she also retweets propaganda making fun of sex trafficking

———————–

RealYBOP & RealYBOP expert Hartmann attempt to dismiss findings of new study strongly correlated violent porn viewing with dating violence.

The porn industry applaudes your efforts.

——————————

On same day as above, RealYBOP posts propaganda for the porn industry, as she assures us RealYBOP is not directly funded by the porn industry:

However, 3 of RealYBOP experts are now openly funded by the porn industry: David Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths!

————————-

RealYBOP and David Ley teaming up to make fun of porn “being bad” (Ley makes joke about sex trafficking):

————————-

Not only is this tweet defamatory, it reveals that RealYBOP claims to have inside information on what porn performer think or believe.

———————-

For the 100th time or more, RealYBOP (Prause) tweets misinformation about CSBD (covered above and here):

——————–

RealYBOP promoting a paid porn site, implying we should get our sex education from streaming tube sites

Continues, pimping a paid porn site as the cure for ED and other troubles:

——————————-

Fabrications in service to porn industry:

The above is pure BS:

  1. There are not “thousands of studies” assessing physiological responses to viewing porn. Not even 100. Only 2200 PubMed indexed studies mention pornography (dating back to 1951).
  2. Neurological responses cannot be classified as “positive or “negative” in relation to their effect. Eye blink response, galvanic responses, EEG readings, blood flow to sections of the brain are not “positive”. Exposes RealYBOP as knowing nothing about basic biology.
  3. For example, a neurological response isn’t “better” or “more pleasant” because it is of greater magnitude: Ingesting cocaine induces greater activation of the reward than ingesting blueberries. Should we consume cocaine because of this? Idiocy from RealYBOP.
  4. The OBVIOUS: greater or lesser physiological responses in a lab tells us absolutely nothing about the long-term effects of chronically using porn, any more than greater brain activation when snorting cocaine or eating Bic Macs informs us of long-term effects of either.

——————

Prause as RealYBOP contradicts Prause silly talking point that viewing puppies is neurologically identical to watching porn (one of many examples –Penthouse Magazine, featuring Prause). In the hit-piece we find Prause’s hilarious assertion that viewing images of puppies has exactly the same effect as watching hard core porn:

It’s true — pornography does that,” Dr. Prause said previously. “It’s also true with images of chocolate and images of puppies. You don’t see puppies being declared a public health hazard. These sex addiction studies are relying on ignorance, claiming that pornography is the same thing as cocaine and hoping you don’t know any different.

One of Prause’s core claims is that viewing puppies play, or eating cheese/chocolate are neurological & hormonally no different than masturbating internet porn. This talking point is meant to debunk any and all neurological studies on porn users. No actual neuroscientist agrees with Prause’s claim, including Prause tweeting as RealYBOP. Prause contradicts herself when she tweets as RealYBOP (August, 2018), stating that pornography is uniquely pleasurable:

Propagandist speaking out of both sides of her mouth.

——————–

Making ridicuoulsy false statemenst about “porn activists”, while promoting a paid porn site:

———————–

RealYBOP disparaging NoFap, mischaracterizing what Paula Hall said:

RealYBOP is obsessed with debunking PIED having waged a 4-year war against this academic paper, while simultaneously harassing and libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions, including Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes. 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.

—————————–

RealYBOP trolls an account it long ago blocked, with more of its usual pro-porn propaganda:

———————————

Pro-porn propaganda.

————————

RealYBOP disparaging fMRI study by top neuroscentists: Can Pornography be Addictive? An fMRI Study of Men Seeking Treatment for Problematic Pornography Use (Gola et al., 2017)

Study by RealYBOP member Samuel Perry. After sophisticated statistical “modeling” Perry proposed that masturbation, not porn use, is the real culprit in relationship happiness. The gaping hole in Perry’s new analysis is the absence of specific, reliable data on masturbation frequency, as he only asked “When did you last masturbate?” Without solid data on frequency, his claim is little more than a hypothetical. From Perry’s study:

Masturbation Practice. Both the NFSS and the RIA ask the same two questions about masturbation that the author combined into a single masturbation measure for both surveys. Participants were first asked if they have ever masturbated (Yes or No). Those who answered that they had ever masturbated were then asked, “When did you last masturbate?” Responses ranged from 1 = today to 9 = over a year ago.

Perry continues:

“While this question technically does not inquire about frequency…..”

No kidding. And yet Perry, Prause, Ley, Grubbs and others are now making extraordinary claims based on this solitary study, relying on these highly dubious data. The Alliance propaganda machine is in full view with respect to Perry’s re-analysis. Perry’s assertions are countered by over 70 studies linking porn use to lower sexual and relationship satisfaction – and Perry’s current study which correlated more porn use with less relationship happiness. That’s right, greater porn use was associated with less relationship happiness in both Perry samples (A & B):

———

Perry’s claims that he could magically tease apart porn use from masturbation cannot be taken seriously – especially since he lacked accurate data for masturbation frequency.

———————–

Promoting pro-porn course by ReaYBOP member who claims that porn use is only beneficial

More about it – https://twitter.com/LailaMickelwait/status/1164558559897505792

———————-

WOW!

RYBOP saying that kids who don’t know that porn isn’t reality is the only problem with kids watching porn? Instead of using “teens” they used “kids” Kids.

And only kids who don’t know that porn isn’t reality. Otherwise, kids watching porn = ok for them?

Meaning like ages 3-12?

———————————-

Promoting a silly study on horny guys attending a porn convention (AVN)

Seriously? Interviewing “Porn superfans” attending the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo passed peer-review? What’s next, interviewing bar patrons to see if they like beer? Even if taken seriously, the study tells us nothing about the effects of viewing porn as it didn’t correlate porn use with the four criteria. Contrary to the Alliance’s summary, the narrow criteria employed assessed “gender roles,” not sexist or misogynistic attitudes. For example, Harvey Weinstein would score exceptionally high on their gender-role assessment. In more extreme example, any pimp who wants his “hoes” working for his benefit would agree, but that doesn’t rule out extreme misogyny on his part.

As with the Taylor Kohut studies cited here, it’s easy to see that religious/conservative populations would score lower than secular/liberal populations (AVN attendees) on a these carefully chosen criteria. Here’s the key: secular populations, which tend to be more liberal, have far higher rates of porn use than religious populations. (clearly, all the AVN attendees in this study used porn). By choosing certain criteria and ignoring endless other variables, Jackson et al. knew porn fans would score higher on their highly selective version of “egalitarianism.”

Reality:Check out individual studies – over 35 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views – or the summary from this 2016 meta-analysis: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015. Excerpt:

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

RealYBOP decided to comment under the article, saying porn is only bad if the guy doesn’t know how to lube an anus:

The above cherry-picked papers are discussed here: Attitudes Towards Women Section. We also expose what studies RealYBOP omitted.

————————

Logical fallacies abound. RealYBOP paints “anti-porn” as a single entity, then tells twitter whatt “ant-porn’ believes about performers:

Again, why is a site supposedly about porn’s effects on the users, tweeting pro-porn industry propaganda?

——————–

Anecdotes in silly articles are ok, as long as they potray porn as beneficial:

RealYBOP trolling, tweeting under a tweet Gary Wilson retweeted, (with a comment)

There’s no falsification of anything: Debunking RealYBOP’s reasearch page section covering porn and relationships – Love and Intimacy Section.

—————————-

Posts a a 2003 study that revaels nothing about porn use. Then makes false staement:

Falsehood: “There is no evidence that people who view more porn have decreased neural responses to it.

Realityty – Prause et al., 2015 reported that more frequent porn users had less brain activation to vanilla porn than did controls? Given the high percentage of porn users who report escalation to more extreme material, sluggish response to laboratory porn would hardly be surprising. In fact, the findings of Prause et al. 2015 align with Kühn & Gallinat (2014), which found that more porn use correlated with less brain activation in response to pictures of vanilla porn, and with Banca et al. 2015, which found faster habituation to sexual images in porn addicts.

RealYBOP caught lying.

—————————-

Tweets a Joe Kort interview of Prause (Both are RealYBOP “experts”):

The interview seems focused on a solitary irrelevant EEG finding showing that watching porn is not neurologically identical to having sex (of course having sex produces different EEG readings than watching porn). Plus an addedl straw men no one ever said (“triggers dangerous neurochemical changes in the brain”). Podcast description:

There’s been a lot of noise in the media about porn use, with many doomsayers claiming that it triggers dangerous neurochemical changes in the brain. However, newer research says that just isn’t so. This week Joe talks with American neuroscientist, Nikki Prause, who thinks that porn and sex are totally different in the brain. Hear Nikki explain how her brain research debunks the myth that you can have an addiction to sex or porn. Brain science is hot these days, so listen to Nikki and Joe talk about how rigorous studies have not found sex addiction to be a real dependency, or reflective of any brain-related compulsion issues at all …

Brushing my teeth is neurologically different than watching cat videos. So what? Anyone who has taken a neuroscience course knows that non-identical activities involve different brain regions activated in a unique sequence or pattern. I hear the sound of real neuroscientists laughing at thsi monumental discovery.
Omission: It’s what porn and sex have in common that matters – same reward system regions activated, same high levels of reward-related neurotransmitter, same brain and hormonal changes induced at orgasm, same powerful learning.


Special Section – Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess) defamation/harassment of Gary Wilson: Fake porn URLs “found” in the Internet Wayback Archive (August, 21-27, 2019)

Context: realyourbrainonporn.com, Daniel Burgess and Nicole Prause

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

During his February/March, 2018 social media campaign, Daniel Burgess defamed and harassed me – regurgitating Nicole Prause’s usual set of lies and fabrications of victimhood, which she has spewed for several years. Burgess’s comments and tweets were nearly identical to Prause’s litany of invented misdeeds, leaving no doubt that Burgess and Prause collaborate and are in close communication. (There are rumors of a private Facebook group.) As an example of his malice, I’ll provide Burgess’s initial comment on YBOP’s Facebook page. It includes Nicole Prause’s baseless 2015 cease and desist letter to me (how did Burgess obtain this letter?):

We long ago addressed Prause’s trumped up cease and desist letter. Nothing in it was true. Prause regularly sends spurious C&D letters (obviously written by her, not her lawyer) as a tactic of intimidation: 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.). Since the C&Ds are fiction, with never an iota of supporting evidence, Prause’s victims pay them no mind.

Soon after Burgess defamed me on the YBOP Facebook page and Twitter, he set his sights on “Marriage and Family Therapists.” The eighteen replies to Burgess by therapists Staci Sprout and Forest Benedict are all that remains of Burgess’s defamatory tirade. Because Burgess displayed his defamation before 6,000 licensed therapists and the YBOP Facebook audience, I felt it necessary to debunk his malicious comments (and his unsupported claims about the preponderance of porn research): Addressing Unsupported Claims and Personal Attacks by Daniel Burgess (March, 2018).

Daniel Burgess’s choice to become Nicole Prause’s errand boy is a key element of this story, as a year later they collaborate once again: (1) engaging in unlawful trademark infringement of YourBrainOnPorn.com by creating realyourbrainonporn.com, and, (2) operating the social media accounts for realyourbrainonporn.com (specifically the trademark-infringing Twitter account – @BrainOnPorn). In fact, in late July, 2019 Daniel Burgess was exposed as the person controlling the trademark-infringing URL www.realyourbrainonporn.com.

Before we return to the failed “Fake URLs” smear campaign of August, 2019, a brief history of Dr. Prause is in order.

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

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

Years of harassment and defamation finally caught up with Burgess’s partner Prause. 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 add (1) a malicious Texas Board of Medical Examiners complaint, (2) false accusations that Dr. Hilton had falsified his credentials, and (3) sworn affidavits from 9 other Prause victims of similar harassment (John Adler, MD, Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes, Staci Sprout, LICSW, Linda Hatch, PhD, Bradley Green, PhD, Stefanie Carnes, PhD, Geoff Goodman, PhD, Laila Haddad.)

You would think that a $10,000,000 defamation suit against his chum might have tempered Burgess’s defamatory impulsiveness. Apparently not. In addition to the character-impugning porn-smear campaign (below) conducted by the “Real Brain On Porn” Twitter account (which mirrors Nicole Prause’s litany of falsehoods), the Twitter account also explicitly accused me of at least 3 felonies:

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

As explained in more detail below, concurrent with @BrainOnPorn’s 4-day, 100+ tweet rampage, the“RealYourBrainOnPorn” website admin (under Burgess’s control) emailed friends of mine with similar astounding lies.

Publicly accusing people of sexual misconduct and felonies is actionable. In fact, the above libelous statements are deemed “defamation per se” – which means that I need not show any commercial damages in order to recover (the proceeds from my book go to charity and I make no money from YBOP).

August 21, 2019: @RonSwansonTime (likely Burgess alias), Nicole Prause, NerdyKinkyCommie, and David Ley magically “discover” fraudulent porn URLs on the Internet WayBack Machine

On August 21, 2019, a likely Burgess alias (@RonSwansonTime – more on “RonSwanson” below) tweeted a screenshot of fraudulent porn URLs (of pages that never existed). It appeared under a NerdyKinkyCommie tweet ranting about me. (Nerdy is a professional troll and Prause-collaborator who received a 7-day Twitter suspension for harassing me.):

After being outed as a likely Burgess alias, @RonSwansonTime apparently thought better of his participation and set his Twitter account to “protected” (just more evidence that Ron Swanson is really Burgess). The initial Twitter thread “discovering” Mormon porn URLs on the Wayback Machine (8/21/19):

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

Initial sequence of events on August 21st:

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

Aug 22, 2019: realyourbrainonporn.com admin sends emails containing libelous claims to Gary Wilson’s friends and associates (on the same day @BrainOnPorn posts 14 tweets targeting Wilson)

As expected the trolls and stalkers upped their harassment and defamation. On August 22 this email by the realyourbrainonporn website admin was forwarded to Gary Wilson. (As Burgess owns the URL, we must assume the following was sent by him.)

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 skeptics movement, they knew it was all lies.

At the same time RealYBOP sent out libelous emails, its Twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) began furiously pumping out libelous tweets insisting that I had placed 300 “Mormon porn” URLs on my website over a 3-year period starting in 2016 (without anyone ever noticing). One of the fourteen @BrainOnPorn tweets targeting me on August 22nd:

Although @BrainOnPorn began its obsessive Twitter rampage with the Mormon-porn fabrication, it quickly descended into numerous incidents of unrelated defamation. By the end of the weekend @BrainOnPorn had posted over 100 tweets targeting me. @BrainOnPorn often tweeted in my existing threads, or under anyone who had tagged me, or harassed those who retweeted one of my tweets.

Aug 22, 2019: Concurrently, a fake Twitter account is created to post content duplicating RealYBOP’s emails and tweets: https://twitter.com/CorrectingWils1

At the same time that RealYBOP was sending libelous emails and obsessively tweeting fake porn URLs, a fake Twitter account appeared posting the same drivel: https://twitter.com/CorrectingWils1. The CorrectingWilson account tagged the exact same Twitter accounts as RealYBOP was tagging in dozens of similar tweets (Gail Dines, Fight The New Drug, John Foubert, SASH123, and YourBrainOnPorn):

It’s no secret who created https://twitter.com/CorrectingWils1. The troll account was reported and Twitter promptly banned it:

How mentally unhinged is RealYBOP? Or is RealYBOP serving another master?

August 22-24, 2019: Gary Wilson responds, debunking lies that YBOP ever contained Mormon porn URLs or content

In this August 24, 2019 Twitter thread I expose RealYBOP’s targeted harassment/defamation and explain how anyone can insert fake URLs into the Internet Wayback Machine.

This juvenile attack was apparently orchestrated over 2 years and came to light on on August 21, 2019, as explained above. It involved fraudulent URLs (of nonexistent pages) placed on the Internet Wayback Machine, an archive of snapshots of websites across time (operated by a non-profit).

In addition to grabbing screenshots of webpages, the Wayback Machine lists URLs it has archived – or been requested to archive – on its site. The following link goes to all 100,000 YBOP URLs archived since YBOP was created in 2010 (it takes a while to load): https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.yourbrainonporn.com/* As of this writing, the first 3 pages (out of 2,000) contain URLs for what would appear to be “Mormon porn. A few examples from the first 3 pages:

The “Mormon porn” URLs only ever existed in the Wayback Machine Archive. They were requested to be archived there simply to defame. They never existed on my site (and consequently they never had any content…sorry, porn fans).

The bogus Wayback archive “porn” links go nowhere except to “Page not found” pages on the Wayback Machine (404 pages). This establishes that they never existed because legitimate Wayback archive links go to screenshots of webpage content instead. Try it for yourself. Click on any of the Mormon porn URLs and all you will get is a “Page not found” screenshot. Never existed.

An example of a random Mormon Porn URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20170212162002/http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/hot-blonde-mormon-feet – A “record” of the fake URL in the archives:

The Wayback screenshot of the above URL from 2017 (notice how its the old version of YBOP):

Another example says the page was never archived: https://web.archive.org/web/2017*/http://www.yourbrainonporn.com//milf-by-a-cottonwood-tree-at-age-43/

All the Mormon porn URLs are fake, manually inserted by a trickster.

Here’s what a legitimate archived YBOP page from the past looks like: https://web.archive.org/web/20150412200603/http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/age-40s-brain-fog-cured-forever-no-more-pixel-paradise

Simplified: The Wayback Machine URL is only real if it grabbed a screenshot of an actual page with content, not if it grabbed a screenshot of a “page not found” (a 404) error.

August 22-24, 2019: To prove anyone can insert fake URLs into the Wayback machine, I did it for YBOP

RealYBOP falsely asserted in multiple tweets that fake URLs could not be inserted into the Wayback Machine. So I did it (as did a few of my techie friends). The “Using the Wayback Machine” page located here provides instructions. An excerpt:

Can I add pages to the Wayback Machine?

On https://archive.org/web you can use the “Save Page Now” feature to save a specific page one time. This does not currently add the URL to any future crawls nor does it save more than that one page. It does not save multiple pages, directories or entire sites.

So I went to archive.org/web and requested that it archive a page on my site at “yourbrainonporn.com/testing-can-random-people-insert-links“, the Wayback Machine created this: https://web.archive.org/web/20190515000000*/http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/testing-can-random-people-insert-links. A screenshot of the fake YBOP URL archived in the Wayback Machine:


As with all the “YBOP” Mormon porn URLs, a screenshot of a “page not found (404)” error is archived into the Wayback Machine :

I also inserted another very relevant fake URL into the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20190801000000*/http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cyberstalkers-on-twitter/

Ignoring my evidence that fake URLs had just been inserted into the Wayback Machine, RealYBOP continued shrieking that it could not be done – “a computer engineer already documented it is not possible“:

RealYBOP repeated this disproved mantra in dozens tweets over the weekend, even claiming to have “talked to the director of Google about it”. Oh please.

August 23-24, 2019: An anonymous ally inserted fake URLs into Wayback Machine archive of RealYourBrainOnPorn.com

In a failed attempt to “prove” that fake URLs cannot be inserted into the Wayback Machine, RealYBOP tweeted a screenshot RealYBOP’s 11 archived URLs: https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.realyourbrainonporn.com/*

Big mistake. An ally let me know that an anonymous person inserted two fake URLs into realyourbrainonporn’s own Wayback Archive:

  • https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/we-are-terrible-people
  • https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/we-stole-the-name-from-yourbrainonporn.com

Screenshot of the “impossible” below. (Again, who was the ‘computer engineer” that said this couldn’t be done?)

Screenshot of the archived fake realyourbrainonporn page: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/we-are-terrible-people

Applying the false logic of RealYourBrainOnPorn, if the Wayback Machine archived it, the URL “RealYourBrainOnPorn are terrible people” must be on their website, and true.

Again, I had nothing to with the above demonstration (but it is hilarious).

In response to the above evidence, a normal defamer would have put down the smartphone, and stopped tweeting the same disproven lie that URLs cannot be inserted into the WayBack archive. But @BrainOnPorn is far from normal. After I tweeted the above, @BrainOnPorn added 60 or more tweets to his unhinged and defamatory attack on me.

August 22-25, 2019: How did the trickster get the “Mormon porn URLs” to group together on only the first 3 pages (out of the 2,000 pages of YBOP archived URLs)?

How did the cyber-trickster cause the “Mormon porn URLs” to group together on the first 3 pages (out of 2000 pages of YBOP URLs)? S/he put double backslashes (//) into the fake porn URLs. Because the WayBack Machine archive organizes URLs alphabetically, the porn URLs with the extra symbol appeared (alphabetically) above normal URLs (a symbol is before a letter or number). Here’s how to compare a real YBOP archived URL vs a fake archived URL:

  • Legitimate YBOP URL on the Wayback Machine – http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/big-list-tips-tricks
  • Fake YBOP URL on the Wayback Machine – http://www.yourbrainonporn.com//mormon-woman-bare/

A screenshot of a few of the trickster URLs that were inserted into the Wayback Machine:

As legitimate URLs only contain a single backslash, this screenshot confirms that the Wayback “porn URLs” were fraudulent.

Hey @BrainOnPorn what was the name of that computer expert you claimed said the porn URLs were real? Oh yeah, you never provided a name.

August 26, 2019: In a 4-day rampage @BrainOnPorn posts over 100 tweets targeting Gary Wilson (many containing defamation per se).

As mentioned in the intro, @BrainOnPorn posted over 100 tweets targeting Gary Wilson during a 4-day Twitter rampage. 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 to see all the @BrainOnPorn tweets targeting me between August 22-26: Over 100 RealYBOP tweets targeting Gary Wilson from August 22-26. Most contain defamation by RealYBOP.

In addition to the 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.

A few disgusting examples taken from the many RealYBOP tweets engaging in defamation:

All the above mirror the lies Nicole Prause has posted countless times. (These 2 pages provide extensive documentation of Prause’s lies and harassment and my responses: page 1, page 2.) Since all are addressed on the Prause pages I’ll provide short responses with links for each incident of defamation.

1) lied he’s a professor

Prause has been spreading this lie for years, yet she has never provided an iota of documentation (never does). A few articles by journalists who never contacted me referred to me incorrectly by various titles, including “professor.” This was their error, not mine. This section of the page documenting Prause’s harassment exposes this tired falsehood: Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Gary Wilson has misrepresented his credentials.

2) lied his account was hacked with porn

Addressed on the current page.

3) lied he taught a college class

Not only has Prause falsely claimed that I never taught at Southern Oregon University, she and David Ley falsely claimed I was fired from SOU. Prause even wrote an article about about my supposed firing, which she placed on a porn industry website. SOU lawyers had to get involved! See – Nicole Prause & David Ley libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University.

In her pornography website article and on Quora, Prause posted redacted copies of my employment records (see above link) and knowingly, falsely stated that Southern Oregon University had fired me. On the same day she published her Quora article, Prause posted ten more demeaning and untruthful comments about me all containing a link to her defamatory piece. She tweeted her articles and Quora comments. This resulted in Prause being permanently banned from Quora for harassing and defaming me, and Prause’s Liberos Twitter account being suspended for violation of Twitter Rules.

I taught at Southern Oregon University on two occasions. I also taught anatomy, physiology and pathology at a number of other schools over a period of two decades, and was certified to teach these subjects by the state education departments of both Oregon and California.

4) was told by ACLU to stop harassing us

Not so. As explained in the “Ron Swanson” section below, on June 21, 2019 RealYBOP involved the Southern California ACLU in my trademark infringement dispute with Prause (Nicole Prause resides in LA). A SoCal ACLU lawyer sent a bizarre letter to my trademark lawyers, asserting that RealYBOP experts had a right to disparage me and YBOP. The SoCal ACLU lawyer was only responding to a section of a single sentence from my 8-page cease and desist letter to RealYBOP and Nicole Prause (the sentence in question was taken out of context and misrepresented by SoCal ACLU). The ACLU letter has nothing to with the trademark dispute. How RealYBOP persuaded SoCal ACLU to produce an irrelevant, inappropriate letter for RealYBOP to misrepresent in tweets is beyond comprehension. (Note – we have contacted the national ACLU asking for a formal investigation.) Bottom line: Our legal actions against Daniel Burgess and Nicole Prause proceed, unaffected by the irrelevant ACLU letter.

5) has many FBI and police reports for stalking

I have never stalked anyone. In another tweet, RealYBOP claimed I physically stalked women. This lie constitutes defamation per se.

Prause has been lying about reporting me to the FBI and other police authorities for 6 years running. Prause has also repeatedly lied about reporting NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes to the FBI. Both Rhodes and I filed filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming us. As expected the FOIA revealed that Prause has never filed a FBI report, even though she has tweeted this multiple times and posted this same claim on the FTND Facebook page (see this section May 30, 2018: Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice). See these pages for documentation:

We do know that Prause has an FBI report filed on her (for lying about filing FBI reports): December, 2018: Gary Wilson files an FBI report on Nicole Prause.

6) promotes antisemitism that sends death threats to us

Both are lies. Once again, RealYBOP provides no documentation of either assertion. Falsely stating that I sent death threats constitutes defamation per se.

As for antisemitism or white supremacy, I am, in fact, a far left liberal and the very antithesis of a “white supremacist.” For the truth, listen to this interview: Porn Science and Science Deniers (Interview with Wilson). Please note that calling people names (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 attacks I and others have been subjected to:

August 26, 2019: @BrainOnPorn justifies his 100+ defamatory twitter rampage by falsely claiming RealYBOP experts are mentioned 100’s-1000’s of times on YBOP

@BrainOnPorn justified his 100+ defamatory Twitter rampage by claiming YBOP has mentioned RealYBOP experts hundreds to thousands times. Since YBOP contains 12,000 pages and is a clearinghouse for everything porn related (studies, articles, videos, lay articles, critiques, analyses, etc.) it does contain multiple mentions of some of the “experts’. However, RealYBOP’s numbers are wildly exaggerated in order to construct a distorted narrative.

 

The “case” is far from closed.

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 RealYBOP’s number by 100. I’ll provide an example using “Michael Seto,” which is falsely claimed to appear on YBOP 392 times.

A proper Google search (michael seto site:yourbrainonporn.com) returns 103 “Seto” pages, but almost all are duplicate YBOP pages, in other languages. The accurate way to search is use YBOP search engine, which returns only 7 instances. All 7 returns are pages related to our trademark dispute with RealYBOP and Nicole Prause.

Michael Seto is mentioned on YBOP because he is a proud member of RealYBOP “expert’s” page, and YBOP has several pages devoted to ongoing litigation with RealYBOP, RealYBOP’s misrepresentation of the research, RealYBOP’s defamatory social media campaigns, and dirty tricks.

What about RealYBOP’s claim that “Prause” is found 9,710 times on YBOP? Nope. Although 10,000 instances would seem about right considering YBOP contains 6 extensive pages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) documenting 7 years of Prause defaming & harassing me and many others.

In reality, a valid Google search for “Prause” (prause site:yourbrainonporn.com) on September 2nd, returns only 5,500 results (not 9,710). And like the Google search for “Seto,” the majority of the returns are duplicated YBOP pages, in other languages. For example, one of the Google search pages (8 out of 10 are duplicates):

In October, 2018, before YBOP was redesigned to employ “Google Translate” the true result for “Prause” on yourbrainonporn.com is 565 mentions (I say “true” because Prause has employed a clever trick to produce fraudulent Google search numbers, as explained in this section: Prause falsely claims in a tweet that her name appears over 35,000 (or 82,000) times on YBOP):

Why does YourBrainOnPorn.com contain more than 500 instances of “Prause?” First, the pages chronicling Prause’s behaviors alone contain hundreds of instances of “Prause.” Second, YBOP contains about 12,000 pages (and growing). It’s a clearinghouse for nearly everything associated with Internet porn use and its effects on users. Prause has published multiple studies about porn use and hypersexuality, and describes herself as a professional debunker of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems.

A Google search for “Nicole Prause” + pornography returns about 37,000 pages. Perhaps thanks to her pricey 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 regularly featured in the media, claiming to have debunked porn addiction with a single (heavily criticized) study. So Prause’s name inevitably shows up a lot on a site that functions as a clearinghouse for research and news associated with Internet porn’s effects.

Not only do Prause’s studies appear on YBOP, so do thousands of other studies, many of which cite “Prause” in their reference sections. Also, YBOP has published very long critiques of seven Prause papers, and hosts at least 18 peer-reviewed critiques of her 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 (and now, RealYBOP).

Of course, this isn’t about Prause; YBOP also critiques other questionable research on porn and related subjects. All critiques are not personal, but rather evidence-based.

Addendum – Evidence that @RonSwansonTime is really Daniel Burgess, owner of realyourbrainonporn

The “Ron Swanson” Twitter account is fake. It’s over 3 years old, has only tweeted maybe 20 times, and Mr. Swanson doesn’t exist (a dead give-away).

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

A quick examination of “Ron Swanson’s” Twitter revealed it was fake and probably conducting a fishing expedition. I suspected “Swanson” was Burgess because out of its 20 tweets in 3 years one linked to pictures of Burgess and his wife engaging in a CrossFit competition (prior to deletion, Burgess’s primary Facebook page was CrossFit Dan). The “Ron Swanson” tweet with a link:

The link goes to this NugentTherapy Instagram post (oops, it’s suddenly deleted):

It’s no secret that Burgess and his wife met at CrossFit. He’s even created a Facebook page chronicling all this. (Note: because Burgess is not only defaming me, trolling me, sending me threatening letters, engaging in blatant trademark infringement, and now litigation, we have been forced to document his and his aliases online behaviors.)

Mystery of “Ron Swanson” solved.

The minute RealYBOP tweeted the SoCal ACLU letter (described earlier on this page) “Ron Swanson” tweeted it four times, all at @YourBrainOnPorn. The “Ron Swanson” account hadn’t tweeted anything since his two June 15 tweets offering sage legal advice. The four tweets:

Suspicions confirmed.

The “Ron Swanson” account went silent until August 21, 2019, when “Ron” was the first account to tweet about the fake “Mormon porn” URLs on the Wayback Machine archive:

After Ron Swanson was formally outed as a likely Burgess alias, “Ron” made his Twitter account (with 9 followers) private:

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

END OF SPECIAL SECTION


RealYBOP promotes Ley PT article which is pure spin and a few lies.

Ley article flouts on a new study interviewing “Porn superfans” attending the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo. The narrow criteria employed assessed “gender roles,” not sexist or misogynistic attitudes. For example, Harvey Weinstein would score exceptionally high on their gender-role assessment. In more extreme example, any pimp who wants his “hoes” working for his benefit would agree, but that doesn’t rule out extreme misogyny on his part.

Reality:Check out individual studies – over 35 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views – or the summary from this 2016 meta-analysis: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015. Excerpt:

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

————————–

Retweeting RealYBOP “expert” Emily Rothman’s propaganda:

————————

Ley, Prause and RealYBOP are obessesed with opinion papers by NZ grad student Kris Taylor. Taylor, who is beyond biased – and knows nothing about neuroscience. He’s a sociologist. YBOP critiqued a 2017 article by him where he disparaged Gary Wilson and the review with US navy doctors (Taylor often resorts to simply lying in his article): Debunking Kris Taylor’s “A Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunction” (2017)

Taylor’s 2 earlier papers are favs of Prause and Ley (especially the one about r/nofap), with Prause’s Wikipedia aliases inserting both into Wikipedia pages. Prause obsessively cites (and misrepresents) Taylor’s paper about Nofap.

Taylor’s paper on poirn addiction somehow forgets to cite any of these:

 

———————-

Trolls a thread with the usual “masturbation is the problem, never porn” propaganda.

Another tweet:

After sophisticated statistical “modeling” the above Samuel Perry (who is a RealYBOP expert) study proposed that masturbation, not porn use, is the real culprit in relationship problems. The gaping hole in Perry’s claim:

  1. Perry’s new analysis of his old data contains no specific, reliable data on masturbation frequency. Without that, his claim is little more than a hypothetical.
  2. Perry’s assertions are countered by over 70 studies linking porn use to lower sexual and relationship satisfaction (including 7 longitudinal studies). As far as we know all studies involving males have reported more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction.

The porn industry applauds RealYBOP and its “experts”.

———————————————————–

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply